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

A634.6.3.RB-What are Virtues?- Trey McNeil

As a child there were times when I was asked to act morally, ethically, or virtuous. Not knowing exactly what my parents, grandparents, or other parental figure meant, I decided they must mean act in a way in which I believed was right. I was correct, well; at least I was not incorrect. Until I began this class, I believed that the three were intertwined together and shared a common definition. But, once again, that is not the case. They are similar but not the same. So, what are virtues? That answer depends on who you ask. According to virtues for life (n.d.), a virtue is the moral quality of a person or the acts that make a person moral (kindness, honesty, etc.). According to Aristotle, virtue is doing the proper action, doing it routinely, enjoying acting virtuously, and knowing that it is virtuous and why it is virtuous (LaFollette, 2007). Benjamin Franklin listed thirteen virtues in which he tried to live his life. The virtues included temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility (Ben’s virtues, n.d.). I would like to reflect on three of Franklin’s virtues and discuss how I could use them in my daily life.

I was fortunate enough to take a virtue quiz this week that informed me how I measure up to Ben Franklin’s virtues. The virtue that was singled out due to my answers was tranquility. According to Franklin tranquility is defined as “be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable” (Ben’s virtues, n.d., n.p.). Or in Lehman’s terms- do not sweat the small stuff. The quiz told me to think about the more important things in my life and worry less about the smaller annoyances. I am a preparer and a self-diagnosed worrier, so this is advice that I should heed. While in school, I usually like to plan out my weeks and determine which days I will work on certain assignments. As we all know life tends to get in the way occasionally and plans change. Sometimes this frustrates me and I get in my head about everything not being on track. If I could step back and see it differently, I could realize that it is not a big deal in the long run. I am the type of person that cannot relax until the dishes are put away or will not sit down to take a rest until whatever I am working on is finished.  I need to take Ben’s advice and not sweat the small stuff. The dishes will still be there in the morning and the schoolwork can be worked on another day. Of all the virtues, this is the one I need to work on the most and will try to practice this in the future.

The next virtue I would like to discuss is sincerity.  Franklin defined sincerity as “Use no hurtful deceit. Think innocently and justly; and if you speak, speak accordingly” (Ben’s virtues, n.d., n.p.). This is a virtue I try to follow but occasionally fail. I will argue that most of our society also fails in this virtue. With the development of smartphones and other technology, our opinions are shared with more people than they were in the past. Twenty-five years ago, the only way to publically deceit someone was to call them out while emceeing the local bingo night or prom dance, or commandeering the local town hall meeting to talk badly about the local florist. With the development of Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and any other social media site used today, your opinion is readily available and to hundreds maybe even thousands of people.  

One of my girlfriend’s favorite movies is Mean Girls and I have seen it several times while she was watching it. There is a line in the movie where one of the stars mentions the phrase ‘word vomit.’ She understands that what she is saying is insincere, harmful, and unappropriated but is not able to stop herself from speaking. Just because you think it does not mean it should be vocalized, especially if the message is harmful or insincere. As LaFollette (2007) warned, gossip should be considered immoral.

 As I have previously mentioned, I try to treat everyone with respect, but I also ask for it to be reciprocated. When trust and respect are not reciprocated, I sometimes have thoughts that are not sincere. In the future, I must remember the virtue of sincerity and not only make sure the harmful thought remained unsaid but also try to reverse them. 

The final virtue I would like to discuss is industry.  Franklin defined industry as “Lose no time. Be always employed in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary actions” (Ben’s virtues, n.d., n.p.). This definition reminds me of the old saying that idle hands are the devil’s workshop. I believe Ben is suggesting that useful work should be done at all times.

As I previously mentioned I am a preparer. I would also consider myself a pretty hard worker. While at work, I am very orderly. I try not to waste any time in getting my tasks completed. I am the same way around the house. I spend a decent amount of time working around the yard or the house. I value hard work and not wasting time as much as anyone but if the Shining taught us anything, unnecessary actions can also be useful. Jack Nicholson ignored Franklin’s virtue in continuously typing ‘all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.’ I would argue that unnecessary actions are not only nice but are sometimes needed. A little rest and relaxation never hurt anyone.

