A Reflection of Our Learning

            Upon nearing the completion of this course in ethics, there are three key lessons that I will take away.  The first key lesson is the self-reflection of one’s ethical behavior.  We believe that our behaviors and/or actions are ethical but that is not always the case.  One must be able to reasonably defend his or her ethical stance.  For example, I am opposed to increased gun-control legislation (further limiting 2^nd Amendment rights), but I understand that my ethical argument in opposition may have flaws (or even be flat out wrong). 

            In taking a stance on an ethical issue, I must understand the ethical theories and how they correspond with my beliefs and values.  Furthermore, I must consider the facts, the situation, consequences, etc.  I do not live in a vacuum and apart from society, thus, my ethical decisions cannot be made in a vacuum.  I interact with other people and must face their ideas.  Boyatzis & McKee (2005) wrote that one must have the ‘Intellectual Courage’ to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints different from one’s own. 

            It seems to me that in today’s American culture, some people’s ethics are driven more by personal opinion/assumptions rather than facts or contextual relevant factors.  For example, consider the argument against guns, and most notably, the opinion that most deaths by gun are of violent crimes.  To illustrate a contextual relevant factor, according to a report published by the Pew Research Center, the majority of gun deaths are by suicide (Desilver, 2013).  So while opponents of gun ownership focus on crime, they disregard a relevant issue of mental/behavioral health problems. 

            The second key takeaway for me is that ethics can and must be taught.  One assumes that we (society) clearly understand the difference between right and wrong.  Yet, as discussed in the example above, “right” versus “wrong” may be a matter of opinion.  I would argue that the example above (gun control versus a constitutionally guaranteed freedom) is an argument of right versus right. 

            Building on the first takeaway (e.g. self-reflection), studies have shown that teaching ethics had an effect on people’s moral development, that is, their perception of self’s morals have changes (in addition to that of society) (Andre & Velasquez, 2014).  Thus, learning and understanding ethical theories and other relevant teachings will improve one’s ethical behavior.  It most certainly has improved mine.

            The last key takeaway is that ethics is necessary in leadership.  The general notion of leadership is providing purpose, direction, and motivation.  If one does the aforementioned things, then he or she will be successful in achieving his or her goals.  LaFollette (2007) wrote about the leadership goals and achievements of Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler; the former had morally good outcomes while the latter had immoral outcomes.  The difference is that Mother Theresa was guided by ethics and Hitler was not.  Hitler may have believed he was acting ethically but his ignorance may have stemmed from a lack of self-reflection and not understanding the morally relevant facts, situation, and consequences.    

            Ethical leadership is necessary because it trickles down.  If a leader is ethical, then it is likely that his or her followers also behave ethically.  This pertains to leaders in all aspects of business, religion, cultural, community, sports, etc.  The Center for Ethical Leadership wrote, “Ethical leadership is knowing your core values and having the courage to live them in all parts of your life in service of the common good.” Ethical leadership will provide the common good that we need in this world. 

            I perceive this course to have been very valuable to my moral and ethical growth as exemplified by the takeaways I have discussed above.  Moreover, I can and will become a better person – I will be a better husband, father, son, brother, friend, and member of society. 

References

Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (2014). Retrieved from Snata Clara University: https://legacy.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n1/taught.html

Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Center for Ethical Leadership. (n.d.). Retrieved from Center for Ethical Leadership: http://www.ethicalleadership.org/

Desilver, D. (2013, May 24). Retrieved from Pew Research Center: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Gun Control: What is the Answer?

    

            I believe that citizens have the right to bear arms.  I believe that I ought to have arms so that I can serve my self’s and self-interest.  I did not always think this way.  This opinion was formed in my own life experiences and witnessing the world around me.  It is a reality that there will be evil in some people’s hearts and they will act out that evil on others.  The proof of this “evil” is recorded throughout our human history.

