A632.1.4-Multi-stage Decision-making- Trey McNeil

Before I began this class, if asked if I made good decisions, I would have said that I make fairly sound decisions. I attempt not to make decisions suddenly and think about each option. I try to prepare research for large or unfamiliar decisions. I believe I use logistics when making decisions in order to produce the best outcome. But less than a week into the class, I realized that I do not always make the best decisions. I would not consider myself a horrible decision maker, but the writings of Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther (2001) have made me realize that there are steps that can be taken which may result in a more successful choice. After reflecting on my decisions, I determined that a multistage decision-making process will be helpful in any future decisions. I have a tendency to sometimes make decisions based on the present and occasionally misinterpret future consequences when making choices.

I consider myself a preparer when making decisions as I think about various options when trying to make short term decisions. While doing school work, I attempt to mark out any future occurrences that may hinder my educational progress. One thing I dislike to the extreme is being rushed, so I make my decisions to do my schoolwork based on the idea of not being hasty and making sure everything is turned in promptly. I follow the same routine for work. I make a decision to complete any reports that must be delivered to the State of Florida on time and attempt to track any roadblocks. So, I make good multistage decisions, right? Well not exactly. These decisions are not long term or complex multistage decisions. According to Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gamble (2001), an effective method to making multi-stage decisions is known as dynamic programming which “exploits the idea that even though a decision problem may involve a large number of stages…one need not enumerate and take expectancies of all possible contingent future realizations to arrive at an optimum decision policy” (p. 42). So if not all stages and options need to be taken into account while making a decision, what is the best method? Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gamble (2001) offered a solution called backward induction or looking at the final product starting in the infancy of the decision-making process. Nosich (2012) argued that conclusions and interpretations must be considered in critical thinking, which follows the same lines as backward inclusion.

This is one area in which I sometimes fail while making complex long-term decisions. One example I can think is saving for retirement. As an accountant who has a B.S. in Banking and Finance, I know the positives that will come from starting early in saving for retirement. I do not need the Charles Schwab commercials reminding me to talk to Chuck to tell me how important that decision would be. But, I have not made the decision to make a plan and continue to invest monthly. I have not decided to pick a retirement fund, determine the volatility that I would like to be exposed to, or determined the amount of money I would like to contribute yearly in order to be comfortable when I decide to hang up my calculator.

According to Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gamble (2001), dynamic programming consists of two fundamental assumptions including (a) complete forward planning and (b) optimal learning. In regards to forward planning, I know that I could one day be injured and not be able to work, may eventually change jobs, in turn, losing my great retirement benefits, or that social security may be cut hindering a portion of my retirement, but I still do not make a choice to begin saving for retirement. Optimal learning suggests that decision makers should look to the past to make future decisions. This is one area that thwarts my decision to save for retirement. I have not made the choice to retire, therefore have no post experiences. Planning for retirement is one choice where I could definitely benefit in the advice, formulas, and applications offered by Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gamble (2001). Making the decision to utilize backward inclusion could have a great impact in the planning of my retirement. If I were to be able to determine a final product (or amount) and begin working toward that product in the infancy of the plan then I could see success.

Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gamble (2001) also discussed how heuristics (using experiences) could help us to make multi-stage decisions. Experience is one factor that I do use to help make decisions and it is not always my personal experiences that drive my decisions. When we first moved to Florida, my girlfriend sold Aflac for a short time period. She came home one day and told me about an individual who once had cancer coverage and not long after they canceled the coverage they were diagnosed with a form of cancer. The individual was explaining that the bills were going to be astronomical. According to Elkins (2015), the average cost of chemotherapy alone is approximately $102,000 per year. After a discussion, we both decided that we will never be as young or healthy as we are that day and signed up for cancer policies. I have been fortunate not to have to file any claims under this policy, but feel comfortable with the decision to create a safety net just in case. In this example, I utilized optimal dynamic decision analysis, backward induction, and heuristics to make this decision. If I were ever to, unfortunately, file a claim then I would have help to cover the medical bills and if I am fortunate enough to never have to file a claim then I still have the feeling of comfort. I saw the possible final product and made the decision to develop a plan to help soften the blow in that ill-fated event.

