Researcher identifies ‘ambiguous rules’ as the most damaging misconduct factor
Defense contractor L3Harris Technologies said CEO Christopher Kubasik had agreed to resign without severance or other perks after an internal investigation determined he had violated the company’s code of conduct, according to a Wall Street Journal CEO Brief report by editor Lila MacLellan. The company said only that the alleged behavior would not affect its financial performance, business relationships or operations. L3Harris declined to respond to a request for further comment.
The exit drew attention beyond the usual interest in a multibillion-dollar CEO departure because the $52 billion defense contractor has been central to several recent U.S. government projects. L3Harris overhauled a Qatari plane now used as Air Force One, and under Kubasik’s leadership the company recently won a $1 billion U.S. government investment in a unit that supplies rocket motors.
The reason for the ouster has not been disclosed. That silence could itself be a problem, according to Guido Palazzo, a professor at Switzerland’s Université de Lausanne and co-author of the 2025 book “The Dark Pattern: The Hidden Dynamics of Corporate Scandals.” Palazzo’s research identifies nine factors — including perceived unfairness, a climate of fear and a rigid focus on profits — that combine to create environments for bad behavior. Of these, “ambiguous rules” stands out as playing an outsize role in misconduct cases, he said in an interview from Lausanne.
“For instance, you have a code of conduct, you do trainings about the code, but then people inside observe that…a salesperson breaking the rules or being highly successful is tolerated. Suddenly you realize, ‘Ah, there are two types of rules in the organization: the official ones and the informal ones,’” Palazzo said.
When a CEO bends the rules, he added, “that sends a devastating message to the people inside the organization because it shows that, well, if he can do that, I can do that.” Kubasik was previously ousted from Lockheed Martin in 2012, when he was about to become CEO, over what that company described as a “lengthy, close personal relationship” with a subordinate that violated Lockheed Martin’s code of conduct.
Palazzo said most companies miss the moment after a scandal to reset the culture that enabled the breach. “Your PR team and your legal team tell you ‘Don’t dig into these things — it’s not good for the company,’ so you silence all the debates,” he said. New leaders, he added, “are not paid for digging into the problems of yesterday. They are paid to look forward, to bring the company back on track.” When the new regime encourages employees to speak up in the future while banning discussion of what has happened, Palazzo said, “another ambiguous rule is born.”
“Companies need to create this safe space where people inside organizations can talk about what happened, and use it to learn,” Palazzo said. “If you don’t do that, nothing changes.”