            There are several arguments for the right to bear arms.  These arguments include that guns are a constitutionally guaranteed freedom (the 2^nd Amendment of the U.S. constitution), used to hunt animals (a form of self-subsistence), and used for self-defense.  The last of those statements is what is most important to me.

            One may ask, “Why do you need a means to ‘defend’ yourself when we already have laws, law enforcement, or government bodies that seek to protect our interests?”  I would argue that you could not absolutely depend on another person/entity to guarantee your freedom and/or safety.  The government protecting you is not a sure thing.  After all, tyranny has happened in our country and other countries and it is foolish to believe that it could never happen again.

            I have witnessed the oppression of vulnerable people firsthand during my combat deployments.  It was at this time did I realize that bad guys with guns could only be stopped by good guys with guns.  To relate this to the context of the individual, I will recall a time when I was traveling cross-country with my pregnant wife (for a military PCS move).  We had rested one late night at an interstate rest area.  A group of three men approached me demanding money.  I informed them that I was concealed carrying a gun and it de-escalated the situation (albeit, I recognize that the opposite could have happened as well). 

            One may ask, “What if we eradicate all guns, wouldn’t that end gun violence?”  Lafollette (2007) wrote that this “scale” of gun control slides from ‘no abolition’, ‘moderate abolition’, and ‘absolute abolition’.  I would argue these two parts.  First, it is not possible to eliminate all guns; someone, somewhere will manufacture guns and those that want guns will find a way to get them.  (Consider the American prohibition of alcohol or the continuing ‘war on drugs’.)  Second, I would agree that gun control could possibly reduce or end gun violence but it does not reduce violence.  Guns or not, evil humans will commit harm on another.  Interestingly, as guns have steadily increased in America by about 10 million per year, gun homicide has decreased 49% since 1993 (Cleveland State University, 2013; Chon, et al., 2013).

            LaFollette (2007) wrote arguments to counter my claim – although guns themselves do not cause harm, they were invented specifically to cause harm and thus are inherently dangerous to society.  He further noted empirical evidence showing a positive correlation (to a .01 level) between gun prevalence and an overall murder rate.  The question remained: Does eliminating guns eliminate murder?

            The U.S. FBI reported that for 2015, there were an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015).  Of those violent crimes, “Firearms were used in 71.5 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.8 percent of robberies, and 24.2 percent of aggravated assaults” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015).  While these statistics show that guns are used in violent crime, it also shows they are not used in all violent crime.  Jacob Davidson, director of Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University School of Law, and a professor of constitutional law noted that two-thirds of gun deaths are suicide.

            Furthermore, along the lines above, one may make claim that increased gun control through legislation (i.e. even more stringent background checks, limiting the types of firearms, etc.) would reduce the ability for bad people to get guns or those guns that cause mass deaths.  Here is my issue with this statement – it assumes that everyone follows the rule of law, through either personal morals or consequences.  I hold the belief that laws only work on those who are willing to abide by them. 

            I concede that guns are dangerous.  I concede that people will use guns to commit violent crimes.  I concede that a significant portion of murders are committed with guns.  Yet, I still believe that gun themselves are not the root problem with violence.  If we are to find solutions to reduce gun violence, then we must first consider what is causing people to commit violent crimes.  It is not merely a “gun problem”, it a morality problem.

References

Cleveland State University. (2013, April 1). Retrieved from Engaged Scholarship@CSU: http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1679&context=urban_facpub

Cohn, D., Taylor, P., Lopez, M., Gallagher, C., Parker, K., & Maass, K. (2013, May). Retrieved from www.pewsocialtrends.org: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Davidson, J. (2015, 01 December). Retrieved from Time: http://time.com/4100408/a-criminologists-case-against-gun-control/

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Retrieved from ucr.fbi.gov: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/home

Ethics and Behaviors

            An interesting quote caught my attention at the beginning of the video, the speaker said, “You have made a terrible mistake, but you are not a mistake” (Gallagher, 2013).  Chuck Gallagher was speaking in the context of ethics – ethics was more than just being compliant to rules, it was deliberate decision-making using morals; and yet sometimes, one makes the wrong decision.  The ethical person is one who can recognize that he or she made a mistake and will not do it again.  Gallagher understood this firsthand as he went to prison for making unethical (and illegal) decisions.

            It reminded me of a quote by someone many people, including myself, consider a great military leader – General Stanley McChrystal.  Gen. McChrystal once said during a speech on leadership, “Leaders can let you fail and yet not let you be a failure” (TED, 2011).  Great organizations are those that empower their people – the leaders understand that mistakes and/or failures will occur.  Admonishing followers for making mistakes will stifle their initiative and creativity as well as creating distrust in the leader.  

            Great organizations are also deeply rooted in principles.  Gen. McChrystal also mentioned a line from the U.S. Army’s ‘Soldier’s Creed’ that reads, “I will never leave a fallen comrade” (TED, 2011).  This stanza of the ‘Army Values’ was something that we (soldiers) believed in our hearts.  “I will never leave a fallen comrade” was more than a code prescribing what we ought to do; it was a promise, even at the risk of our own life.  If you had ever asked a soldier why he or she would do this for their comrade, he or she would most likely reply “because they would do it for me”. 

            I witnessed this promise on more than one occasion during my time in service.  I recall a situation during a combat deployment when I had heard the term “Fallen Angel” called over the radios.  Fallen Angel was the term used when a U.S. aircraft had crashed.  From that moment on, it had become everybody’s duty to secure the crash site and rescue the survivors (if any).  This was especially significant to me because I too was serving as an aircrew member on a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter.  While also serving as an Air MEDEVAC crewmember, it was understood that we would risk all, “So that others may live”.

            This is what I found fascinating about how the Army portrayed its values.  The Army instilled a culture of self-sacrifice.  However, it would seem that this mindset would be at odds with our natural tendencies for egoism, that is, to further one’s self-interests (LaFollette, 2007).  It was paradoxical, to “Be all you can be” also meant giving fully to others.  Furthermore, the Army urged each soldier to embody its values of leadership, duty, respect, selfless-service, honor, integrity, and personal courage (aptly given the acronym LDRSHIP).  The Army values were not supposed to be some normative description of how we ought to be – it was who we were.

            However, this is not to say that all leaders (or soldiers) in the Army were of the highest moral and ethical caliber.  Mistakes and sins were committed.  I committed some myself.  For instance, I came in at a time when the hazing of subordinates was a norm.  The hazing was conducted to those as a right of initiation, whether it is joining the organization, the Non-Commissioned Officer ranks, or some other group.  I was hazed and later perpetuated the behavior when I was a junior leader.  When I began to mature, I realized that hazing was more about exercising power and control over another.  While some of those who were hazed had no issue with it, others would harbor resentment and distrust in leadership.

            This was an example of leaders (like myself) making mistakes, learning from them, and committing to doing better.  Values are important in the Army.  So much so that a leader’s values are evaluated on Army personal performance reports i.e. Officer Evaluation Report (OER) and Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER).  The ‘Values’ section of the reports precedes every other section e.g. competence, leadership, accountability, etc.  This reinforced the notion that values and/or ethics was the foundation that guided behavior and actions.  Moreover, it was clear that values were not just an Army thing; values are the fabric of who we are.

References

Chuck Gallagher. (2013, January 27). Business Ethics Keynote Speaker - Chuck Gallagher - shares             Straight Talk about Ethics! [Video File]. Retrieved from         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE .

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

TED. (2011, April 06). Stanley McChrystal: Listen, learn ... then lead. [Video File]. Retrieved from             https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmpIMt95ndU .

What are Virtues?

Virtues

            It is stated that a “virtue is a moral habit” that enables one to achieve his or her values (Landauer & Rowlands, 2001).  My values are those that I strive to attain based on my notions of morals and ethics.  After reading Benjamin Franklin’s 13 virtues, I considered the virtues that I strongly believe I possess; the virtues of resolution and industry.  The first, resolution, as Franklin had defined is to “perform without fail what you resolve” (Public Broadcasting Service, n.d.).  Synonyms for resolution are purpose, determination and perseverance.  I believe the aforementioned traits summize how I have lived my life. 

            The second virtue that I strongly believe I possess is ‘industry’.  Benjamin Franklin described ‘industry’ as that in which one loses no time (Public Broadcasting Service, n.d.).  He further added, “Be always employed in something useful.  Cut off all unnecessary actions” (Public Broadcasting Service, n.d.).  I always tell myself to be “productive”.  I always tell my kids to be productive (much to their annoyance).  However, I did not always think this way.  I had experienced a significant event, when I had lost a friend in combat, that I realized the frailty and impermanence of life.  Thus, I am constantly compelled to achieve something, no matter big or small. 

            The virtues I mentioned above are demonstrated in the following examples in my life.  I am currently pursuing a Master’s degree and train/compete in martial arts.  Both of these endeavors are nothing that I have to/am required to do.  I want to do them.  I choose not to be timid with opportunity and to have no regret with an unfulfilled life.

            Yet, I understand that possessing a few virtues does not make me a virtuous person. Franklin wrote of at least 13 virtues that one ought to have to be a person of good character (Public Broadcasting Service, n.d.).  I wrote that I strongly believe I possess the virtues of resolution and industry.  I feel the same with the virtues of order and cleanliness.  However, after taking the virtue quiz, I learned that there are some virtues that I need to improve upon and include in my daily life – the virtues of sincerity and tranquility.   

            To have sincerity is to “think innocently and justly” (Public Broadcasting Service, n.d.).  I believe this relates to how I judge people.  I discussed in this course’s current Module about my biases towards others.  I admitted that I am not free of bias – I judge others against my standard of “truths” i.e. how one should behave and/or act.  However, it is asserted that the “truth” can only be recognized through things such as context, perspective, empathy, and self-reflection to name a few (LaFollette, 2007).  In order to develop sincerity in my daily life, I must reflect upon my assumptions, misconceptions, and/or prejudices towards others and get to know the other person. 

            Another virtue that I seemed to fall short on is tranquility.  A person who is tranquil is “not disturbed at trifles or at accidents common or unavoidable” (Public Broadcasting Service, n.d.).  The quiz results declared to not sweat the small stuff.  Developing this virtue will most definitely be a challenge to me.  Many of my professional and educational experiences and teaching have conditioned me to pay attention to detail.  However, I do recognize that not every detail is important and in the context of life, I ought to pay more attention to the things that really matter.  From another perspective, tranquility can also mean finding personal peace.  The Dalai Lama XIV once said, “Only the development of compassion and understanding for others can bring us the tranquility and happiness we all seek” (Good Reads, n.d.).

References

Good Reads. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.goodreads.com: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/tranquility

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Landauer, J., & Rowlands, J. (2001). Retrieved from www.importanceofphilosophy.com: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Virtue.html

McKee, A., Boyatzis, R., & Johnston, F. (2008). Becoming a resonant leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Public Broadcasting Service. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.pbs.org: http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html

Is marketing evil?

            I have learned in this course’s teachings that the role of ethics is significant in business.  Organizations and their employees face daily challenges between doing the right thing and making money.  Marketing is but one tool that many businesses use to reach out to customers, and it can be exploited for good or bad.  The question that this blog seeks to answer is, “Is marketing evil?”  Although I am not a marketer nor have I worked in a marketing environment, I can provide a perspective on marketing from the viewpoints of a leader and customer. 

            I believe that ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers.  That being said, I believe the difference will be determined by the leadership and organizational culture in regards to ethics.  It is not enough to simply have ethical guidelines i.e. code of ethics or programs – ethics cannot be a “check the block” requirement.  Leaders must cultivate or reinforce one’s personal ethical behavior.  Many times in my Army career, the unit pushed Equal Opportunity, Sexual Harassment/Assault Prevention, Consideration of Others, and other ethical training.  The prevailing assertion made by the instructors was “Now that you know what’s right, don’t f**k up!”  Ideally, employees behave ethically because there is a sense that the organization’s purpose is governed by principles.

            I was taught by my mentors to “choose the hard right over the easy wrong”.  However, I have learned through my own experiences and witnessing the experiences of others that that adage is far easier said than done.  One’s personal morals/ethics will undoubtedly be tested at some point in his or her career, whether it be by his or her co-workers, customers, or boss.  Imagine a situation where one was faced with reporting information to the boss, and telling him or her what they wanted to hear rather than the truth?  Thus, in addition to organizational ethics, a marketer ought to have strong personal ethics.  They may encounter marketing situations where being unethical is just as rewarding as being ethical.

            Thus, companies must balance the need to win with being ethical.  Being ethical in business is a challenge for the individual and/or organization.  Milton Friedman, the famous economist and Nobel laureate, theorized that the purpose of business is “profit maximization”.  Many organizations and their employees understand that ‘”winning” usually means making money.  Yet, organizations and employees ought to understand that there must also be a degree of corporate and social responsibility.  For instance, a marketer should not make a false claim for the sake of sales.  Consider Volkswagen’s emission scandal where the company cheated on automobile emissions tests to help push its U.S. marketing campaign for low emission diesel cars (Hotten, 2015).  Ironically, in the company’s attempt to make profit, the leadership’s unethical decisions consequently led to loss of nearly $2 billion (Hotten, 2015). 

            Yet, profit maximization can be achieved while still being ethical.  When an organization practices corporate and social responsibility, it considers the needs of stakeholders, the public, and the environment.  Friedman also noted that “profit maximization” is socially responsible “…so long as it (the firm) stays within the rules of the game” (Friedman, 2003, p. 133).  In the context of this discussion, the “rules” are the ethical guidelines.

            However, in areas such as marketing, the rules can be grey.  Consider the tactic of behavioral marketing.  It is a tactic that firms use to track your buying habits or web visits to target you for marketing purposes (Deschene, 2008).  The purpose of behavioral targeting is to help marketers get sales leads (Deschene, 2008).  I am familiar with this marketing tactic as I have experienced it many times.  For instance, when I shop on Amazon, the site “offers” me products that I may be interested in based on my history of purchases or searches.  In this instance, I see it as a helpful tool and consider it an ethical practice.

            However, I recognize that behavioral targeting can also have negative ethical implications.  First, I assume that most people, including myself, don’t like unsolicited advice.  (This reminded me of a humorous saying I heard in the Army, “If I wanted your opinion, I’d give it to you!”).  People do not like the feeling of being manipulated.  Moreover, people do not want to be watched, monitored, tracked, etc. without their consent or knowing, even if the intent is for “good” - consider the controversy of government wiretapping in the war against terrorism.  Thus, depending on the scope or intent of behavioral targeting, and the person’s perspective, the tactic can be either ethical or unethical. 

            Leadership in marketing is as important as in any other business function.  As a leader, I would manage the ethical aspects of my marketing efforts by focusing on the marketers themselves.  As I wrote above, I believe that an organization’s ethical guidelines will be ineffective if the individual persons do not have a strong moral center.  Thus, I would develop interpersonal relationships and a workplace culture that reinforced the value of ethics. 

            In addition, I would also provide my followers with formal “rules” to govern ethics as well.  My code of ethics would highlight integrity, honesty, respect, and duty to name a few.  Ferell (n.d.) suggested developing an ethical-decision making framework that considered stakeholders, individual perspectives, organizational culture, and opportunity.  These of course, are small steps towards developing true and lasting ethical behavior.  However, I believe that if you take care of the small things, the big things will take care of themselves.