Over the last six months, I have been transferred to a new position twice. I was just getting my feet wet with the (old) new position when I was told recently that I will be moving to another position. I will begin learning new tasks and regulations that must be adhered to. This time of the year also consists of not only the budget cycle but on-site audit fieldwork. I am also in graduate school pursuing my Masters in Leadership. So, my days over the last few months have consisted of working long hours learning new information at work, coming home and learning new information while doing my schoolwork, rinse, wash, and repeat.  I have been very busy over the last couple of months. So, recently I have found myself spending my downtime enthralled in, as Franklin put it, “unnecessary actions” (Ben’s virtues, n.d., n.p.). I have found myself watching my favorite movie, reading, or having a Netflix binge of my favorite shows. Sometimes wasting time and being employed in an action that is not useful is a great way to reset.

All of Franklin’s virtues seem to be directed at increasing the morality of humans. In a perfect world, we would all abide by his virtues. But this is not a perfect world. The best we can hope for it to be mindful of the virtues and try to abide by them in order to create a world of harmony.

References

Ben's 13 Virtues. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html

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

Virtues for life. (n.d.). What are virtues? Retrieved from http://www.virtuesforlife.com/what-are-virtues/

A634.5.4.RB-Is Marketing Evil?

Marketing can be fun and cheeky. We all can recall some of our favorite commercials, like the Wendy’s commercial with the older lady enthusiastically asking ‘where’s the beef’.  I excitedly look forward to the Doritos and Bud Light commercials every Super Bowl. With the popularity Hamilton has received, I occasionally recall the Milk commercial where the gentleman is trying to win a call-in trivia question by letting the radio DJ know that Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton, but is not understandable due to the peanut butter cracker he has placed in his mouth. Yes, marketing can be funny and memorable. But, marketing can also have a dark, evil, unethical, and particularly annoying side to side to it.

Even with ethical guidelines in place, some marketing could still border on unethical. According to Ferrell (n.d.), about ten percent of employees at every company will act unethically if the opportunity presents itself. Ferrell (n.d.) also stated that approximately 42% of all companies have a weak ethical structure. This shows that there could be unethical behavior in marketing. But, how could marketing turn unethical? According to My Top Business (n.d.), some unethical marketing techniques include (a) distorting facts to mislead buyers, (b) using fear tactics, and (c) making false claims.

I rarely watch live TV nowadays with the invention of DVR, but when I do, I notice that nearly every new yogurt or breakfast drink has no added sugar. I do not believe that every new yogurt product is sugar-free. This is a marketing ploy to get individuals to buy their product which could be considered unethical. Another ploy is using fear tactics. There is no way that the my pillow sales associate could know that I saw their commercial while watching reruns of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air at 2:00 am, but the commercial tells me that I must call within the next ten minutes to get the very special limited time offer. I believe this is an unethical ploy to boost revenue as it really does not matter when the order is made. The final ploy of making false claims can be seen in many car commercials. The Acura commercial says that I can lease the brand new car for only $299 a month. But, they will show that you must have $6000 down to receive that price in either a warning at the bottom of the screen so small a scientist could not even see it with the most highly powered microscope or by having a narrator say the terms so fast he sounds like an auctioneer at the local auction. Either way, it is false advertising utilized to boost interest in their product.