I believe the ideas offered by Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gamble (2001) could offer an improvement in the success of my future decisions. I must now make sure the ideas and concepts are utilized in my future decisions.

References

Elkins, C. (2015, October 07). How much cancer costs. Retrieved from https://www.drugwatch.com/2015/10/07/cost-of-cancer/

Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: a guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (4^th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson 

A634.9.4.RB- Reflections of our learning- Trey McNeil

Before I began the class, I was both excited and nervous about the contents we would explore. I was excited because I had heard great reviews of the class and looked forward to deciding what to do in the train dilemma. I was also a bit hesitant, because, though I feel like I am an ethical person, I hoped I did not find out I was incorrect in my assumptions.  The first thing I learned was that I possessed an incorrect view of ethics. I believed that ethics involved doing the right thing and that everyone should live by a resembling ethical code. But as LaFollette (2007) stated, ethics is not the same for every individual and it would be foolish to believe that everyone should live by the same moral and ethical code. Just as people differ, the ethics they should live by also differs. Though I learned many different ideas over the last nine weeks, I will discuss three key lessons that I will take away from the course.

The first key concept came very early in the class in our review of consequentialism and deontology. As I mentioned, I was incorrect in my idea of ethics and was unaware that two ethical points of view existed. LaFollette (2007) stated that deontologists live by a specific set of ethical rules and do not deviate based on the circumstance. Consequentialists base their ethical actions on the consequences created by their actions. As I learned more about the two views of ethics, I realized that I tended to waffle in my ethical view. I began to think that I resemble a person at the buffet going back and forth between the two views based on my need.  I once held the deontologist’s belief that it was unethical to lie no matter the circumstance. But, if my mom asks me if I like the shirt she bought me for Christmas then the answer is 'absolutely'! It does not matter how I really feel about the shirt. At that point, the consequentialist in me wins because I would never intentionally want to hurt her feelings. It would be unethical for me to deliberately hurt her feelings.

The second key concept I learned in this class was that I had a jaded view of egoism. I believed egoism was a bad thing and should be avoided.  According to Dictionary.com (n.d.) egoism is “the habit of valuing everything in reference to one’s personal interest; selfishness” (n.p.). Nobody likes a person who only thinks about themselves. I pictured the guy at a dinner party only talking about himself or how great his kids were. Everything had to revolve around him. But, LaFollette (2007) changed my view of egoism. LaFollette (2007) argued that everything we do is based around self-interests. My first reaction to reading his thoughts was that he was wrong. There are many things I do not particularly want to do. As a non-drinker, did I really want to always be the designated driver with the tasks of making sure everyone got home safe when I was younger? The answer is a resounding no! But, there was a bit of egoism to my actions. I would not have been able to live with the consequences of someone making a fatal mistake.  I realize that all of my actions do center on egoism and must make sure I remain moral and ethical throughout my egotistical behavior.

The final key concept I learned in this class was relativism. Probably the most eye-opening idea in the course was normative ethical relativism. According to Pecorino (2000), normative ethical relativism states “Each culture establishes the basic values and principles that serve as the foundation for morality” (para. 6). Over the last couple of years, I have begun to see myself as a pretty open-minded person. I believe in equal rights and treatment for all individuals, but I still had actions that I thought were immoral and unethical no matter the circumstance. One of the ideas I did not believe in was murder unless it was to save a life. I am sure the majority of the United States would share my opinion. Our culture labels murder as an unethical and illegal action. According to Pecorino (2000), not all cultures share our belief. Countries such as Somalia and Sudan believe in honor killings in which a woman who has been raped is killed and China believes in killing female children (Pecorino, 2000). At first, these two scenarios were appalling to me. How can anyone believe that murder is ethically okay? But then I thought about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes and realized that cultural ethical differences do exist and should be accepted. My supervisor is from the Lebanon and believes it is unethical to eat beef, but it is perfectly okay in America. What is considered ethical in one culture or by one individual is may not be considered ethical by another individual and that is okay.

