With the kickoff of the pro football regular season approaching, fans will soon be watching low-lights of players and coaches fumbling and bumbling their way to football notoriety. Surely commentators Mike Ditka, Chris Carter, and others will be watching too and shouting “C’mon, man!” when the players mess up.   

I’m referring to the ESPN segment where analysts bellow “C’mon, man!” after showing clips of players making particularly boneheaded plays. Unfortunately there is no shortage of such graceless stumbles in the business world, too, that leave onlookers scratching their heads. So, here’s another installment of “C’mon, man!” the business world version.  

Health Management Associates

This Naples, Fla.-based hospital chain, seeking to increase revenue, allegedly embarked on a novel scheme: Emergency room doctors were pressured to admit more patients, regardless whether the patients actually needed hospital care! This came to light from whistleblowers, with the Justice Department joining in the litigation, saying the company used software, financial incentives, and threats to put people into hospital beds in order to inflate Medicare and Medicaid payments. One case seems to say it all—a baby with a temperature of 98.7 degrees was admitted for having a fever.

Was this the workings of some low-level administrator? Not according to the whistleblowers and their lawsuits; they blame then chief executive officer, Gary Newsome, for the hatching the plan. One of the litigants, a former division vice president and CEO of one of the chain’s hospitals, said he told Newsome that the protocols were clinically inappropriate and would result in unnecessary tests and admissions, but was told, “Do it anyway.” According to some reports, when executives questioned the policy, they were simply fired.

Yes, we know healthcare providers are under stress from Obamacare and other healthcare laws and regulations, as well as insurance companies and other factors, but most rational individuals want very much to avoid ever being admitted to a hospital, with all the associated emotional and health risks. The idea of putting people into a hospital facility when it’s not necessary is outrageous. So, to this CEO and others who went along with this diabolical program, we say that we are disgusted. “C’mon, man!”

McDonalds and KFC

These two well-known fast-food chains recently suffered a blow to their reputations, when their food supplier in China was accused of putting tainted meat into their products. A Chinese television program using film from hidden cameras claims to show meat processing plant workers not only using chicken and beef past expiration dates, but also picking up meat that had fallen onto the floor and putting it back into the processing machines. Investigators said they also found workers using rotten meat to make Chicken McNuggets and other products.

McDonalds and KFC issued news releases saying they halted use of all products from this supplier. But wait—this isn’t like finding product tainted by some outside evildoer. Rather, this food processor was in these company’s direct supply chains, and we know well who has responsibility for ensuring quality throughout the chain. So, we can only wonder why there weren’t sufficient controls within the entirety of the supply chain to ensure food consumed by customers was fit to eat! And what’s more important to the reputation and well-being of these fast-food companies than the quality and safety of its food?

Certainly companies and executives can demonstrate poor judgment or make mistakes. But the nature of miscues, along with how they are reported and corrected—or more often how they are not corrected—will generally determine what qualifies for a “C’mon, man!” moment.

It would be bad enough that these companies didn’t sufficiently consider the great risks associated with selling tainted food to their customers, and take action to manage those risks before a disaster struck. But the food processing industry in China is long known to have serious problems, and KFC itself previously found risk events come to fruition, with excessive amounts of antibiotics and hormones in its chicken.

So, to the executives responsible for this fiasco, we say to you a hearty “C’mon, man!”  

BNP Paribas

French bank BNP Paribas recently agreed to a record $8.9 billion settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and pleaded guilty to large-scale, systematic violations of U.S. economic sanctions. The bank was charged with hiding hundreds of billions of dollars in transactions with clients in Sudan, Iran, and Cuba. Are we looking at an overeager low-level manager trying to enhance his or her performance and reputation in the organization? Not according to the reports: It was senior executives who turned a deaf ear to legal and compliance officers who raised red flags.  

One senior compliance officer reportedly said that the bank’s practices “effectively mean that we are circumventing the U.S. embargo on transactions in [U.S. dollars] by Sudan.” Another compliance officer is quoted as meeting with senior executives to “express, to the highest level of the bank, the reservations of the Swiss compliance office concerning the transactions executed with and for Sudanese customers.” Did the top executives listen carefully, recognize the severity of the matter, and take decisive action to stop such transactions and ensure risk management and control protocols were in place to ensure these activities would not recur? Um, no, not really. Reportedly the response was to dismiss the matter and ask that no minutes of the meeting be taken.

Court documents show that the bank’s role in circumventing U.S. sanctions condoned the behavior, because “the business was profitable and because BNP Geneva did not want to risk its longstanding relationships with Sudanese clients.” Wow! From this, one can quickly surmise that the philosophy was that if the business is sufficiently profitable, it makes sense to disregard “little” things like legality!

We can wonder whether this business was worth $8.9 billion, a guilty plea, damaged reputation, and the termination of 13 executives. There’s no question that the senior management is deserving of a boisterous “C’mon, man!”

Société Générale

You probably remember well the fiasco when Jerome Kerviel made unauthorized trades costing Société Générale a tidy $7.2 billion. Please keep this in mind for a moment. Now in reporting its 2013 results, the bank disclosed it had to pay a €445.9 million ($597 million) fine imposed by the European Commission for antitrust rule violations associated with interest rate manipulation. Okay, bad things can happen. But the bank said that the events in question occurred from 2006 to 2008, and the sole employee involved left the bank in 2009.

Getting back to the $7.2 billion loss, the bank’s senior management said that “Société Générale has been victim of a serious internal fraud committed by an imprudent employee,” “research has not shown any link with anyone else at Société Générale,” and “we don’t understand why he took such a massive position.” Management went to great lengths to try to convince all who would listen that the bank had nothing to do with this debacle—it was all about one individual. We know that makes absolutely no sense.

And now this same bank is trying to tell us that this new antitrust rule violation was the result of one bad egg, and the bank had nothing to do with it. I’m wondering whether they actually believe that people will buy this explanation. Société Générale management, I say to you, get real, along with a loud, “C’mon, man!”  Certainly companies and executives can demonstrate poor judgment or make mistakes. But the nature of miscues, along with how they are reported and corrected—or more often how they are not corrected—will generally determine what qualifies for a “C’mon, man!” moment. Hopefully, we can learn from these mistakes. Still, I have no doubt that in the future executives will continue to do dumb or inept things. We’ll be watching!

Topics