প্রতিলিপি 🔗
WEBVTT
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.080
It's november twenty nineteen.
00:00:02.319 --> 00:00:08.560
Somewhere in the legal department of a large regional bank, a senior attorney finishes typing a memo.
00:00:09.119 --> 00:00:20.559
He's just documented in precise lawyerly detail that his employer is charging customers overdraft fees on accounts that actually have enough money to cover the transactions.
00:00:20.800 --> 00:00:24.960
This is illegal and he's told management, but nothing has changed.
00:00:25.519 --> 00:00:28.480
So he puts it in writing addressed to the board.
00:00:29.039 --> 00:00:31.280
Not long after he gets fired.
00:00:31.839 --> 00:00:36.479
The board reads the memo and they hire a law firm to investigate.
00:00:36.960 --> 00:00:42.079
And then they keep charging the fees for nearly two more years.
00:00:44.399 --> 00:00:47.280
That's the story of Regents Financial.
00:00:47.439 --> 00:00:54.880
And the$191 million question it raises is one every executive and every industry needs to answer.
00:00:55.119 --> 00:01:00.799
When the warning lands on your desk, do you have a system that forces you to act on it?
00:01:01.039 --> 00:01:04.640
Or one that lets you study it until the problem solves itself?
00:01:05.680 --> 00:01:08.000
That's what we're going to get into today.
00:01:08.879 --> 00:01:11.200
Sometimes it's a policy shift.
00:01:11.359 --> 00:01:13.680
Sometimes it's a system that fails.
00:01:13.920 --> 00:01:16.159
Or it could be that a market moves.
00:01:16.640 --> 00:01:19.280
Often leaders find out too late.
00:01:19.519 --> 00:01:24.799
The signal was there, but nobody turned it into something they could act on before the moment passed.
00:01:25.519 --> 00:01:30.239
What the hell happened is a weekly briefing for leaders who would rather be ready.
00:01:30.640 --> 00:01:32.000
I'm Michael Crackett.
00:01:32.239 --> 00:01:37.519
I've spent over 30 years working in situations where planning gets interrupted by reality.
00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:43.599
This program looks at not just what the hell happened, but also what can be done about it.
00:01:46.079 --> 00:01:56.079
In March 2019, the bank's former Deputy General Counsel urged corporate leadership to stop charging the customers certain unauthorized positive overdraft fees.
00:01:56.319 --> 00:02:05.040
He warned that the practice was illegal, and after alleging this, he was terminated in late 2019 for raising these concerns.
00:02:05.359 --> 00:02:17.439
But a draft of his formal complaint was sent to the board and this created a critical paper trail proving that the corporate brass knew about the practices in 2019 but delayed on fixing them.
00:02:18.319 --> 00:02:21.360
Next, the high reliance on fee revenue.
00:02:21.840 --> 00:02:33.199
During the regulatory investigation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau highlighted 2019 as a peak year for that bank's reliance on these kind of practices.
00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:43.439
The overdraft and non sufficient funds fees accounted for almost 18% of the region's bank total non-interest income for 2019 alone.
00:02:43.680 --> 00:02:52.080
The regulators noted that the bank delayed changing its system because it was actively trying to find ways to replace that lost revenue.
00:02:52.719 --> 00:02:57.280
Third, the subsequent shareholder fallout, which is still ongoing.
00:02:57.599 --> 00:03:09.360
Because the internal warning signs began in 2019, a Delaware court ruled that top Regions Bank board members must face a shareholder derivative lawsuit.
00:03:10.159 --> 00:03:23.360
That lawsuit argued that the directors violated their fiduciary oversight duties by actively ignoring the twenty nineteen red flags, which were very clear and which ultimately caused massive financial and reputational trauma to the corporation.
00:03:24.560 --> 00:03:32.719
So when the deputy general counsel blew the whistle, he didn't run into a regulator first, he took it internally to management, and then directly to the board.
00:03:33.280 --> 00:03:36.240
But the board's response was classic corporate shielding.