The biggest lesson I have taken from this class is that ethics can change from situation to situation. A person that is acting morally should try to do what is best for others and society in each given scenario. It may be demanding, but we should attempt to continue to look out for one another.

References

Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Egoism. Retrieved from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/egoism

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

Pecorino, P.A. (2000). Relativism. Retrieved from http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Relativism.htm

A634.8.3.RB-Gun Control : What is the answer- Trey Mcneil

Gun control has been a hot-button topic in our country for a lengthy period of time. Should private citizens have the right to have own a gun? If so, should there be regulations on what type of guns they should be allowed to own? Should the government just stay out of our personal business and let us live by the constitution? There are polar opposite views regarding this question and this topic would probably be one to stay from at your next dinner party if two opposing views are in attendance.

LaFollette (2007) stated that, though most people do not realize, there are many different views regarding gun control. Not all people solely support or adamantly oppose gun control. An individual could also hold an opinion that is a mixture of the two views. According to LaFollette (2007), a moving scale exists for both the degree of abolition and the degree of restriction an individual feels toward guns. Some people may feel there should be no restrictions and no abolition where others may feel that there should be moderate restrictions and moderate abolition.  My opinion lies in moderate abolition and moderate restrictions.

Growing up in Mississippi, I was exposed to guns at a very young age. Though I was never a good shot, my grandfather began teaching me to shoot while I was in elementary school. As a child, I had a very neutral feeling toward guns. I knew they were used for hunting and could be very dangerous, but we were taught gun safety, so I should just be careful. Two instances occurred that changed my view on gun control and the right to bear arms. The first event that began to shape my opinion occurred while I was in high school and the second event, which cemented my opinion, occurred last summer.

In April of 1999 when two students went into Columbine High School in Colorado killing 13 people and injuring much more, this event shocked everyone in the country and hit hard at my high school. These were kids our age and the lives of the individuals who were lucky enough to escape with their lives were changed forever. This event made me begin to think that some sort of restrictions should be placed on the guns that individuals are allowed to purchase. The suspects in the shooting obtained two semi-automatic weapons to assist in their plan. According to Obmascik, Robinson, and Olinger (2009), the weapons were purchased by one of the suspect’s girlfriends at The Tanner Gun Show. Why was this allowed? Why would an eighteen-year-old girl need two high powered weapons? In my opinion, there is no good reason for her to need two guns of that caliber.

I currently live in a small beach town in Florida that is about 50 miles from Orlando. After the events that occurred last June at Pulse nightclub that cost 49 men and women their lives, my disdain for high-powered weapons grew even stronger. This event rocked our community to its core. According to Daily and Harris (2016), the shooter purchased an assault rifle and Glock from his neighborhood gun shop, which is a federally licensed firearm dealer, on back to back days. The second purchase required the dealer to run the shooters name against the Terror Screening database, but unfortunately, the shooter’s name was removed in 2014, so the sales were approved. Once, again there was no reason for this individual to be able to walk into the local firearm dealer and buy two high-powered weapons within the same week.

I understand that motive, and possibly mental health, played a large role in these unthinkable scenarios and the individuals may have gone about their plan even without the weapons. But, I do not anyone would argue against the damage being limited if the assault weapons were not so readily available. Maybe I have a dislike for the system along with the weapons, but I believe that restrictions should exist when it comes to the firearms a private citizen should be allowed to own. Assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons should only belong to the military. The danger in citizens owning weapons of this caliber has repeatedly reared its ugly head.

