“Voices of CEO excellence: Merck’s Ken Frazier” (McKinsey)

[BobPSU92]

“The former CEO and executive chairman of the pharmaceutical company offers candid reflections on how crises tested his commitment to values—both Merck’s and his own.”

Read and enjoy:

Voices of CEO excellence: Merck’s Ken Frazier

Former CEO and executive chairman of Merck, Ken Frazier, offers candid reflections on how crises tested his commitment to values—both Merck’s and his own.

www.mckinsey.com

 

[Keyser Soze 16802]

Here is part that will most interest folks here:

"The Penn State crisis [around revelations of sexual abuse in the football facility] was a different challenge. Of all the crises I ever dealt with, that was the hardest one personally. I am a proud alum of Pennsylvania State University, and this involved the public’s perception of the football program and coach Joe Paterno, who is another person ten feet tall in my mind. We had two sets of values that we had to balance: the school’s fundamental values that include taking care of young people, and our alums’ desire to defend the school. In the Vioxx case, I felt no inconsistency between Merck’s values and our approach. In fact, defending those cases in court supported those values. At Penn State, as we began to understand the facts, it was less possible to defend the football program, so the board of trustees [of which I was a member] made the decisions of allowing a thorough investigation. The president was let go. The head football coach was let go. We got lots of criticism from alums who felt Joe deserved better, but the university needed to show the world what its fundamental values were at this moment."

allowing a thorough investigation......I guess it was thorough in the sense that a mercenary can thoroughly execute whatever task his financial benefactors lay out for him

 

[BobPSU92]

Here is part that will most interest folks here:

"The Penn State crisis [around revelations of sexual abuse in the football facility] was a different challenge. Of all the crises I ever dealt with, that was the hardest one personally. I am a proud alum of Pennsylvania State University, and this involved the public’s perception of the football program and coach Joe Paterno, who is another person ten feet tall in my mind. We had two sets of values that we had to balance: the school’s fundamental values that include taking care of young people, and our alums’ desire to defend the school. In the Vioxx case, I felt no inconsistency between Merck’s values and our approach. In fact, defending those cases in court supported those values. At Penn State, as we began to understand the facts, it was less possible to defend the football program, so the board of trustees [of which I was a member] made the decisions of allowing a thorough investigation. The president was let go. The head football coach was let go. We got lots of criticism from alums who felt Joe deserved better, but the university needed to show the world what its fundamental values were at this moment."

allowing a thorough investigation......I guess it was thorough in the sense that a mercenary can thoroughly execute whatever task his financial benefactors lay out for him

What an a$$hole. They acted with expediency, not thoroughness.

All these years later spewing the false narrative to cover his own a$$. A$$hole.

 

[Keyser Soze 16802]

What an a$$hole. They acted with expediency. That’s nowhere near being thorough. A$$hole.

I believe Spanier is right when he says that the CEOs running the board took a very corporate approach -- admit guilt, find scapegoats, get it in the rear view mirror -- which did not fit with an academic institution and we see the results. How many times was the phrase "move on" used? We don't want to move on, we want to know what actually happened.

 

[BobPSU92]

I believe Spanier is right when he says that the CEOs running the board took a very corporate approach -- admit guilt, find scapegoats, get it in the rear view mirror -- which did not fit with an academic institution and we see the results. How many times was the phrase "move on" used?

Exactly.

 

[ApexLion]

Emperor has no clothes Kenny.

 

[NittPicker]

Here is part that will most interest folks here:

At Penn State, as we began to understand the facts, it was less possible to defend the football program, so the board of trustees [of which I was a member] made the decisions of allowing a thorough investigation. The president was let go. The head football coach was let go. We got lots of criticism from alums who felt Joe deserved better, but the university needed to show the world what its fundamental values were at this moment."

I'd like to hear him and other board members from that time explain why "it was less possible to defend the football program". The scandal involved a retired football coach but otherwise had nothing to do with football. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Frazier and his fellow shitheads simply spun it that way to hide their own incompetence.

But I guess people who look like us just don't understand.

 

[Bob78]

I believe Spanier is right when he says that the CEOs running the board took a very corporate approach -- admit guilt, find scapegoats, get it in the rear view mirror -- which did not fit with an academic institution and we see the results. How many times was the phrase "move on" used? We don't want to move on, we want to know what actually happened.

Bingo. PSU is a beloved institution, almost more of a family member to many of us than just a university. Treating it the same as a cold-hearted for-profit corporation was a huge mistake that 99% of us understood from that awful day in Nov. 2011. Yet, these brilliant leaders of industry cared only about their own arses rather than showing any real leadership toward PSU. We could have handpicked a handful of alumni at random who could have and wold have guided us through this crisis better than Frazier et. al. did. In fact, at least Smeal professor used their awful example as a "what not to do" case study in his crisis mgmt module, as I understand.

