TAKING CHANCES: LIVING WITH AMBIGUITY

By William M. DiMascio
   Executive Director

A year and a half ago, we hired a formerly incarcerated man at the Prison Society for a position that we were just creating. He was not the first former offender we employed, nor will he be the last. But his story is interesting.

The individual, we’ll call him Simon here, presented himself to us with a resume that seemed too good to be true. And, it turned out that it was too good to be true; much of the work history and educational background were fiction. Nevertheless, Simon was initially very helpful in the new position.

Some months went by and an incident occurred late on a Friday night. Cash was taken from a small lockbox used to hold collections from our busing service. The total was about $300 and, while we confirmed the fact that it was missing over the weekend, the money mysteriously reappeared Monday morning in the lockbox (without the related paperwork that had been attached to it by the associate who made the deposit).

Because someone had seen Simon in the vicinity of the lockbox after hours on Friday, we asked him about it. He immediately confessed to taking the money: He said he had had some personal setbacks and resorted to getting high. He said he planned to take the money and run, but when he awoke on Saturday morning he realized that he had done wrong. He determined then, he said, to return the money and thought he could do that without anyone knowing what had happened. When he was questioned, however, he spoke forthrightly and offered an apology.

In the meantime, word had spread around the office about the theft and about Simon’s involvement. This breach of trust represented a challenge to management. Senior staff discussed it, and I made a decision to not fire Simon. It was not a decision everyone would have made and in retrospect may have been faulty. On the other hand, I believed then and still do that it was the right course to follow.

My reasoning was based on the fact that he voluntarily returned the money and candidly confessed to what he had done. Also, I was aware that people with addictions to drugs or alcohol were prone to lapses and thought we should try to help him overcome his problem. Lastly, this measure of mercy or compassion was clearly in keeping with the core values of the Prison Society: it is what we ask other employers to do, and we certainly should walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

We imposed some conditions on Simon as a way of shoring up his behavior and providing additional security for the rest of the staff. First, I required that Simon address the staff with a confession and apology. He was tearful and appeared straightforward. The staff had an opportunity to react, and I felt that the session was a good way to begin re-establishing trust. Next, I told him he would need to bring us documentation of his attendance of regular meetings of Narcotics Anonymous and his sessions with his counselor. We also banned him from the office outside of regular work hours and took other security measures to limit his access to the building.

Simon applied himself initially but in time his performance began to lag. His compliance with reporting conditions wavered. There were indications that he was using office equipment for unauthorized purposes. He was consistently failing to perform assignments on time.

After several warnings, I told Simon he was not working out at the Prison Society and that he should look for another job. I gave him six weeks to find something. Then, I gave him another month. Finally the day came that he left.

He didn’t want the usual going away party, perhaps because he was busy sabotaging several projects on which he had worked. And, he made an unauthorized purchase on the company account of a new laptop computer, which he took with him when he left. I suppose this was a classless farewell from someone who I wish had known better.

I’m angry but more than that, I’m upset, and I am writing this in part as a mea culpa for not having protected the staff. At the same time, I am reaffirming the base decisions that were made along the way.

We could have avoided the possibility of being treated so poorly by not hiring Simon, or by firing him earlier. Many businesses do exactly this: minimize their chances of getting hurt by minimizing the chances they offer to others. That’s the streetwise thing to do.

But that clearly is not who we are at the Prison Society. We bent over backwards to help Simon, and now we fully intend to hold him accountable for what he has done to harm us. Disturbing as all this has been, however, our core beliefs remain unshaken.

Years ago the top executive at one of the largest banks in the world told me that to succeed one must learn to live with ambiguity. That’s really cool. That’s who we are. And, that’s what we do, even when it hurts.