Perhaps the most ubiquitous phrase in compliance is “tone at the top.” From the Justice Department to the U.K. Ministry of Justice to the OECD, every commentary on an anti-corruption compliance program says that it all starts with the senior leadership of an organization and most specifically a CEO. This has led many organization to consider not only what a CEO says but how he or she comports themselves to be indicative of how they might run an organization. This type of analysis speaks to a leader’s character. There is, however, a second and equally important trait for every CEO—and that is judgment. Unfortunately, judgment does not always get as much due diligence and research as character.
This judgment issue was brought to the forefront of the corporate world when the CEO of Barclays, Jes Staley asked the company’s corporate security department to unmask the identity of an anonymous internal whistleblower. When the department demurred, he requested they use U.S. law enforcement to obtain the identity. Now a second instance has arisen that has brought Staley’s judgment into question. James Stewart reported that Staley intervened “in a dispute over a Brazilian private-equity deal that pitted his brother-in-law against the influential private-equity firm KKR, a major Barclays client.” Staley claimed he was not acting in a capacity as Barclays’ CEO but in a private capacity in this assistance to his brother-in-law.
