Grappling with the Gray

Hosted by Yonason Goldson

Business Management Society Culture EducationInterviews guests

Website RSS feed

Episodes

155

Latest episode

May 2026

Language

EN-US

About the show

Are you ethical? Join Rabbi Yonason Goldson and his panel of thinkers as they grapple with a new ethical challenge each week. Only by contemplating all sides and every angle can we improve ethical decision-making, build more trusting relationships, and help create a more ethical world.

Listen to episodes

60 recent

October 14, 2026Episode 14654 min

Grappling with the Gray #146: Does size really matter?

People come in all shapes and sizes. So do countries. But which is more important? That's the question that drives the discussion when Deb Coviello , ☘️Mark O'Brien , and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Have you ever compared the way countries appear on a map with how they appear on a globe? When representing three dimensional space in two dimensions, you can preserve either actual shape or actual size, but not both. When the 16th century European cartographer Geert de Kremer, better known as Mercator, produced the map still in use today, he favored shape over size. That’s why equatorial regions, most notably Africa, appear smaller than they are, while other regions appear larger. In a recent United Nations vote, 164 countries voted to “correct” the map. Six nations abstained. Only the United States voted no. U.S. representative to the U.N. Yaryna Ferencevych declared: “Resolutions like this and the ideological agenda they promote, are… the reason this institution is losing its credibility. When the United Nations questions why it is losing legitimacy in the world, and is not taken seriously, time and again, we point to resolutions such as this.” Obviously, there are more pressing issues. But commitment to accuracy is also a value. A better question might have been whether accurate size is more important than accurate shape, and whether ideology is driving one view over the other. Is this really an issue worthy of discussion, or is it just another distracting skirmish in the culture wars that suck so much oxygen out of the global forum? Meet the panel: Deb Coviello, aka the Drop in CEO, is an author, speaker, podcast host, and silver medalist curler who coaches C-Suite leaders of today and tomorrow to navigate challenges with confidence. Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs. Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.

May 28, 2026Episode 1451 hr 0 min

Grappling with the Gray #145: Artistic license or defamation?

How far must we go to anticipate unintended consequences? That's the question that drives the conversation when Stewart Wiggins , Peter Winick , and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Have you ever watched a movie “based on a true story”? How about “inspired by true events”? Two Miami police officers were deeply uninspired by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s recent movie, The Rip. In fact, they are suing the actors' production company, Artists Equity. The film does not mention officers Jason Smith and Jonathan Santana by name. Nevertheless, they claim that colleagues and family members have recognized them from the film’s portrayal, and that they have suffered "substantial harm to their personal and professional reputations [from implied] misconduct, poor judgment, and unethical behavior in connection with a real law enforcement operation." The lawsuit claims that the "the film's use of unique, non-generic details” points clearly to the plaintiffs. By opening with text, “inspired by true events,” the producers become culpable for defamation by including a non-factual narrative of corruption, graft, and murder. The plaintiff’s claim intentional infliction of emotional distress as well. Whether the case has merit from a legal standpoint is not our discussion here. But to what extent are filmmakers responsible for implications and innuendo that might lead to reputational damage? If, as the plaintiffs claim, they have been identified from the film by colleagues and family members, is that not “defamation by implication” as the claim suggests? Or are they drawing more attention to themselves through the lawsuit, which many commenters see as frivolous and opportunistic? Meet this week’s panel: Stewart Wiggins joins us from Paris. He is Chief Advisor at Induna Advisors, working to significantly increase company revenue by developing positive client reports and establishing solid business relationships. Peter Winick works with individuals and organizations to build and grow revenue streams through their thought leadership platforms and is host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast. Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.

May 20, 2026Episode 1441 hr 7 min

Grappling with the Gray #144: Social justice or moral anarchy?