I read Spanier's book, and while I probably was aware of most of the underlying crapola to the saga, either through the BWI boards who have knowledge, or knowing people involved directly and indirectly, it gave even more insight into the clusterf* that it truly was, especially on the PA justice system front. What a farce.

As many have said, the OGBOT know, and have known for a decade, that their rush to judgement and the conclusions they publicized wrt Spanier, Curley, and Schultz, and by extension Paterno, were and are so far off base as to be rendered completely invalid. The whole thing is maddening to this day. Frazier has no credibility, to anyone who knows the facts, in what he says here.

If anyone thinks the OGBOT et. al. got it right, I'd encourage you to read Spanier's book with an open mind. If you already don't like Spanier, you will have to get past that to truly keep an open mind. I don't know him, have met him, and will say that the people I know who do know him consider him a very honest and sincere person. To me, that comes through very well throughout the book. He presents things factually and as unemotionally as humanly possible, imo, in presenting his side of the story. Goodness knows we have all heard enough of the other side of the story to already know that side was BS when it came to the PSU Admins.

 

[Bkmtnittany1]

“The former CEO and executive chairman of the pharmaceutical company offers candid reflections on how crises tested his commitment to values—both Merck’s and his own.”

Read and enjoy:

Voices of CEO excellence: Merck’s Ken Frazier

Former CEO and executive chairman of Merck, Ken Frazier, offers candid reflections on how crises tested his commitment to values—both Merck’s and his own.

www.mckinsey.com

Ken Frazier can go f*ck himself...

 

[Connorpozlee]

“but the university needed to show the world what its fundamental values were at this moment."
That is the line that says it all. Essentially, “We needed to do something, anything, to show the world we care about children. And if it meant sacrificing one man and his lifelong reputation in the process, so be it because we needed to pacify the knee-jerk reactionaries so they got off of our backs”.

 

[Keyser Soze 16802]

“but the university needed to show the world what its fundamental values were at this moment."
That is the line that says it all. Essentially, “We needed to do something, anything, to show the world we care about children. And if it meant sacrificing one man and his lifelong reputation in the process, so be it because we needed to pacify the knee-jerk reactionaries so they got off of our backs”.

Four men. All good ones by most accounts

 

[Connorpozlee]

Four men. All good ones by most accounts

True

 

[GrimReaper]

Here is part that will most interest folks here:

"The Penn State crisis [around revelations of sexual abuse in the football facility] was a different challenge. Of all the crises I ever dealt with, that was the hardest one personally. I am a proud alum of Pennsylvania State University, and this involved the public’s perception of the football program and coach Joe Paterno, who is another person ten feet tall in my mind. We had two sets of values that we had to balance: the school’s fundamental values that include taking care of young people, and our alums’ desire to defend the school. In the Vioxx case, I felt no inconsistency between Merck’s values and our approach. In fact, defending those cases in court supported those values. At Penn State, as we began to understand the facts, it was less possible to defend the football program, so the board of trustees [of which I was a member] made the decisions of allowing a thorough investigation. The president was let go. The head football coach was let go. We got lots of criticism from alums who felt Joe deserved better, but the university needed to show the world what its fundamental values were at this moment."

allowing a thorough investigation......I guess it was thorough in the sense that a mercenary can thoroughly execute whatever task his financial benefactors lay out for him

The president and the football coach were let go before the investigation. And as far as it being thorough, none of those involved were questioned or allowed to respond to the innuendo or outright fiction.

 

[GrimReaper]

Ken Frazier can go f*ck himself...

He would need balls to do that.

Now, if he's willing to take the ol' broomstick handle approach, send me his address and I'll ship out a dozen, fastest way.

 

[Bkmtnittany1]

Still gets me nuts! Sandusky was indicted on 48 counts, found guilty on 45. Of the 45, ZERO counts when he was an employee of the University, ONE count of the 45 occurred on PSU property, a charge of reckless endangerment. Yet, the only people persecuted were PSU people. No one from the HS where Sandusky groomed kids, no one from the Second Mile ever was investigated. It makes me sick!

 

[Keyser Soze 16802]

I thought this was all forgotten by 2014?

 

[Alphalion75]

I believe Spanier is right when he says that the CEOs running the board took a very corporate approach -- admit guilt, find scapegoats, get it in the rear view mirror -- which did not fit with an academic institution and we see the results. How many times was the phrase "move on" used? We don't want to move on, we want to know what actually happened.