So, how can companies balance the need to win with staying ethical? This is a very tough question in which many people go to work each day and have to try to determine the answer. From my personal perspective, it comes down to determining the balance between profit and ethics.  It is no secret that in corporate America success is defined by production and bottom line.  Unfortunately, in this day in age, most companies have to break their code of ethics at some point to keep up with the competition.  Ferrell (n.d.) discussed the Worldcom accountant who eventually went against everything she thought was moral and ethical as a last ditch effort to save the company. Sometimes tough decisions must be made that have serious consequences. I believe the balance starts with creating a good product, strict rules, and guideline, and sticking to them, which has proven to be harder than it sounds. Take Starbucks for example. In 2008 CEO Howard Schultz believed that Starbucks was beginning to lose its neighborhood feel. So, against profitability, he permanently shut down 900 stores and closed the other 11,000 stores down for a day to retrain all of its employees (Hedges, 2012).  Unfortunately, I do not believe the majority of companies can remain successful in today’s world without bending the rules occasionally. Until all companies remain ethical 100% of the time other companies will have to commit unethical acts to keep up with the competition.

Though it is legal to track the buying habits and web visit to target potential customers, I do not believe it is ethical. I understand that we cannot expect to have complete privacy while surfing the internet, but being reminded of something we looked at two weeks ago on each page we click is a bit overboard. Yes, I did sign up for the Red Lobster newsletter to receive coupons and discounts. No, that does not mean I need to see a Red Lobster add each and every time I get on Facebook or go to check a score on ESPN. I recently went out of town and used Airbnb for my lodging purposes.  Since I returned from my trip, I get an Airbnb add each time I go to any new page. I understand that I can get a room in Wichita, KS for $59/night but (1) I did not go to Wichita and (2) I do not have any plans in the near future to visit Wichita. If I do, I will get on your website and let you know I am searching for a room in that particular city. For me personally, reminding me of a product I recently used ad nauseam is just annoying. If l enjoyed your product I will remember and use it again next time I need it. If I did not enjoy your product then I am constantly reminded of a product that I did not enjoy.  

On the other side of the coin, seeing an add repeatedly may make some consumers think a product is better suited for them. Oh, this restaurant is everywhere on the internet. It must be very popular and a great quality to be that visible! Ads like these do not give patrons a free choice in selecting their product, which is another reason I believe this tactic is unethical.

As a leader, it would be very difficult to manage the ethical aspects of my marketing efforts. I have never been a person to be sleazy, deceiving, or take advantage or others. So, I hope that would continue in my marketing habits for my company. I hope I would take the route that ethical leaders such as Howard Schultz from Starbucks or Dan Amos from Aflac have taken in the leadership of their respected companies. I would trust the product and the company’s hard work would be enough to remain competitive in the market. I would have a mission to produce great services, products, and practices and not allow unethical marketing to become a shortcut to success. But, there is something deep inside of me that questions if that could be possible. Would I have to give up my ethical beliefs to remain successful? As LaFollette (2007) stated, we all make ethical choices. I just hope I could stick to mine.

References

Ferrell, L. (n.d.). Marketing ethics. Retrieved from http://college.cengage.com/business/modules/marktngethics.pdf

Hedges, K. (2012, November 12). Why I'm stalking Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2012/04/10/why-im-stalking-starbucks-ceo-howard-schultz/3/#33ad27ba454f

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

My Top Business. (n.d.). 10 Examples of Unethical Marketing Practices. Retrieved from http://www.mytopbusinessideas.com/examples-unethical-marketing-practices/

A634.4.4.RB- Is Affirmative Action ethical?- Trey McNeil

Affirmative action is a topic that has been debated since its inception. Does affirmative action stigmatize the group of people it is designed to assist? Does it actually help minorities? Is affirmative action ethical? Before we delve into those arguments, let us define affirmative action. Affirmative action, according to Andre,Valesquez, and Mazur (n.d.), is “designed as temporary measures to increase the employment and educational opportunities available to qualified women and minorities by giving them preference in hiring, promotion, and admission” (para. 2).

As an individual who believes each person should be treated fairly no matter their race, gender, or religious believes, I have had no major qualms with affirmative action. Growing up in the southern United States, I was able to witness the effects the pre-civil rights error had left. The area I grew up in was radically divided between black and white, affluence and poverty. The jobs that were available to the white population were vastly different from the jobs available to the black population. I believe that giving others a chance to have equal opportunity is a positive idea.