References

Deschene, L. (2008, May 1). Retrieved from www.cbsnews.com: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-behavioral-targeting/

Ferrel, L. (n.d.). Marketing Ethics.

Friedman, M. (2003). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hotten, R. (2015, December 10). Retrieved from BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

              Discussions about race are always difficult.  Although we all try to be objective about our judgments, we are ultimately swayed by our personal beliefs and experiences.  Yet, I sincerely make a best effort to critically think about the issue at hand.  I consider others’ perspectives and orientations, my own assumptions, facts, and implications and consequences (of my behavior).  That being said, I still stand by my beliefs but also recognize that another’s viewpoint carries equal merit.    

            First, I will discuss the conditions for the requirement of an affirmative action program.  In general, employers are not required to have a formal affirmative action program (Society for Human Resource Management, 2015).  This is because protection against employer discrimination is already covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.).  Title VII prohibits discrimination because of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). 

            An affirmative action program is required for an employer when a) as a condition of doing business with the federal government, or b) a court ordered solution to remedy discrimination practices (Society for Human Resource Management, 2015). 

            The arguments I will pose are only to highlight certain instances in which I believe affirmative action to be unethical, however, I am not saying that the concept of affirmative action on the whole is unethical.  I understand that it is meant to do good. 

            I believe affirmative action to be unethical.  If I could boil my reason down to its simplest form, my argument in based on my perspective of equity versus equality.  In the context of this discussion, affirmative action is a process to ensure equity – that those who are disadvantaged are given an advantage so that the “playing field” is equal.  On the other hand, equality ensures that everyone gets the same treatment.    

            I believe affirmative action to be unethical for the following two reasons. (Although there are many different arguments to be made, I chose two for brevity).  First, I believe affirmative action to be unethical as a tool use for recompense.  Should one be punished for the sins of his or her ancestors?  It is argued that affirmative action is needed because African-Americans have been subjected to systematic and institutional racism (LaFollette, 2007).  In short, affirmative action is justified because of past discrimination.  (I noted above that affirmative action is also used for employers caught in current discrimination practices.)

            The consequence of affirmative action is that someone “pays the price” for that restitution even when he or she is innocent, non-involved, or ignorant to past wrong doings.  If we follow this notion, should not the entirety of present-day German citizens continue to provide restitution to Jewish people (who are not holocaust victims)?  LaFollete (2007) argued yes – although someone may not have directly benefited from something his or her ancestors/race did, it undoubtedly gave him or her an advantage in his or her life prospects.   

            Second, I believe affirmative action to be unethical because its disadvantages an otherwise fully qualified candidate based on his or her race (see the irony?).  For instance, if a white and black male both applied for a job, and the employer sought to meet a federally scripted "placement goal" of African-American employees, then the black male would be hired.  Considering that both males were equally qualified, then white male was not hired strictly based on his race.

            Moreover, I believe it takes away the merit and dignity of work.  If the white male is objectively more qualified (i.e. more education, skills, experience, etc.) than the black male, the black male would still be hired.  Title VII does not require an employer to hire (or promote) an unqualified person (Society for Human Resource Management, 2015).  However, it can lead to the indirect effect of the lesser qualified candidate being selected because he is black.  Is it ethical to reward one (over another) without merit?

            Holzer & Nuemark (1996) conducted a study to determine if affirmative action resulted in the hire of less qualified candidates.  The results, based on a sample of 3,200 employers found that there were some evidence indicating lower educational qualifications among blacks and Hispanics hired (opposed to white counterparts) (Holzer & Neumark, 1996).  However, it is also important to note that there was little evidence of substantially weaker job performance of the affirmative action hires (Holzer & Neumark, 1996).