Most people that stand behind the right to bear arms have two arguments including (a) the second amendment and (2) the fact that guns do not kill people- people do. I am one who would never want to change the Constitution. I wholeheartedly believe in the right to bear some arms, but also think that when our forefathers built this country they did not envision guns that could shoot hundreds of bullets in a matter of seconds. I once saw a parody poking fun of the second amendment and what our forefathers may have been thinking when it was created. It showed an individual dressed in colonial attire come into a crowded club with a gun from that time period. He then fires one shot and misses. When he begins to reload he is tackled to the ground and disarmed. I would argue that if the creators of the Constitution could have seen the future then they would have created boundaries to the second amendment. Also, when the second amendment was created, guns were much more needed. First, a fight for our independence was taking place in our country. Most men, and some children, were involved in the war so a gun was a priority. Also, hunting to survive was much more prevalent. Firearms were used as a survival tool in the late 1700’s.

I understand that a gun is not a living being and does not have a decision to be fired. As LaFollette (2007) stated, “No gun control advocate claims, hints, or suggests that guns are moral agents” (p. 183). It is understood that the gun is not the being that decides to create harm, but the harm could be limited if some guns were not available to citizens. The fact the guns are not moral agents does not take away from the fact that they are dangerous and certain guns should be restricted.

I make this argument not ‘come after all of the guns’, which is the response I have received from some individuals while having this discussion. I think guns used for personal protection and hunting are needed. I own a gun and have it in my closet. It is a single round shotgun and I own it solely for protection. The only function it serves is to give me and my girlfriend a better chance at survival if someone decides to break in our home. I do not want to abolish guns completely because I would lose my protection. I only argue that high-powered and automatic weapons serve no right being in the hands of private citizens. There is also no need for Kevlar piercing bullets. According to BBC (2015), over 50 US senators argued against a proposed ban on Kevlar piercing bullets citing it was an opposition to the second amendment. The ban was never put into place, so the bullets are still available in the US. The only function of a Kevlar piercing bullet is to kill the individual wearing the vest. I understand the bullets fall under the second amendment, but, I do not see how a person on either side of the debate can argue this scenario is ethical.

References

BBC. (2015). US agency drops efforts to ban armour-piercing bullets. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31827249

Daly, M., & Harris, S. (2016). How the Orlando Killer Omar Mateen got his guns. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/13/how-the-orlando-killer-omar-mateen-got-his-guns.html

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Obmascik, M., Robinson, M., & Olinger, D. (1999). Oficials say girfreind bought guns. Retrieved from http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0427a.htm

A634.7.4.RB-Ethics and Behavior

Being ethical and portraying our values is something that we should not only strive to do in our personal lives, but also in our professional lives. A company that does not have an ethical code could quickly become a former company. On a large scale, look at Enron and Worldcom. Unethical actions started to spread through the company like wildfire eventually leading to costly outcomes for the companies. So, how do companies avoid unethical behaviors and what behaviors are considered unethical?

 I had the pleasure of viewing two brief but powerful videos relating to ethics this week. The first video featured Bruce Weinstein aka the ethics guy. Weinstein focused on the importance of ethical intelligence. According to Weinstein (2012), emotional intelligence is not only knowing the right thing to do but also having the courage to do the right thing. One topic that every office or organization must deal with is sickness. If you wake up one morning and are very sick what do you do? Weinstein (2012) questioned the audience about going to work with the flu. Though most of us know that the right thing to do is stay home to not get others sick, we still may go to work with the flu. I tend to do this sometimes. I do not go to work sick to be unethical, but an argument could be made that I am being unethical by going to work.  

Dr. Weinstein (2007) stated five principles to living an ethical life including be compassionate, make things better, respect others, be fair, and do no harm. Though I believe that these principles are important to an ethical life, I tend not to commit to each of them at all times. I must strive to be better about living by Dr. Weinstein’s principles. The final thing I found interesting about Dr. Weinstein’s (2012) video was when he asked two people who felt unappreciated to come on stage. He had the audience give them a standing ovation and the demeanor of not only the two individuals, but the entire room changed, proving that doing the ethical thing is good because it is the right thing to do and because it will make you and others feel better.