00:03:36.319 --> 00:03:42.240
They formed an investigation committee and brought in an outside counsel and started an internal review.
00:03:42.479 --> 00:03:49.599
Meanwhile, the illegal fees just kept rolling in from August of twenty eighteen all the way through July of twenty twenty one.
00:03:49.840 --> 00:03:53.039
That's three full years of unlawful charges.
00:03:53.439 --> 00:04:12.879
Now, fast forward to September of twenty twenty two, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stepped in with a consent order, and that price tag, it was one hundred forty one million dollars returned to the customers and fifty million dollars in civil penalties, which came out to a total of one hundred ninety one million dollars.
00:04:13.280 --> 00:04:15.280
But that's not the end of the story.
00:04:15.439 --> 00:04:20.639
The shareholders ended up suing the directors personally to claw back some of that money.
00:04:20.879 --> 00:04:24.480
And the Delaware court refused to dismiss that case.
00:04:24.720 --> 00:04:28.720
So now those directors are facing personal liability.
00:04:29.600 --> 00:04:35.120
Just sit that sequence for a moment in your head because those facts carry all that weight.
00:04:37.279 --> 00:04:42.399
So let's look at a completely different industry now at the exact same failure architecture.
00:04:42.639 --> 00:04:45.759
This one is from Telligent Incorporated.
00:04:45.920 --> 00:04:54.480
They're a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer and they're heavily regulated by the FDA at all of their different levels of production.
00:04:55.120 --> 00:05:00.959
But on the production floor, manufacturing deviations started accumulating.
00:05:01.680 --> 00:05:16.079
So the manufacturing deviations at Telligent Incorporated primarily stemmed from chronic failures to investigate failed drug batches that were releasing out-of-specification medications to the market
Load full transcript
and neglecting stability testing protocols.
00:05:16.800 --> 00:05:32.160
These are severe violations of current good manufacturing practice regulations, and they culminated in an FDA warning letter in November of 2019 and a wave of product recalls that ultimately triggered the company's financial collapse.
00:05:33.600 --> 00:05:44.319
So, according to federal regulators and subsequent court findings, the manufacturing failures at Telegent's Buena, New Jersey facility centered around four main structural violations.
00:05:44.720 --> 00:05:49.759
The first one was that they failed to investigate out of specification batches.
00:05:50.560 --> 00:05:54.720
In this instance, Telegent repeatedly ignored its own data.
00:05:54.959 --> 00:06:06.319
For instance, the company released a cream for eczema treatment to the public despite the batch failing internal impurity tests at release and during subsequent stability checkpoints.
00:06:06.959 --> 00:06:10.160
They also had inadequate drug stability programs.
00:06:10.720 --> 00:06:23.279
They failed to follow written protocols designed to track how their products held up over time, and this allowed drugs to sit on the market without sufficient data that confirmed their long-term efficacy and their safety.
00:06:23.519 --> 00:06:26.000
They also ignored product complaints.
00:06:26.240 --> 00:06:39.199
There were submissions regarding drug defects and customer complaints that were routinely left unreviewed, unapproved, and open past the time limits mandated by the company's standard operating procedures.
00:06:39.759 --> 00:06:42.800
And finally, there was poor production quality control.
00:06:43.439 --> 00:06:55.360
The facility lacked the standardized written procedures that guaranteed that manufactured generic drugs consistently retained their expected identity, strength, quality, and purity.
00:06:57.680 --> 00:06:59.199
So what does all this mean?
00:06:59.439 --> 00:07:05.920
Because Teligent failed to correct these manufacturing deviations, its products were legally deemed adulterated.
00:07:06.319 --> 00:07:12.399
The systemic issues eventually forced a series of major high-stakes market interventions.
00:07:12.879 --> 00:07:17.199
The first was their recall of their superpotent lidocaine.
00:07:17.600 --> 00:07:25.680
Between September and December 2021, Teligent had to issue widespread voluntary recalls of its 4% lidocaine solution.
00:07:25.920 --> 00:07:32.879
The stability testing had revealed that the medication was far stronger than it was originally and actually labeled.
00:07:33.040 --> 00:07:41.920
This carried high risks of several different things that could be caused by using the solution, even up to cardiovascular collapse.
00:07:42.720 --> 00:07:59.920
The other thing was the 2020 production halt, which was prompted by an ongoing regulatory pushback that came when the company was forced to perform an exhausting review of its entire topical portfolio, leading to a temporary production halt for several of its critical product lines.
00:08:00.959 --> 00:08:02.399
That was the production side.
00:08:04.560 --> 00:08:08.000
Let's talk about the impact it had on its board and its leadership.
00:08:08.240 --> 00:08:15.040
So these manufacturing deviations didn't just destroy their production capacity, they created immense legal liabilities.
00:08:15.279 --> 00:08:26.240
Despite the FDA responding in August 2020 that televisions corrective proposals were completely inadequate, the company executives failed to properly notify the board of directors.
00:08:26.720 --> 00:08:34.639
There was a landmark ruling in court that allowed bankruptcy administrators to sue their former leadership under the KARMARC claims.
00:08:34.879 --> 00:08:44.960
It found that the board had made virtually no effort to monitor mission critical compliance risks regarding years of known manufacturing failures.
00:08:46.080 --> 00:08:54.080
So the frontline staff knew it and middle management knew it, but when the board looked at their summary reports, everything looked completely fine.
00:08:54.399 --> 00:09:06.240
There was no dedicated board committee for FDA compliance, there was no formalized escalation requirement, and there was absolutely no direct line from the manufacturing floor to the executive suite.
00:09:06.480 --> 00:09:13.919
So by the time the board finally understood the scale of their regulatory exposure it was too late, and the company had already filed for bankruptcy.
00:09:15.120 --> 00:09:28.639
The Delaware court in that case ruled that because the board had failed to build a system to verify what was actually happening on the ground, this was a breach of the fiduciary duties that it had, leaving the directors personally exposed in this case.
00:09:28.960 --> 00:09:34.559
These are two entirely different industries, but the results were exactly the same pattern.
00:09:35.039 --> 00:09:42.000
Neither one of these companies failed because they had a bad strategy, and neither one failed because the market had shifted.
00:09:42.240 --> 00:09:52.799
In the case of Regents Financial, they failed because the board had received a verified warning and treated it as a project to manage rather than a system that needed to be shut down.
00:09:53.200 --> 00:09:59.360
For Telligent, they failed because a board never built the pipeline to receive those warnings in the first place.
00:10:00.080 --> 00:10:05.600
So one organization was blind and the other could see, but they simply chose not to act.
00:10:05.919 --> 00:10:11.200
The outcome and the personal exposure for the people at the top was exactly the same.
00:10:12.559 --> 00:10:13.919
So now the real question.
00:10:18.799 --> 00:10:32.159
The question is whether you have a system that surfaces these problems before they become irreversible, and whether your governance structure actually forces you to do anything or to take action when they do.
00:10:34.080 --> 00:10:36.159
So that's
what the hell happened.
00:10:36.320 --> 00:10:40.720
Now, once you see the underlying structure of these failures, you're going to start recognizing it everywhere.
00:10:40.799 --> 00:10:42.320
It's hard not to see.
00:10:42.559 --> 00:10:46.879
In my background, which is emergency management, we have a foundational principle.
00:10:47.200 --> 00:10:51.600
You do not manage an active scene based on filtered reports.
00:10:51.840 --> 00:10:59.679
For instance, a fire chief would never sit in a command post two miles away and rely on a handwritten memo delivered every six hours.
00:10:59.919 --> 00:11:05.120
You've got to have direct, unvarnished telemetry and information from the people who are on the ground.
00:11:05.360 --> 00:11:11.440
Because by the time that a filtered summary finally reaches your desk, the situation has likely already changed.
00:11:11.759 --> 00:11:14.720
We call this maintaining situational awareness.