Though I believe affirmative action is a good thing, I am not 100% sure it is ethical. Let us examine arguments both for and against affirmative action. One reason people who back affirmative action think it is a good thing is because it allows individuals the opportunity to succeed. According to Cassidy (2013), individuals who are born in the bottom twenty percent of the national income only have about a 17% chance to reach the top forty percent of the income distribution by age 40. For people born into the bottom income brackets, this is an alarming statistic. This is a statistic saying that there is about an eighty three percent chance that they will continue to monetarily struggle throughout life. Why not give these individuals a chance to better themselves. Getting into a good college could open so many doors for some people. It could give them the opportunity to have a better life.

 I was fortunate enough to be born to parents who were able to afford to send me to a private school which allowed me to get into college. After college, I was very fortunate to find a job and purchase a home. The education I received as a child set me up for success. I say this, not to brag about my good fortune, but to argue the other side of the coin. I could see where some people could be upset with affirmative action. If I were not fortunate enough to go to a private school and was not admitted to college due to affirmative action, then I would probably have a different view of the program.

LaFollette (2007) also argued for affirmative action by describing how it creates an equality of opportunity. According to LaFollette (2007), affirmative action is an efficient vehicle to challenge racist habits and racist institutions. Affirmative action not only causes employers and schools to think about whom they admit or employ but why they chose to do so. This thought process is an avenue for equal opportunity.

One argument against affirmative action is that it could take away from another student or qualified applicant that also deserves to be admitted. LaFollette (2007) used the example that out of 100 spots typically about 6 black students are accepted to college. If affirmative action were put into place, based on the black population in America being 12%, an additional six black students would be admitted.

 But what about the six deserving white students who are now left out? They will most likely feel discriminated against, because they were technically not admitted solely based on their race. LaFollette (2007) stated that these students are forced to pay the debts of their forefathers’ mistreatment of blacks. While Anderson (2015) argues that affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. When refereeing to the policy Anderson (2015) stated, “It does not only give the majority group an unfair treatment in the field of higher education and employment, but it also does punish them for crimes that they haven’t done” (para. 4).

Some people argue that affirmative action may actually harm the minorities it is intended to help. How could this be? Slater (2013) offered the mismatch theory in which affirmative action tends to place students in colleges that may be above their abilities. “Affirmative action can harm those it’s supposed to help by placing them at schools in which they fall below the median level of ability and therefore have a tough time” (Slater, 2013, para. 5). If a student falls behind in college it could have long-lasting effects including affecting their career later down the road. Even if you are admitted to a great school, GPA never goes away and a poor GPA could close doors quickly.

The one flaw I would have against affirmative action is that it seems to stigmatize blacks. LaFollette (2007) described a story about a black individual who is hired at the government treasury office. People begin to wonder if she is actually qualified for the job or if she was hired to fill a quota. Unfortunately, this line of thinking still exists in America. Qualified individuals are being looked down upon and questioned, while unqualified individuals could take a job they are not prepared to handle and fail. If affirmative action was eliminated, individuals would no longer question an individual’s qualification when they are hired. They would no longer question if the person was only hired due to their race.

As I look at the pros and cons of affirmative action. I am still not able to answer the question if affirmative action is ethical. On one hand I believe it is ethical because it allows people who were mistreated for years a stepping stool to a better life. The protagonist in me believes that any program that could potentially take away a job or an admission spot to a deserving individual should not be viewed as ethical. It is a tough question to answer and would probably depend on how the coin landed on that particular day.