.....and Frazier is an out and out racist.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Still gets me nuts! Sandusky was indicted on 48 counts, found guilty on 45. Of the 45, ZERO counts when he was an employee of the University, ONE count of the 45 occurred on PSU property, a charge of reckless endangerment. Yet, the only people persecuted were PSU people. No one from the HS where Sandusky groomed kids, no one from the Second Mile ever was investigated. It makes me sick!

He found guilty on the counts (count? I can’t recall) from the ‘98 showering incident, wasn’t he?

 

[BobPSU92]

.

 

[LealandLoyal]

True and incontrovertible statement: "Ken Frazier did nothing about the Penn State professor ****ing dogs."

 

[marshall23]

A despicable human being. Did a nice job screwing victims and their families (Vioxx) as well.

 

[Bob78]

He found guilty on the counts (count? I can’t recall) from the ‘98 showering incident, wasn’t he?

The '98 incident was the one that was investigated by police, reviewed, and no charges were brought. It was not part of the trial.

I always thought the fact that that '98 was investigated and dismissed was possibly the biggest factor in Tim and Gary believing that McQ's ambiguous report 3 years later was not criminal in nature. It came across as another weird, boundary issue, and was addressed as such.

That, plus McQ's father and his colleague did not think it was criminal either when McQ told them. Neither did the CEO of TSM, a mandated reporter, when he heard what McQ said.

That is consistent with the collective response to what McQ told them. Taking it to an expert, mandated reporter for advice and guidance made sense at the time. I'm guessing they believed it was another '98 in scope, which authorities had already dismissed as being criminal in nature.

 

[PSU Mike]

He’s still an a$$hole. Consistency is a good quality right? So by using the word “still” in there I’m paying him a compliment.

 

[Connorpozlee]

The '98 incident was the one that was investigated by police, reviewed, and no charges were brought. It was not part of the trial.

I always thought the fact that that '98 was investigated and dismissed was possibly the biggest factor in Tim and Gary believing that McQ's ambiguous report 3 years later was not criminal in nature. It came across as another weird, boundary issue, and was addressed as such.

That, plus McQ's father and his colleague did not think it was criminal either when McQ told them. Neither did the CEO of TSM, a mandated reporter, when he heard what McQ said.

That is consistent with the collective response to what McQ told them. Taking it to an expert, mandated reporter for advice and guidance made sense at the time. I'm guessing they believed it was another '98 in scope, which authorities had already dismissed as being criminal in nature.

It was part of the trial and he was convicted, if I recall correctly. Bob posted it earlier up the thread.

 

[PSU12046]

Here is part that will most interest folks here:

"The Penn State crisis [around revelations of sexual abuse in the football facility] was a different challenge. Of all the crises I ever dealt with, that was the hardest one personally. I am a proud alum of Pennsylvania State University, and this involved the public’s perception of the football program and coach Joe Paterno, who is another person ten feet tall in my mind. We had two sets of values that we had to balance: the school’s fundamental values that include taking care of young people, and our alums’ desire to defend the school. In the Vioxx case, I felt no inconsistency between Merck’s values and our approach. In fact, defending those cases in court supported those values. At Penn State, as we began to understand the facts, it was less possible to defend the football program, so the board of trustees [of which I was a member] made the decisions of allowing a thorough investigation. The president was let go. The head football coach was let go. We got lots of criticism from alums who felt Joe deserved better, but the university needed to show the world what its fundamental values were at this moment."

allowing a thorough investigation......I guess it was thorough in the sense that a mercenary can thoroughly execute whatever task his financial benefactors lay out for him

"alumnus" you nit wit

 

[Bob78]

It was part of the trial and he was convicted, if I recall correctly. Bob posted it earlier up the thread.

@BobPSU92

I don't recall '98 being part of the trial. I don't recall any sexual abuse being alleged from that incident, just that the mother was concerned and asked Police and/or Child Services to investigate. It was closed after they investigated.

Maybe Bob92 confused '98 with the '01 incident and the 3 charges stemmingfrom that? Or I'm just not remembering.

 

[BobPSU92]

@BobPSU92

I don't recall '98 being part of the trial. I don't recall any sexual abuse being alleged from that incident, just that the mother was concerned and asked Police and/or Child Services to investigate. It was closed after they investigated.

Maybe Bob92 confused '98 with the '01 incident and the 3 charges stemmingfrom that? Or I'm just not remembering.

Sorry. I was referring to 2001, not 1998.