Can social justice warriors turn their campaign against their own cause? That's the question that drives the conversation when JC Glick , Sarah Kalmeta , and S. Scott Mason join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: By now you’ve probably heard about the notorious NY Times podcast in which progressive elites endorsed the practice of “microlooting” - a prettified euphemism for stealing. Their reasoning begins by positing that not all acts of theft are equal - which is absolutely true, and builds upon the presumption that some acts of theft can be justified - which is also true. What’s chilling is how those justifications are defined, and where they might take us as individuals and as a society. Using a friend’s Netflix account? No problem. Steal a library book? Never. Leave a restaurant without paying your bill? Unthinkable. Swipe a painting from the Louvre. Absolutely. Stealing from Whole Foods is okay because it’s an upscale store - especially if you’re going to give the stolen food to a homeless person. Stealing from a Walmart or Costco is not “very significant as a moral wrong.” Stealing from corporations is a virtue. This Robin Hood mentality extends beyond theft. A disgruntled employee sets fire to a Kimberly Clark warehouse? Tactically unwise, but morally defensible. And we can at least sympathize with the murder of Brian Thompson since, as United Healthcare C.E.O., he was guilty of social murder himself. But getting iced coffee in a plastic cup? “That is a profoundly selfish, immoral, collectively destructive action.” So is flying for pleasure. And “private schools should be mostly illegal.” Has our collective moral compass become utterly unwound? Or are these positions ethically defensible? Meet this week’s panel: JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as CEO of the Commit Foundation, an organization that helps high-performance veterans find their next adventure. Sarah Kalmeta is a speaker and executive facilitator who helps leaders make better decisions under pressure. She’s the founder of Pivot Point International, with nearly two decades in global aviation and operations. Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within.

May 7, 2026Episode 14350 min

Grappling with the Gray #143: Is it possible to be too polite?

When does too much sugar stop being sweet? That's the question that drives the conversation when David Fink, Monica Kreuger , and ☘️Mark O'Brien join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: After a recent visit to Urgent Care, I vented to my wife how annoyed I was by the doctor. It wasn’t that she was ill-mannered or curt. Just the opposite. “If it isn’t too much trouble, may I ask you to please remove your glasses?” That’s 15 words for what could have been said in four. And if it were too much trouble, what wouldn’t be? “Please lean back for these eye drops. I don’t want to stain your lovely shirt.” I was wearing the same shirt I’m wearing now. Plain white. Professional, but hardly lovely. She even repeated the comment. Within minutes I was grimacing the way you do when someone puts too much sugar in your coffee. “It’s better than being rude,” my wife replied. She’s right, of course. But is there a middle ground between being too polite and not polite enough? When politeness feels contrived or insincere, doesn’t it end up having an effect opposite to what’s intended? Or is it enough that someone is making the effort to be polite even if they may be doing it imperfectly? One of the principles of ethics is to presume positive intent. But is intent alone ever not enough? Meet this week’s panel: David Fink is a litigation attorney, rabbinic scholar, author, lecturer, educator, and moral philosopher. Monica Kreuger is founder and CEO of both Global Infobrokers Inc. and Praxis School of Entrepreneurship. She also chairs the board of Luthercare Community and is TEC Canada Chair in Saskatoon. Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.

April 22, 2026Episode 14246 min

Grappling with the Gray #142: Favoritism or Meritocracy?

Is unequal sometimes fair? That's the question that drives the conversation when Catherine Fitzgerald , 🟦 Dr. Melissa Hughes, and Machen MacDonald join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. And here is the topic we’ll be discussing: Recently, a couple’s 22-year-old daughter graduated from an Ivy League college. As a graduation present, her parents bought her a new car, while other relatives paid for her first month’s rent, furniture, and a trip to Europe. The 25-year-old sister is now resentful, claiming that she was denied a trip to Europe, and that the younger sister stole her college fund and will soon be earning a good salary. The parents respond that they refused to send her to Europe straight out of high school because she was too young, that she chose not to go to college, and that she lives at home rent free. Commenters on Reddit accuse the parents of spoiling their children, and supported the older daughter’s accusation of favoritism. Are these accusations justified? Or is this an example of the entitlement culture that seems to be growing increasingly pervasive? And how might the same kind of tension appear in the workplace and in society at large? Meet this week’s panel: Catherine Fitzgerald is a speaker, writer, certified coach, and founder of BrassTacksWithHeart - Executive Coaching. She works with founders and their leaders as they navigate the choppy waters of aligning people, performance, and profits. Melissa Hughes is Founder and Principal of the Andrick Group, applying recent brain research to improve employee engagement, company culture, team dynamics, and innovation. Machen MacDonald is President of the ProBrilliance Leadership Institute, elevating leaders’ mindsets to grow themselves and their organizations. He is also a Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc.

April 6, 2026Episode 14144 min

Grappling with the Gray #141: Educational vs. personal integrity?

Will the common good prove the death of common sense? That's the question that drives the conversation when Mark Brown, CSP , Deb Coviello , and • Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic. Last year, world civilization teacher Sarah Inama at Idaho’s Lewis and Clark Middle School resigned rather than comply with orders to remove from her classroom a poster deemed inappropriate by administrators, who said the poster violated the school’s “content neutral” policy, which prohibits any speech or messaging that might reflect personal opinions, religious beliefs, or political ideologies. The sign read, “Everyone Is Welcome Here,” and it showed hands of different colors. That was it. The district’s chief academic officer Marcus Myers clarified that, “The political environment ebbs and flows, and what might be controversial now might not have been controversial three, six, nine months ago.” Ms. Inama received an outpouring of support from the community, but it wasn’t enough to change the district’s mind. In her resignation letter, she wrote: “I cannot align myself nor be complicit with the exclusionary views and decisions of the administration. It is deeply troubling that the people running this district and school have allowed a welcoming and inclusive message for my students to be considered controversial, political, and, worst of all, an opinion. “I hope for the sake of the students in your district that you can remember the core values of public education. To serve all citizens, foster an inclusive and safe learning environment, and protect your staff and students from discriminatory behavior.” Does the school administration have a point? If so, what is it? And is it better for a teacher like Sarah Inama to make a statement by publicly resigning or to remain in her job to serve her students while trying to change the system from within? Meet this week’s panel: Deb Coviello, aka the Drop in CEO, is an author, speaker, podcast host, and silver medalist curler who coaches C-Suite leaders of today and tomorrow to navigate challenges with confidence. Mark Brown is a world champion international speaker, executive coach and, most important, devoted husband of Andrea. Kirsten Yurich is an Organizational Performance Management Consultant, Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and Adjunct Professor of Education at Felician University.

March 30, 2026Episode 14050 min

Grappling with the Gray #140: Deconstructing the big picture?

Should "what do I deserve" ever take a back seat to "what can I give"? That's the question that drives the discussion when Lori Halverson , Allen Hauge , and Jeff Koziatek join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is the topic we’ll be discussing: An employee posted the following on Reddit: I lost a schedule bid at work recently to an employee with far less seniority. The reason given to me was, “He is a single father, and that schedule works better with his son’s school schedule.” Not to be insensitive, but so what? My time is not less valuable because I have no kids. I get the logic, but I could not give a care about his schedule or his problems. I have done my time, and I earned that bid, plain and simple. I have filed a grievance with HR. The crux of it is that I was discriminated against for not having kids, in an attempt to get the schedule I bid on. A few coworkers have mentioned off the cuff that I should let it go because he’s a single father. They’ve said I “don’t get it because I don’t have any kids.” Responses on Reddit were mixed. On the one hand, seniority should carry privilege. On the other hand, shouldn’t actual needs trump personal preferences? What’s the ethical approach to this kind of dilemma, and what can leaders do to navigate these kinds of conflicts? Meet this week’s panel: Lori Halverson is an executive coach, speaker, and Vistage chair, helping CEOs and top executives look forward to Mondays and flourish through positive intelligence. Allen Hauge is a master chair with Vistage International, Inc. He works with CEOs to devise strategies for success in business and in life. Jeff Koziatek is an executive coach and keynote speaker, helping professionals to navigate change, sharpen focus, avoid burnout, and make a difference. He is also one of St. Louis Business Monthly's 100 St. Louisans you should know.

March 4, 2026Episode 13946 min

Grappling with the Gray #139: Pilot vs. Passenger?

Can we use "the greater good" as an excuse to exempt ourselves from personal responsibility? That's the question that drives the conversation when Sam Ardery , Shannon Lee , and David Marlow join me to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: An Alaska Airlines customer reported buying a first class ticket from Costa Rica to Seattle, an 8-hour international flight. Upon arriving at the gate, they were informed that they were being bumped down to economy class to make way for two pilots who were traveling to make a connecting flight. After the customer had paid for first class, the airline not only took away the seat but also the passenger’s breakfast, then failed to offer even a drink or a special snack. The anticipated luxury flight turned into a cramped, hungry ordeal. Apparently, a pilot shortage has compelled airlines to offer pilots the perk of first class travel when they “deadhead” to make connecting flights. But does that justify refusing passengers the seats they’ve paid for to solve their own logistics and personnel problems? And if it does, do the airlines have a responsibility to do more to offset the passenger’s inconvenience? Meet this week’s panel: Sam Ardery is a national mediator, trial lawyer, consultant, speaker, and author. He teaches negotiation at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law and is author of Positively Conflicted: Engaging with Courage, Compassion and Wisdom in a Combative World. Shannon Lee is a CEO coaching chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. She works with organizations and executive teams to improve execution by defining, measuring, and standardizing the leadership behaviors required for businesses to perform well. David Marlow, aka the Ikigai Guy and the Versatile Guru, is a coach, speaker, and author who helps people live into their purpose and helps companies bring their purpose to their products and their people.

February 25, 2026Episode 13854 min

Grappling with the Gray #138: Is too much attention obscuring who we are?

Are we overdue for reexamining the benefits of modesty? That's the question that drives the conversation when JC Glick , Brian Reisman , and • Sue Tinnish, PhD join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: A study published in the journal Human Brain Mapping suggests a variety of benefits that accompany modest behavior. These include better acceptance of constructive criticism and superior regulation of emotions. Modest people tend to be less self-centered and less emotionally vulnerable to rejection. Researchers found that people who are intellectually humble have less need to be right all the time, which makes them better at examining evidence and evaluating which argument is strongest. Although the study did not address traditional modesty as relates to dress, the discarding of social mores had arguably contributed to the hyper-sexualization of modern society, leading to distorted perceptions, harmful stereotypes, and objectification, especially among women and girls. Social media has accelerated the cultural trend toward self-adulation, and common perceptions defining success in terms of fame, wealth, and power add fuel to the fire. Have we created a mindset that makes us more insecure, more dogmatic, and more resistant to the notion of personal growth? Is it true that we have to play the game to gain the recognition we need to compete? If so, is our desire for success increasing toxicity in our families, our communities, and our workplaces? If so, what can we do about it? Meet this week’s panel: JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as CEO of the Commit Foundation, an organization that helps high-performance veterans find their next adventure. Brian Reisman is a software engineer and tech maven. He is also a professional speaker who works with leaders to promote a culture of trust and trustworthiness in work and life. Sue Tinnish is an executive coach, employing a unique blend of soft skills and technical knowledge, as well as a Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. #ethics #leadership #integrity #accountability #culture

February 11, 2026Episode 1371 hr 4 min

Grappling with the Gray #137: Can we escape the cult of partisanship?

Has political ideology crossed the line into cult mentality? That's the question that drives the conversation when special guest Daniella Mestyanek Young joins me for this week's episode of Grappling with the Gray. Here is our topic: After the September 10 assassination of Charlie Kirk, reports filled the headlines of tweets and posts celebrating his murder. One teacher in Pennsylvania allegedly shared a post on social media calling Kirk a "racist, xenophobic, transphobic, islamophobic, sexist, white nationalist mouthpiece." Days later, a Brazilian comedian wrote that Kirk had "died too late" and said that he "was the reason for a Nazi demonstration where they marched in tribute to him. Good riddance!" These and similar comments were widely condemned, especially by conservative Republicans. Three months later, President Donald Trump responded to the murder of Rob Reiner, calling him “deranged,” “very bad for our country,” and suggesting that his death was "reportedly due to the anger he caused others" by his "raging obsession" with Trump. Far more Democrats than Republicans took exception to his words. Is this an example of cult mentality in American politics? Donald Trump was not the first to employ extremist rhetoric, but he has certainly accelerated its normalization. If we can’t agree on the need for civil discourse, how can we possibly work together to maintain a functioning society? How does cult mentality encourage and justify this kind of behavior, as well as the double standards that make it acceptable in the minds of each side even as they condemn it from the other? And what can we do about it? Meet this episode’s special guest: Daniella Mestyanek Young is a US army combat veteran, Harvard scholar, TEDx speaker, and bestselling author. Her new book, The Culting of America, examines how cult tactics have quietly infiltrated American life, especially politics, and why they are so effective at keeping followers in line even when leaders disregard their own principles and values.