David Jones: public relations 1, common sense 0

When it comes to whiffs of sexual harassment, the contrast between what is considered stellar behaviour by an upstanding corporate citizen and what actually is the right thing to do, grows sharper by the year. Unsurprisingly, in the case of Australia’s finest retailer David Jones, the unanimous focus - of the board and many in the media - has been one of protecting the brand. At all costs it would seem. Even, at the cost of common sense.

Whether it’s the voracious appetite of plaintiff lawyers, a politically correct board of directors, or dumb as fencepost journalists, David Jones seems to have lucked out big time. Even though, when they look in the mirror, the board members collectively consider themselves victorious. Go figure.

If we believe the media, David Jones has lost a brilliant strategist who boosted the share price by more than 300 per cent since he first reported to work at head office. The firm faces a heavy payout to the victim of the alleged sexual harassment and it has suffered a small dent to its reputation. Its workforce and customers, the large majority of which are women have been sorely disappointed and its shareholders must now find the time each Sunday to pray that Mr Mark McInnes’ replacement, Mr Paul Zahra, will be faithful to St Mark’s retail gospel.

The public know something undignified went on between Mr McInnes and Ms Kristy Fraser-Kirk, a young woman working in the marketing department. At least twice. But we don’t know exactly what. Was it an uncalled for kiss or was it something closer to lecherous behaviour? And the longer it takes the David Jones board to air its dirty laundry, the smellier it will get. To date, we have no idea just how much Ms Fraser-Kirk’s able counsel are rattling their can for.

In the media’s haste to hang Mr McInnes and in due course draw and quarter him the essential questions were ignored.

First, what exactly did the alleged perpetrator, Mr McInnes do?

Second, what will it take for the alleged victim of the sexual harassment, Ms Fraser-Kirk to “move on” i.e. to recognise justice has been done?

Third, what good does it do to have Mr McInnes depart the CEO’s stage at David Jones?

Surely Job #1 is to compensate the victim fairly. Only after she is compensated can she possibly “move on”. And the matter be finalised. Tossing Mr McInnes out the door maybe great public relations, but apart from the stockholders of David Jones’ chief rival, Myer Ltd, I don’t see anyone benefitting from his departure. After all, McInnes worked miracles for the firm’s stockholders. He dragged the company from bleeding $25 million a year to making $150 million profit last year. Does it make any sense to excommunicate him?

While it’s true that the Chairman of David Jones, Mr Robert Savage, received a great many pats on the head for doing more than what was expected and offering the scalp of the alleged offender, many in the media ignorantly cheered the David Jones board for clawing back McInnes’ long-term performance bonus share portfolio worth $15 million. As though that was “teaching McInnes a lesson”. B*llocks. A close examination of the facts would reveal that to be entitled to that bonus pie, McInnes would still have to be CEO in October 2011. So in fact, David Jones wasn’t teaching anyone anything. Apart from how to spin your way out of trouble I guess.

Soon Ms Fraser-Kirk will be compensated. After which she must decide whether or not to forgive the perpetrator. There can be no middle ground to this decision: either she decides to forgive Mr McInnes, or not.

Not forgiving, in other words, holding on to bitterness and anger can cause problems of their own. Forgiving, but not necessarily forgetting, is a crucial part of the healing process.

By not forgiving, the victim’s anger and desire for revenge could poison her entire being. She could end up focussing on the offence to the exclusion of the compensation (both monetary and say a direct verbal apology from Mr McInnes).

Sometimes, victims believe that hatred, to the point of wholesale humiliation of the other party, will satisfy their thirst for vengeance and will somehow bring them healing. Fat chance.

Forgiveness, is a problem for many, because they are unclear about what forgiveness really is. All too often forgiveness gets confused with reconciliation.

The act of reconciliation comprises two parts: paying reparation and granting forgiveness. And reparations itself is a three-act play.

To recap: when spoken to and/or interfered with in an unacceptable manner, Ms Fraser-Kirk must have thought: “what was that?” She was undoubtedly uncomfortable, not knowing where to turn for help. Her heart sank. She felt dirty. She was sad, astonished and embarrassed, as well as fearful of the ramifications of reporting the CEO for his unacceptable conduct.

With respect to reparations, Act I is the confession by the victimiser: admitting the act (“Yes Ms Fraser-Kirk, I acted improperly”). The act has to be admitted, aloud, to the person offended, or the entire process stops and no one gets anywhere. Speaking to the alleged victim via the megaphone of the print media or through the Chairman of the board just doesn’t cut it.

Act II is the act of repentance: asking for forgiveness (“I am sorry”). The Chairman of the David Jones board, Mr Savage, was quick to acknowledge the wrongdoing. But the sin is fundamentally not his to atone.

Act III is the penalty: accepting the penalty (“OK, I will pay the price”). After all, humiliation and inappropriate behaviour is, well just, humiliation and inappropriate behaviour. If we believe the media reports, no murder took place. We aren’t talking International Criminal Court cases after all. And the damage to Ms Fraser-Kirk has to be fixed. And can be fixed.

If Mr McInnes or the corporation ignore Act III, then the confession and repentance aren’t worth a hill of beans. It goes without say that Ms Fraser-Kirk must ensure that the extent to which she wants to be compensated reflects the hurt she suffered. Suing David Jones for an obscene amount plucked out of thin air would indicate to many, including this non-lawyer, that she has crossed over from being victimised into that damp, dark, dingy den of greed and revenge often called “victim anger”.

Once the former CEO confesses his sins, pays reparations, seeks forgiveness and forgiveness is granted then the two are reconciled and both can go back to working for their stockholders.

But getting to the point of reconciliation is often difficult given the egos involved. Just ask national French soccer team whose egomaniacs cost France its chances of success in South Africa.

The easiest thing for the David Jones board to do was to bypass reconciliation and instead trumpet an outstanding CEO’s departure.

It was easy and it was wrong.

As he was holding onto Ms McInnes’ letter of resignation, the Chairman of David Jones, Mr Robert Savage, conceded the firm would clearly “suffer” the consequences. An opaque reference to the stellar, yet at times controversial career of its very able ex-CEO. Yet, rather than diagnose the problem accurately and in turn prescribe the right treatment, the Chairman nominated Mr McInnes’ deputy, Mr Paul Zahra to succeed him.

The Chairman’s blatant attempt to put daylight between his company and the behaviour of McInnes can be seen only in this glow. Damage control. Shine the torch on the alleged transgressor and return to the organisation’s core mission as swiftly as possible. Oh, and ignore the bleeding obvious: that a return to the core mission is fundamentally handicapped while the key player is busy cruising the Chao Phraya.

To say that the board was shocked, disappointed and taken aback by McInnes’ behaviour is an understatement. But for them to act out of any sense of personal insult and in so doing, putting their own egos ahead of the interests of countless shareholders merely unmasks the board is in way over their heads.

Assuming McInnes sinned, then he needs to repair the damage he caused. Confess in full his transgressions and make reparations. His speed and desire to make amends is all that is necessary to nourish a new growth of trust between him and Ms Fraser-Kirk. The sooner he does so and the sooner he returns to his rightful role at David Jones, the better for all parties concerned.

Until then, the only unambiguous winners from this whole sorry affair are a very different group of shareholders.

Those holding shares in Myer.