00:11:15.120 --> 00:11:23.440
You need to know exactly what's happening and what's going on, not what someone else has decided that you needed to know about what's happening or what's going on.
00:11:25.679 --> 00:11:33.039
So what failed at Regions Intelligent is the corporate equivalent of that fire chief refusing to monitor the radio.
00:11:33.360 --> 00:11:39.759
The warning signs were there, but the infrastructure to receive them either didn't exist or got completely ignored.
00:11:40.559 --> 00:11:44.720
So in my advisory practice, I use a framework called Business Lifelines.
00:11:44.799 --> 00:11:51.279
This is adapted from the emergency management concept that's widely used based on community lifelines.
00:11:51.600 --> 00:11:58.159
They map out the critical baseline systems that a community needs to survive during a disaster.
00:11:58.720 --> 00:12:02.639
I've applied these same lifelines and converted them to business.
00:12:02.879 --> 00:12:05.200
The same logic holds true in both cases.
00:12:05.360 --> 00:12:10.799
There are a small number of living, interdependent flows that keep an enterprise viable.
00:12:11.120 --> 00:12:18.879
Decision authority, information flow, operational execution, and risk recognition are all the keys.
00:12:19.120 --> 00:12:21.440
The key word here is that they're interdependent.
00:12:21.600 --> 00:12:28.960
These are not isolated or siloed, so when one degrades or breaks down, it immediately puts pressure on the others.
00:12:29.600 --> 00:12:36.399
So when I'm talking about business lifelines, I'm not talking about things like your Slack channels or your internal email routing.
00:12:36.559 --> 00:12:41.039
What I'm talking about is actual real-time situational awareness.
00:12:41.519 --> 00:12:48.240
A lifetime is a real time pulse check on whether a core capability is stable or degrading or collapsing.
00:12:48.399 --> 00:12:50.320
It's a check on the status.
00:12:51.360 --> 00:13:01.039
At Telligent, when the information flow started to break down, the skies became cloudy and
gray, it didn't mean that their phones had stopped working.
00:13:01.200 --> 00:13:08.159
It actually meant that the integrity of the data that they were receiving was completely compromised before it ever hit the executive suite.
00:13:09.120 --> 00:13:17.120
If your lifelines are just passive conduits for whatever filtered story the middle management wants to tell you, then you don't have situational awareness.
00:13:17.200 --> 00:13:19.200
What you have is a fairy tale.
00:13:19.840 --> 00:13:24.080
Again, for Telegent, their information flow went gray first.
00:13:24.320 --> 00:13:36.000
The executive visibility was completely obscured because the FDA deviations on the manufacturing floor were being softened and sanitized before they ever reached the board.
00:13:36.480 --> 00:13:47.919
And then because the information flow was compromised, their decision authority had no accurate data to act on, and the risk recognition completely and quickly collapsed behind it.
00:13:48.799 --> 00:13:53.279
By that time the system could no longer compensate and the failure was total.
00:13:53.759 --> 00:13:59.759
On the other hand, in the case of regions, their risk recognition failed despite having accurate information.
00:14:00.320 --> 00:14:10.080
The warning was right there and the pathway existed, and the board literally received a memo, but in this case they chose a passive and delayed response.
00:14:10.399 --> 00:14:13.919
This isn't a visibility failure, it's a governance failure.
00:14:14.159 --> 00:14:20.000
Their decision authority actually stalled out just to protect a short-term revenue line.
00:14:20.720 --> 00:14:28.159
So one company couldn't see the hazard, the other company saw the hazard and left the gas main wide open.
00:14:28.399 --> 00:14:32.240
So this brings us to a concept that I call the delta of decay.
00:14:32.559 --> 00:14:40.960
This is a measurable rate at which an organization drifts away from its operational baseline before a catastrophic failure becomes visible.
00:14:41.440 --> 00:14:43.600
It's usually never dramatic at first.
00:14:43.679 --> 00:14:49.039
It's a checklist that stopped getting run, or it's a key vendor relationship that went quiet.