References

Anderson, D. (2015). Top 10 reasons affirmative action should be eliminated. Retrieved from http://www.listland.com/top-10-reasons-affirmative-action-should-be-eliminated/

Andre, C., Velasquez, M., & Mazur, T. (n.d.). Affirmative action: Twenty-five years of controversy. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html

Cassidy, J. (2013). Why America still needs affirmative action. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/why-america-still-needs-affirmative-action-

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

Slater, D. (2013, March 16). Does affirmative action do what it should? Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/does-affirmative-action-do-what-it-should.html

A634.3.4.RB-The harder they fall- Trey McNeil

I have never been a person to be very competitive in the professional world. Now, that is not saying that I will not give it 110% in the local softball game and be angry if we do not win, but that is different in my mind. In a softball or soccer game, there is a group of winners. We work as a team to produce a wanted outcome. The game does not consist of a single person rising to the top. I have been told by several people that my lack of manipulation, using people, and desire for power will be the reason I never rise above the mid-level accountant position that I currently hold. The more I learn in the leadership program, the more confident I am that there is a right and wrong way to rise to power. I would one day like to be in a position greater than the one I currently hold, but I will not forsake my beliefs or ethics to get there. Kramer (2003) described the winner wants all mindset and that is one that I decline to take part in.

The winner want all mindset is not something that is new to our society.  Past Greek and Roman leaders took land from neighboring countries. Pirates were known to pillage and take other’s ships and supplies. There have been multiple stories of barbarians who killed to get what they wanted. These individuals did not play by the rules of the game in hopes of gaining what they wanted. They broke old rules and made new rules up along the way. In describing the ‘winner wants all’ mindset Kramer (2003) stated,

There are lots of extremely smart and ambitious individuals vying for just a few top slots. Moving up the ranks can be like competing in a high-stakes tournament: As you make it through successive rounds, the pool of worthy candidates narrows, the margin for error is much smaller, and the competition intensifies. This winnowing process means just a handful of people will attain prominence or success. In some contests—such as those for CEO of a major corporation, head of a mainstream motion picture studio, dean of an elite law school, or president of the United States—there can be only one winner. (para. 9)

The ‘winner want all’ attitude can be great for the fortunate individual that runs the obstacle course to get to the top. But, the actions they perform to get there can create a dilemma that ends up biting them and causing their demise.

It is human nature to ponder upon the question of why not me. Most of us have the thought process that we believe we could all do better than we currently are. I will admit there have been times that I have looked at my superiors and thought, how did they get there over me? According to Kramer (2003), most people get to the top by bending the rules. Gouveia (n.d.) went as far as stating that people rise to the top because they are manipulative and narcissistic. “It is easier to get ahead when you are focused on you, you, you “(Gouveia, n.d., para. 8). The rise to the top can cause dilemmas in society, professional lives, and our personal lives.

Not to get into a political debate, as I will play the preverbal part of Belgium and remain neutral, a non-warranted rise to the top could be presently going on in our society. There are many naysayers who believe certain individuals in President Trump’s cabinet arrived at their current position though unethical avenues. There have been reports that the current head of the Department of Education paid off members of the Senate to buy their vote (Blumenthal, 2017). Once again I am not siding with either political party in this debate. But, if the tension of the job does get to Ms. De Vos is she does not have the knowledge to keep up, it could create a dilemma. The children of the country could be on the losing side of an unethical rise to power. No matter the outcome, there has been an extreme amount of negative energy put towards the new head the Department of Education, which could affect her job status before it even begins.

On a professional level, I would like to discuss the rise of the former Controller of Daytona State College. This individual, we will call her Ms. Smith, began at the company before I started and had been promoted to manager by the time I was hired. I believe it is unethical to take part in gossip but quickly learned that there was an abundant amount of gossip about her promotion. It was said that she was struggling to do her job as an accountant and she would be forced to stay late at night and come in on weekends to try to keep up with the work. But as Kramer (2013) suggested she saw another way to the top and began to create her own path.

She became friends with the Controller and soon was invited to lunches with the Controller, CFO, and multiple VPs of the College. This new ‘in’ soon landed her a position as a manager of four accountants. When Ms. Smith became the manager of the accountants she manipulated and used them for all they were worth. She claimed work they completed as her own and presented it to the Board. As Gouveia (n.d.) stated some individuals “have an unyielding desire to be the center of attention, their ideas are usually the only ones worth considering, and they work tirelessly to charm others and gain notoriety” (para. 9). This unethical and manipulative path eventually landed her the position of Controller.

When the CFO retired a couple of years later she applied for the position. The college President held an interview with each accountant to determine if Ms. Smith would be a good fit for CFO, which she obviously was not. Ms. Smith was so blinded by her ways that she was astonished to find out the other accountants in the department did not think she would fit perfectly as the new CFO. This string of events created two dilemmas (a) Ms. Smith was upset she was not named the new CFO so she took her aggression on the staff and new CFO and (b) it became clear to the new CFO that Ms. Smith did not possess the skills to hold the position of Controller. Unfortunately, Ms. Smith was eventually relieved of her duties. Ms. Smith had the personality trait to do whatever it took to get to the top. She said several times that her dream was to be CFO. But as LaFollette (2007) mentioned, personality traits that are relevant in some context are not relevant in all contexts. Her dream and the way she went about it costs her in the long run. As Kramer (2003) pointed out, the rise to success can be fun, but the fall is definitely not enjoyable.

As I mentioned before, I do not see a time where I will play the unethical game to get to the top. I was one of the four accountants that were under Ms. Smith’s management. I watched her take turns unethically stepping on us and using us to nearly rise to the pinnacle of accounting at DSC. I may be one of the few that feels this way but I believe that my ethics are stronger than using individuals for my own personal gain or rise. According to Kramer (2003), “Frankly, it’s hard to respect individuals who plod along by just following the rules… If you want to follow all the rules, become an accountant. You’ll be happier and live longer” (para. 18). According to Kramer (2003), I made the right decision in my professional life. I will keep the faith that I can one day rise through ethical actions. 

References

Blumenthal, P. (2017, February 03). Here's how much Betsy DeVos and her family paid to back GOP senators who will support her. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/betsy-devos-donations_us_5893bd80e4b0c1284f251c5f

Gouveia, A. (n.d.)."3 Reasons the worst people get ahead at work." Salary.com. Retrieved from http://www.salary.com/3-reasons-the-worst-people-get-ahead-at-work/slide/3/

Kramer, R. (2003). The harder they fall. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2003/10/the-harder-they-fall

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

A634.2.4.Theories of Ethics- Trey McNeil

I recently began my second ethics class and my first in nearly fifteen years. My first ethics class was a business ethics class I took as an undergraduate student and, to be honest, I do not remember many of the concepts. Before I began this class, I would have told you I live my life in a manner that would be considered ethical.  Though I am only in week two of the current ethics class, I am already sure of one thing, what I consider ethical seems to change according to the situation. LaFollette (2007) introduced two major theories regarding ethics, Consequentialism and Deontology. I have been made aware that I switch back and forth between the concepts like a person at a buffet, picking what I feel would be best at that particular time and not sticking to one thing in general. As I reflect on my failure to be constant in the theories, I realized that I am okay with not sticking to one idea because both theories contain great ideas and flaws. I will now examine each concept in more detail.

According to LaFollette (2007), Consequentialism consists of making decisions based on the best overall consequences. A consequentialist does not make ethical decisions based on the ethical principles instilled in us throughout life. They believe that the moral decision is the one that produces the best overall consequence. LaFollette (2007) stated that there were three factors that all consequentialist must consider including which consequences are available, how much does each consequence count, and how do they count?

 This concept makes sense in theory. An individual may not want to tell their wife that they do not like her beef stroganoff or a friend may not want to tell another friend that they do not like their play they have tirelessly worked to write. I see Consequentialism as limiting the damage. It is okay to tell a lie in these situations because hurting their feelings is worse than telling them the truth.  I recently watched a show called No Tomorrow and in one episode the lead actress was accidently given an extra scone. When she tried to return the scone, she was rewarded with two free scones for her honesty. Throughout the rest of the episode, she referred to the scone as her honesty scone. She mentioned the scone several times while divulging the truth to her boss and coworkers and was rewarded with positive results. But, when she told her boyfriend the truth during a challenging scenario, it blew up in her face. Consequentialists chose to avoid the truth in certain scenarios for this exact reason.

But, can Consequentialism actually produce unethical results? Take Riggs and Murtaugh from Lethal Weapon for example. I would have to say that they believe in Consequentialism. Their goal is to catch the criminals no matter what happens while they are trying to catch them. If they are successful in the end then the ends will justify the means. But what happens when they are unsuccessful in their pursuit? In one scene they pretty much destroy multiple city blocks while in pursuit of the bad guys but the bad guys get away in the end. Since they were not successful in their mission are they now unethical? Are they now just a couple of buffoons that destroyed the city? Would it be considered ethical to commit multiple acts of property damage if they would have caught the bad guys? Consequentialists believe it would be okay.

Another flaw with Consequentialism, at least according to deontologists, is that if individuals strictly act according to what would produce the best consequence then at some point they will, in fact, begin to act unethical (LaFollette, 2007). Deontologists also believe if consequentialists do act in a way that is ethical, then they are doing it for the wrong reason. For example, consequentialists may believe that you should not walk up to someone on the street and punch them because you will hurt them, where deontologists believe you should not commit the same action because it fundamentally goes against ethical principles. So, how do Deontologists decide what is ethically correct? 

Deontologists believe that there are principles and guidelines that must be followed in each situation.  Immanuel Kant stated that an individual should “do the right thing for the right reason, because it is the right thing to do” (BBC, n.d, para. 47). They are not worried about the end result or consequence but are focused on doing the right thing for the right reason. Let us revisit the example about lying to my friend about the play he has worked so hard to write. A deontologist would believe that the friend should be told the truth even if it caused them emotional pain because it is the ethical thing to do. It is unfortunate that telling the truth will cause harm, but we cannot disgrace the moral principles. Let us look at another example involving a pool party. Say an individual is at a pool party and witnessed someone drowning. This individual is not a lifeguard and does not know how to perform CPR, but must do something in this situation in an attempt to save the person’s life. The individual attempts faulty CPR that results in saving the life but also breaking several ribs. The deontologist would believe that the broken ribs were an unfortunate occurrence, but the ethical choice was made. Jumping in to save the individual was ethical because it was the right thing to do.

Deontology also has some flaws. According to LaFollette (2007), most people believe that consequences do hold some sort of moral weight in making ethical decisions. So, Consequentialists believe that decisions made solely on principles could also lead to unethical decisions.

According to LaFollette (2007), our main goal in any ethical decision is to think about what we do and why we do it.  Consequentialists and Deontologist will most likely never see eye to eye about why a decision is ethical. They may agree that an action is ethical or unethical, but their reasoning will more than likely be divergent. Though we may never agree, we as individuals should always think about how our actions could affect others. I understand now that is why I have a tendency to flip and flop between the two rules of thought. Can my lack of consistency be overlooked by my attempt to treat others fairly while sticking to my principles? Once again, that depends on who you ask.

References

BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Duty-based ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml

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

A634.1.5.The Train Dilemma- Trey McNeil

As we grow up, we are more than likely taught that the moral or ethical way to act is by doing the right thing. Do not gossip. Do not tell lies. Do not intentionally do things to harm other individuals. The moral blueprint is laid out throughout our entire lives. But, what do we do when the moral cheat sheet does not provide a definitive answer? How will we act in an ethical dilemma where there seems to be no good answer? LaFollette (2007) stated that most of us consider the consequences of our actions morally significant. What if the consequences of the action result in negative consequences no matter what you decide to do? I am reminded of the movie The Good Son where the mother can only save one child at the end. She must decide who to save and who to let fall off of a cliff. That is a tough decision and one that none of us hope we ever have to make.

I recently came across three ethical dilemmas involving a train tragedy. In the first scenario, you are the switchboard operator and a train is heading toward five children on the tracks. The five children can be saved if you throw the switch and send the train toward a lone child standing on the tracks. In the next scenario, the five kids can be saved by pushing an elderly man onto the tracks to stop the train. In the final scenario, the lone kid on the tracks is your own. What would you do in these scenarios? What is moral or ethical? What is the right thing to do? Is there a right thing to do? I will discuss how I believe I would act in the three scenarios.

The most difficult issue with these scenarios is determining how I would respond ethically without allowing emotions to get in the way. I believe I would respond differently in terms of emotions versus ethics. LaFollette (2007) mentioned that some individuals make ethical decisions based on principles. They stick to what they believe no matter the consequences. This line of thinking did not do me much good because I do not have a moral compass to delineate between taking five lives or throwing the switch to only take one life. Krueger (2008) discussed several ethical theories regarding how to determine which option to choose in an ethical dilemma, though none of them helped in this scenario.  The Situational theory states that a decision is moral or ethical if it creates the greatest amount of love (Krueger, 2008). This seems to be a solid theory but did not offer much guidance in this particular scenario. This decision must be made in a way to eliminate the most damage.

In the first scenario, I would throw the switch and sacrifice the one child to save the five. This decision was made based on weighing the consequences. I considered that either way there will be an accident. On one track five children have fallen or made their way onto the track and one child has fallen on the other track. In my opinion, I am morally obligated to throw the switch and minimize the damage. Though the consequence is grim no matter what I choose to do, my inner consequentialist says that throwing the switch will result in the best consequence.

The second scenario with the older gentleman initiated a different line of thinking. I did not approach this scenario solely in terms of consequences. A consequentialist would most likely agree that saving the five kids no matter the situation would be the most ethically sound decision.  This decision was harder to reach than the decision in the first scenario. After much deliberation, I decided that I would not push the old man onto the tracks to save the children. I know some would say that he is an older gentleman and has been able to live his life where the children have not. I see that and definitely understand the argument.  But, in my mind, the children getting hit by the train would be a horrible accident, but me pushing a man onto the tracks, even if I am trying to save five children, is murder. And, to me, murder is less ethical than the positive consequences of saving five children. 

LaFollete (2007) described that deontologists believe that moral rules should be followed no matter the consequences. Another theory that assisted with my decision is this scenario is the Golden Rule. According to Krueger (2008), the Golden Rule establishes that an act is ethical if you treat others the way you would like to be treated. I understand that not everyone would choose to sacrifice themselves for five children. If I had the opportunity to jump on the tracks to save the children then my response may be different. But, I do know that I find it unethical to play God and decide to end this man’s life to stop an accident.

The final scenario was the hardest to determine what to do. I do not have any children, but I do have nieces, so I pictured them in this scenario. My initial thought was that the ethical thing to do would be to sacrifice them to save the other children. I determined in the first scenario that the moral and ethical decision would be to save the five children by flipping the switch. I know the right answer should be to flip the switch, but then both emotion and thought began to set in. I began to weigh the ethical responsibility I have to raise my child against the ethical responsibility I have to society by saving the other five children, therefore, creating the best consequence. I realized in this situation that I would more than likely not do what I considered morally sound in the first scenario. I would sacrifice the five children in order to save my child, nieces, or even my friend’s children. It is very difficult to picture the final scenario without letting emotion overpower what we thing is right or wrong, and I believe the majority of us would save our own child over the strangers in this scenario.

This exercise taught me that what we consider moral or ethical will change based on the situation or scenario. In the first scenario, I was willing to risk one life to save five, but the final two scenarios had an opposite result. LaFollette (2007) stated, “Although most of us abstractly recognize the importance of consistency, many of us fail to be consistent in the concrete” (p. 17). These three different ethical dilemmas proved that I am subject to ethical inconsistency in various scenarios.

References

Krueger, G., & Krueger, M. (2008). 3 Steps to solve an ethical dilemma. Retrieved from http://biggsuccess.com/bigg-articles/3-steps-to-solve-an-ethical-dilemma/

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