Harvard Business Review regularly publishes case studies followed by contrasting opinions on how the executive in the case ought to deal with a touchy situation.
In my manager days, I used to read these regularly and marvel at how different wise men could draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts.
In this case, an apparent terrorist bombing, coordinated with another in the city, strikes a subway station across the street from a financial services company that trades in international currencies. The question: should the company open its lobby and cafeteria to emergency personnel dealing with the dead and wounded, or should it keep the doors locked and keep on trading?
As of today, all 26 commenters at the blog sided with community over company. Though they offered different suggestions, most agreed with this one:
What a sad world to ask this question at all, isn't it?
(I refrain even from discussing pro's and con's. If you are still undecided, just imagine yourself explaining to one of the bloodied victims, that he or she may search for shelter somewhere else: "You know, for the sake of our investors." You get the picture.)
What a sad editorial decision if HBR honestly couldn't predict the predictable one-sided responses from its business audience.