00:14:49.279 --> 00:15:00.240
It's a team member who walked out the door and took critical institutional knowledge with them or a board committee that was simply assumed rather than firmly established.
00:15:01.120 --> 00:15:04.320
So let's be honest about what happens in many organizations.
00:15:05.039 --> 00:15:14.000
You have a mid-level manager who sees a bottleneck or a compliance glitch, and instead of halting operations and sounding the alarm, they just fix it themselves.
00:15:14.240 --> 00:15:20.480
They'll build a spreadsheet as a patch for the software gap, or they'll reallocate the staff manually.
00:15:20.799 --> 00:15:25.279
Generally we praise these people and we call them go getters and problem solvers.
00:15:26.240 --> 00:15:32.000
But in reality, are they
really masking the systemic failure or are they solving a problem?
00:15:32.320 --> 00:15:38.559
Are they turning your dashboard green while the foundation of your organization is actually starting to rot?
00:15:39.279 --> 00:15:45.200
So every heroic workaround is an unrecorded line item in your delta of decay.
00:15:46.000 --> 00:15:59.039
So maybe instead of rewarding the heroes who hide the truth, even though it's well intentioned and they think they're making the organization stronger, we should consider taking a step back and look at this situation from a larger perspective.
00:15:59.279 --> 00:16:06.159
Let's consider starting to fix the architecture that forces these overachievers to be heroes in the first place.
00:16:07.919 --> 00:16:18.559
When you look at Telligent, this drift happened over multiple years and the FDA deviations were piling up at the plant level while the board's dashboard stayed perfectly green.
00:16:18.879 --> 00:16:20.639
The system was compensating.
00:16:20.879 --> 00:16:26.559
That meant that the middle managers were running informal workarounds to keep their production numbers acceptable.
00:16:26.799 --> 00:16:29.440
Until they finally couldn't control the weight anymore.
00:16:29.679 --> 00:16:33.120
That compensation behavior is always your biggest tell.
00:16:33.840 --> 00:16:41.039
When your people are heroically holding things together through informal or ad hoc workarounds, that is not organizational resilience.
00:16:41.279 --> 00:16:44.799
That is a leading indicator of systemic fragility.
00:16:45.200 --> 00:16:53.440
The delta of decay was not measured by a single event, it was a slow, quiet drift that eventually crossed a fatal threshold.
00:16:54.480 --> 00:16:57.120
The trap here is the compliance mirage.
00:16:57.279 --> 00:17:03.600
Both of these organizations were at various points fully compliant with their regulatory requirements.
00:17:03.919 --> 00:17:11.599
Telligent had FDA oversight structures in place, and Regions had formal compliance reporting channels in place.
00:17:11.920 --> 00:17:15.680
But in reality, compliance is really just historical bookkeeping.
00:17:15.839 --> 00:17:27.759
It tells you whether you satisfied a checklist at any specific point in time, but it tells you absolutely nothing about whether your systems are currently functioning under real, degrading conditions.
00:17:28.319 --> 00:17:38.640
It also works the same in other sectors healthcare, higher education, manufacturing, they all have rules and regulations that they have to follow.
00:17:39.200 --> 00:17:42.640
But the courts are increasingly beginning to understand this distinction.
00:17:42.960 --> 00:17:55.359
The Delaware court in these cases didn't ask whether Telligent had a compliance program on paper, it asked whether the board had built a system that actually delivered the ground truth information, and in this case the answer was no.
00:17:56.240 --> 00:18:08.559
The court didn't ask whether regions had an investigation process, they asked whether the board used that process as a genuine mitigation strategy or as a convenient cover to protect their revenue.
00:18:09.039 --> 00:18:11.680
The answer in this case was the latter.
00:18:12.400 --> 00:18:15.119
The legal standard isn't did you have a program?
00:18:15.200 --> 00:18:17.839
It's actually did you have a functioning system?
00:18:18.079 --> 00:18:21.359
There's a massive difference between these two things.
00:18:22.319 --> 00:18:27.759
So before we move into some action steps, I want you to hold up a mirror and look at your own operation.
00:18:28.559 --> 00:18:34.559
Where does critical operational information get filtered or sanitized before it reaches you?
00:18:34.880 --> 00:18:42.160
Who is deciding what makes it into the executive summary and what gets handled at the layer that's below you?
00:18:43.279 --> 00:18:47.039
What assumptions are you currently treating as verified capabilities?
00:18:47.359 --> 00:18:54.960
And when a warning finally lands on your desk, what does your governance structure actually require you to do with it?
00:18:55.759 --> 00:19:02.559
You don't need to have a crisis to answer these questions, but a crisis will certainly answer them for you if it shows up.
00:19:02.960 --> 00:19:07.599
So here's what I'd like for you to do when you go into your Monday meeting next week.
00:19:07.839 --> 00:19:19.359
It's not a broad framework overview, it's just one concrete exercise that'll probably take less than 30 minutes, but it could tell you more about your organization than any quarterly report ever could.
00:19:20.319 --> 00:19:25.440
You start by running your organization through a spot check, which consists of three direct questions.
00:19:25.680 --> 00:19:33.119
First one, for each of your mission critical operations, who is required to tell you when it's in trouble?
00:19:33.519 --> 00:19:38.400
Not who can tell you, but who's legally or operationally required to tell you?
00:19:39.359 --> 00:19:45.279
Second, when was the last time that you verified that this requirement actually works?
00:19:45.519 --> 00:19:52.000
Not reviewing the policy document, but testing it, or running a real world scenario and watching what happens.
00:19:53.519 --> 00:20:01.599
And third, when a warning arrives, do you have a governance structure that forces immediate action or one that automatically routes it to a committee?
00:20:03.200 --> 00:20:06.480
So here's your concrete Monday action for next week.
00:20:06.720 --> 00:20:18.799
Pick just one mission critical function in your business, one of your single business lifelines, and map the exact path that that information takes from the ground level all the way to your desk.
00:20:19.200 --> 00:20:25.920
Count the layers and identify exactly who makes the decisions about what gets escalated at each stage.
00:20:26.319 --> 00:20:33.279
Once that's done, ask yourself what would have to go wrong before a problem in that
function reached me directly?
00:20:35.359 --> 00:20:40.720
If the answer to that question is a lot, you are running a telegent type structure.
00:20:41.039 --> 00:20:45.920
The information exists on the floor, but the pathway to the top is completely broken.
00:20:46.880 --> 00:20:52.000
Or maybe your answer is nothing because we have an automatic escalation trigger built in.
00:20:52.319 --> 00:20:54.000
If you do, then test it.
00:20:54.240 --> 00:21:04.960
Run a surprise scenario and find out whether that trigger actually fires, or if it just lives in a forgotten policy document somewhere that nobody has touched in two or more years.
00:21:06.160 --> 00:21:13.519
So the lesson from Regions Financial is distinct from Telligent and different, and frankly it's a lot harder to hear.
00:21:13.839 --> 00:21:17.759
Telligent didn't know, so that's a system design failure.
00:21:18.079 --> 00:21:23.039
But regions knew that's a governance failure, and the courts treat those very differently.
00:21:23.599 --> 00:21:30.079
Think about this as if you were a municipal engineer and you'd discovered a structural crack in a major bridge.
00:21:30.400 --> 00:21:42.000
In the public safety world, you would never leave the bridge open to rush hour traffic for another two years while an outside consulting firm writes a four hundred page report on the economic impact of a detour.
00:21:42.160 --> 00:21:44.799
You'd close the bridge instantly.
00:21:46.000 --> 00:21:51.359
You take the political heat, you deal with the traffic gridlock, and you stabilize the threat.
00:21:51.839 --> 00:21:59.680
In the case of Regents Financial, they discovered a structural crack in their legal architecture bridge, but they decided to keep running semi trucks over.
00:22:00.319 --> 00:22:04.240
It for another twenty-four months because the toll revenue was just too good.
00:22:04.799 --> 00:22:08.319
That's why the court didn't care about their investigation committee.