 

[Connorpozlee]

@BobPSU92

I don't recall '98 being part of the trial. I don't recall any sexual abuse being alleged from that incident, just that the mother was concerned and asked Police and/or Child Services to investigate. It was closed after they investigated.

Maybe Bob92 confused '98 with the '01 incident and the 3 charges stemmingfrom that? Or I'm just not remembering.

From a CNN article after Sandusky was convicted:

“But then, it was nothing but “guilty, guilty, guilty” – of unlawful contact with minors, corruption of minors and endangering the welfare of children.
And then, they both broke down and cried, clinging to each other as they have since May 3, 1998, the day Jerry Sandusky, then Penn State’s defensive coordinator, took him into the football team’s locker room showers and soaped him up.”

This is regarding the previously investigated ‘98 incident. It’s tough to keep it all straight. It gets said a lot that the ‘98 incident was investigated and nothing came of it. Nothing came of it at the time, but he was convicted on three counts involving this incident in ‘12.

 

[razpsu]

The board did nothing for years then left everyone hanging out to dry.

 

[BobPSU92]

From a CNN article after Sandusky was convicted:

“But then, it was nothing but “guilty, guilty, guilty” – of unlawful contact with minors, corruption of minors and endangering the welfare of children.
And then, they both broke down and cried, clinging to each other as they have since May 3, 1998, the day Jerry Sandusky, then Penn State’s defensive coordinator, took him into the football team’s locker room showers and soaped him up.”

This is regarding the previously investigated ‘98 incident. It’s tough to keep it all straight. It gets said a lot that the ‘98 incident was investigated and nothing came of it. Nothing came of it at the time, but he was convicted on three counts involving this incident in ‘12.

I don’t remember all of the details after so many years. Maybe if I weren’t so stupid…

 

[Bvillebaron]

The '98 incident was the one that was investigated by police, reviewed, and no charges were brought. It was not part of the trial.

I always thought the fact that that '98 was investigated and dismissed was possibly the biggest factor in Tim and Gary believing that McQ's ambiguous report 3 years later was not criminal in nature. It came across as another weird, boundary issue, and was addressed as such.

That, plus McQ's father and his colleague did not think it was criminal either when McQ told them. Neither did the CEO of TSM, a mandated reporter, when he heard what McQ said.

That is consistent with the collective response to what McQ told them. Taking it to an expert, mandated reporter for advice and guidance made sense at the time. I'm guessing they believed it was another '98 in scope, which authorities had already dismissed as being criminal in nature.

It was worse than that. DPW separately investigated the 1998 incident. They had Sandusky undergo a psychological evaluation which concluded he fit the classic profile of a groomer. For unknown reasons (no doubt because the AG’s office never investigated DPW despite its over sight responsibilities) DPW had him undergo a second (over the objection of an assistant Centre County DA) which concluded essentially that he was “harmless”. Guess which eval DPW reported back to PSU?

 

[step.eng69]

Here is part that will most interest folks here:

"The Penn State crisis [around revelations of sexual abuse in the football facility] was a different challenge. Of all the crises I ever dealt with, that was the hardest one personally. I am a proud alum of Pennsylvania State University, and this involved the public’s perception of the football program and coach Joe Paterno, who is another person ten feet tall in my mind. We had two sets of values that we had to balance: the school’s fundamental values that include taking care of young people, and our alums’ desire to defend the school. In the Vioxx case, I felt no inconsistency between Merck’s values and our approach. In fact, defending those cases in court supported those values. At Penn State, as we began to understand the facts, it was less possible to defend the football program, so the board of trustees [of which I was a member] made the decisions of allowing a thorough investigation. The president was let go. The head football coach was let go. We got lots of criticism from alums who felt Joe deserved better, but the university needed to show the world what its fundamental values were at this moment."

allowing a thorough investigation......I guess it was thorough in the sense that a mercenary can thoroughly execute whatever task his financial benefactors lay out for him

what FACTS and a Key Stone Cop's investigation!!

 

[WyomingLion]

The '98 incident was the one that was investigated by police, reviewed, and no charges were brought. It was not part of the trial.

I always thought the fact that that '98 was investigated and dismissed was possibly the biggest factor in Tim and Gary believing that McQ's ambiguous report 3 years later was not criminal in nature. It came across as another weird, boundary issue, and was addressed as such.

That, plus McQ's father and his colleague did not think it was criminal either when McQ told them. Neither did the CEO of TSM, a mandated reporter, when he heard what McQ said.

That is consistent with the collective response to what McQ told them. Taking it to an expert, mandated reporter for advice and guidance made sense at the time. I'm guessing they believed it was another '98 in scope, which authorities had already dismissed as being criminal in nature.

^^^^^^^This in spades!