            I have no personal experiences with affirmative action although it is meant to include all minorities.  I am indifferent to it.  On the one hand, I am not white (with no perceived or real advantages).  On the other hand, I am not black (with no perceived or real disadvantages).  Moreover, I am not a female (obviously).  I am Asian – a first-generation born Filipino-American born to immigrant parents, who grew up in a modest income home.  Yet, here I am today – a professional pursuing an MBA.  I cannot say if institutional norms helped or hurt me.  But I can say that given an equal chance, I was able to succeed.

References

Holzer, H., & Neumark, D. (1996). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economics: http://www.nber.org/papers/w5603

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2015, November 9). Retrieved from Society for Human Resource Management: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/whenisanaapneeded.aspx

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.eeoc.gov: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

            

The harder they fall

            In his article, Roderick Kramer wrote why leaders fall (Kramer, 2003).  He wrote that when a leader has fallen from grace, it is resultant of several common things.  Those things, as I perceived them, related to one losing his or her ethical ways – he or she no longer followed the bearing on their moral compass. 

            For instance, Kramer (2003) wrote that a leader’s ‘fall from grace’ was often a consequence of one’s “winner wants all” mentality (p. 60).  With such a mentality, it was easy for the leader to lose introspection.  It was asserted that with a “winner wants all” mentality, one may “perceive…introspection (as) antithetical to success” (Kramer, 2003, p. 60).  I believe that this is akin to an “ends justify the means” mentality”.  In the context of ethics, a consequentialist may not see something wrong with a “winner wants all” mentality – the risks, the moral missteps, etc. are worth it so long as the envisioned outcome is perceived as the best outcome.  Yet, the problem here is the lack of introspection; one has failed (or fails to) to examine and/or assess his or her moral/ethical behavior and actions. 

            For example, when climbing the ladder of success, a leader may encounter the ethical dilemma of stepping on other people.  Yet, doing this violates an important precept, the Golden Rule (LaFollette, 2007).  The Golden Rule is that universal moral notion that we ought not to harm others, or alternatively, do unto them as we would expect in return (LaFollete, 2007; Putnam, 2006).  Although I did not step on other people to find success at work, I recognized that my past actions had indirectly harmed others.       

            Early in my military career as young leader, I was very focused on mission accomplishment.  I wanted recognition as the leader that gets things done.  To achieve this I pushed my followers hard and had little tolerance for failure or excuses.  Moreover, I became dissonant.  I became socially and emotionally distant from my followers and was not necessarily concerned about their personal lives.  I lacked compassion.  This was a result of focusing on winning (the ends) while dismissing the means.  Kramer (2003) called this the “sins of omission” where one fails to monitor his or her environment and paying less attention to others around them (p. 63).  Contrary to dissonance is resonant leadership, where one has mindfulness, hope, and compassion (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005).  This is now what I strive to be. 

            The “winner wants all” mentality is also pervasive in our American culture (consider political ideologies).  There is (and has been) ideological and ethical conflicts between so-called liberals and conservative on issues that include, but not limited to, abortion, welfare, death penalty, etc. where each side resists compromise.  There is irony in this – the claim from both sides is that the other is intolerant, and yet not recognizing the fallacy of their arguments.  Yet, in the face of this I believe that I carry moderation on these issues and use intellectual courage (or at least try to) in considering others’ beliefs.

            However, Kramer (2003) offered some advice to avoid the previously mentioned moral and ethical pitfalls.  First, keep it simple (p. 60).  I realized that my life had so much more value when I considered what was really important to me – faith, family/friends, and self (personal improvement).  Second, have a reality check, often (p. 60).  I must know and understand the basis of my moral/ethical assumptions.  Are they guided by principles and sound ethical theories or am I affected by ever-changing social norms?  As a person (and leader), I must assess and know who I really am versus who I want (or ought) to be.  Thus, Kramer claims, one must be introspective and understanding his or her strengths and shortcomings.

References

Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Kramer, R. (2003). The harder they fall. Harvard Business Review, 58-66.

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Putnam, M. (2006). Retrieved from www.globalethicsuniversity.com: http://www.globalethicsuniversity.com/articles/thegoldenrule.htm