00:22:08.559 --> 00:22:12.079
They cared that the bank had left a known hazard wide open.
00:22:13.519 --> 00:22:19.920
So in emergency management, when there's a specific hazard and it's confirmed, the protocol is not up to question.
00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:20.720
It's absolute.
00:22:20.880 --> 00:22:22.799
You stabilize the threat first.
00:22:23.039 --> 00:22:27.680
You don't calculate the economic impact of closing the bridge before you shut it down.
00:22:27.920 --> 00:22:29.759
You have to isolate the hazard.
00:22:29.920 --> 00:22:37.680
You have to deny entry and you stabilize the scene, and then you figure out what the financial implications are and how you're going to manage those.
00:22:38.559 --> 00:22:43.920
When a verified warning lands in a corporate boardroom, the exact same logic has to apply.
00:22:44.240 --> 00:22:47.599
An investigation is not a mitigation strategy.
00:22:48.079 --> 00:22:56.079
Studying a confirmed hazard while continuing to run the exact operation that's causing the damage is
not due diligence.
00:22:56.319 --> 00:23:00.720
In the eyes of a court, this is explicit evidence of bad faith.
00:23:00.880 --> 00:23:11.359
And the question isn't whether you have a process for receiving warnings, it's whether your governance structure instantly shifts into an incident response posture once the moment arrives.
00:23:11.839 --> 00:23:28.079
If today's episode has surfaced a concern about how operational information moves through your organization or whether your leadership would actually be forced to act when a warning lands, that is the exact gap that a signal integrity assessment is designed to expose.
00:23:29.519 --> 00:23:39.839
This isn't an administrative audit, it's actually a highly structured evaluation of whether your critical lifelines are actually functioning the way that your green dashboards say that they are.
00:23:40.160 --> 00:23:47.599
If you're interested in finding out more about this, you can check out our website at www.southwindplanning.com.
00:23:48.160 --> 00:23:51.359
To wrap things up for today, let's look at the baseline facts.
00:23:51.519 --> 00:23:57.039
There's two organizations, two entirely different industries, and both had clear warning signals.
00:23:57.680 --> 00:24:04.079
One never built a system to receive them, and the other received the warning loud and clear, but chose not to act.
00:24:04.640 --> 00:24:10.480
In both of these cases, the courts bypassed corporate shields and held the people at the top personally accountable.
00:24:11.119 --> 00:24:14.960
So green dashboards are not always an indicator of operational health.
00:24:15.440 --> 00:24:20.160
They're simply a representation of what your reporting structure has decided to tell you.
00:24:21.920 --> 00:24:23.200
Thanks for listening.
00:24:23.599 --> 00:24:27.839
If you found this information interesting, drop me an email and let me know what you think.
00:24:28.319 --> 00:24:48.000
If there are things that you would like to hear on future episodes, give me some suggestions, give me your thoughts, talk to me about some of your pain points or things that you would like to see discussed will apply the principles of business lifelines, the delta of decay, and information hygiene, and see how they might apply.
00:24:50.079 --> 00:24:55.200
What the Hell Happened is produced by Southwind Planning Solutions LLC.
00:24:55.759 --> 00:25:02.640
If this episode was useful, a blue-to-gray newsletter goes deeper into this and many other topics each week.
00:25:02.880 --> 00:25:05.759
You can subscribe for free on Beehive.
00:25:06.000 --> 00:25:07.839
The link is in the show notes.
00:25:08.400 --> 00:25:22.079
If you're sitting on an assumption that you have not verified in longer than you'd like to admit, or maybe there are other challenges where reality has interrupted your planning, there's a starting point for that in the show notes as well.
00:25:22.880 --> 00:25:28.960
You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere else at two listen to podcasts.
00:25:29.279 --> 00:25:37.200
You can also find me on LinkedIn and on our website at www.southwindplanning.com.
00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:39.599
I'm Mike McCracken.
00:25:40.000 --> 00:25:42.640
Thanks for listening, and I'll see you next time.