Mark Blevis

When he was selected to head up Nortel, Mike Zafirovsky (or Mike Z. as he’s known) was widely believed to be the saviour of the company.  Once, a significant force in the high tech sector and the largest employer in Ottawa (even larger than the federal government), Nortel had suffered a series of damaging blows and had become a shadow of its former self.  Mike Z and his management team needed to distance itself from past accounting practices and executives that had become the subject of SEC investigations; some had even found themselves on the wrong side of criminal charges.

Mike Z talked a great talk and inspired Nortel employees.  He asked them for their trust.  He said the right things to people who needed to hear them and many, not all, employees decided that they needed to get right behind their president.  Despite their efforts, Nortel continued to fall and now finds itself in the midst of restructuring after filing for bankruptcy protection last week.  Now, employees — past and present — find themselves with pensions, severance and even salary at risk.

In An Open letter to Mike Z posted to the Nortel Insider blog, today, Desk Jockey puts Mike Z on the hot seat.  He points out the employees put their trust and support into Mike Z, largely because it was asked for.  According to the letter, Mike Z put that trust and support through a variety of challenges.

The letter details Mike Z’s decisions to replace longtime loyal executives with friends, deflect questions when one of his hand-picked management team assaulted a female university student and how he boldly lied to employees about the impending bankruptcy. Desk Jockey also asks questions about Mike Z’s regular use of the company’s jet for personal trips to his family in Chicago and about current plans for unwarranted executive bonuses (likely in the millions).

Perhaps the employees were wrong to blindly trust Mike Z.

Perhaps they were wrong to not hold Mike Z accountable after his first misstep.

Perhaps the balance of power and the unwillingness of decision makers to have to answer questions or be held accountable to employees for their decisions has made employees at all companies uncomfortable with being viewed as “the trouble maker”.  However, far too many executives through history have provided far too many arguments for genuine communication, authentic transparency and the same kind of performance scrutiny and respect they expect from their employees.

Oddly, the core elements used to build real trust relationships haven’t changed since the dawn of relationships.  What needs to change is the assumption that position affords privilege.

Most people can get over the money.  We smart over the squandering of trust.