The second video featured Chuck Gallagher, who had an interesting approach to ethics. He began his speech in an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs, which I thought was very eye opening and direct. LaFollette (2007) discussed slippery slopes and how they could lead to unethical actions. Gallagher (2013) agreed with this concept and argued that an act that seems innocent and possibly ethical could lead to something that is not only unethical, but illegal. Gallagher (2013) gave three examples of actions that some of us may do at work that may not seem unethical including overselling a customer a product they do not necessarily need, utilizing company resources for personal use, and being dishonest with expense accounts. The first two examples do not seem too bad and are most likely not seen as unethical to most individuals while the third is beginning to step over the line. These examples are taken further stating that they could to actions such as information sharing or harassment to something that is illegal such as embezzlement. No one will argue that selling an older lady a phone that she does not need will automatically take you stealing company funds. Gallagher (2013) simply warns that the choices you make are not erased as soon as you make them and can have a lasting effect on your life. Gallagher mentioned that he spent five years in jail for illegal activity, so he knows how quickly innocent acts can go awry.

I sometimes think that business ethics is an oxymoron. Though we are taught what is right and wrong and how to treat people in the business environment we do not always abide by the meaning of ethics. Not that everyone acts unethically all of the time but there is most likely at least a shade of value breaking in each of us. I have worked at my organization for a little over nine and we are taught the do’s and don’ts of ethics ad nauseam. We have training seminars each summer to brush us up on ethics. Each department has a framed mission/ethical statement hanging on the wall. But, unfortunately, knowing what to do and doing it are two different animals.

Looking back on the last nine years, there have been many instances of unethical behavior. I will not go into detail for most of them but an organization of 1100 people will produce actions that are not very ethical. One dilemma I will discuss is the financial pickle our former President, CFO, and Controller created several years ago. The organization decided to team up with a Foundation that desired to bring a concert to Daytona Beach. The Foundation promised some of the hottest acts in music and my organization ended up investing some 2 million dollars to this concert. Long story short, the Foundation did not book most of the acts that were promised and the concert was a huge failure. This caused the organization to owe vendors all over central Florida with no collateral. The main issue was that they did not run this by the Board of Trustees and it did not end well once the story hit the papers. I cannot speak for the former President, CFO, and Controller, but I believe they thought they would make money for the organization, so it was nothing to concern the board with. Weinstein (2007) stated that doing no harm and making things better were two principles to living ethically. The concert situation definitely did not make things better and harmed the college for years to come because of public opinion and declining enrollment.

I understand the previous example was a large scale extremely unethical act that costs three jobs, but according to Gallagher (2013) some of us act unethically at work periodically on a smaller scale. How many of us have gone to our neighbors office and talked for 20 or 30 minutes while on the clock? I know I am guilty. One of the other things that I am bad about is what Gallagher (2013) described as using company resources for personal use. While in graduate school I have printed assignments or reading material on countless occasions. I have never thought about it as unethical but will now be more aware and try to reduce my school printing.

I am not attempting to talk badly about my company with the examples of unethical behavior, because most of the time ethics is followed at the organization. Gallagher (2013) mentioned that just because you make a huge mistake does not mean you are a mistake. I once made a pretty bad mistake due to some accounting policies that had been put into place. I will not bore you with the details, but long story short, the accounting manager had created some new policies that were very difficult to follow and served no need. This caused some mistakes to be made that had to be taken to the CFO. Eventually, we were able to devise a plan to fix the mistakes while revising the policies. There was an individual who was very irate and wanted both me and my supervisor (the accounting manager) to be written up. The CFO showed compassion and admitted that the policies were bound to fail eventually. She said that this mistake does not warrant punishment. This action was one that shaped how I view professional ethics and try to remember that the ethical thing is not always the answer others may want to hear. 

References

Gallagher, C. (2013.). Business Ethics Keynote Speaker - Chuck Gallagher - shares Straight Talk about Ethics! - YouTube. YouTube. Retrieved . from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA; Blackwell.

Weinstein, B. (2012). Keynote Speech Excerpts from The Ethics Guy - YouTube. YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ

Weinstein, B. (2007). Five Easy Principles? Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2007-01-10/five-easy-principles-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice