A633.4.3.RB- Changing Dynamics of Leadership

“Of 100% of the solutions that actually make specific changes happen on the ground to get positive results, what percentage of solutions do you think originally first come from/are thought up at the top?” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 35). Reflecting on this thought-provoking question, what would you think about your organization? What about your perception of other companies in the world generally? What about on the TV show Mad Men, is this a true reflection of leadership responsibilities of decades past? Things used to be pretty different.

 I actually answered this question myself, asked my Director this question (she is awesome), and checked Obolensky for the answer. I would have answered really high, but the way the question was phrased pressured me into lowering my response to 20% top, 50% middle, 30% bottom… and 100% hoping I did my math correctly. The results are in! Drumroll, please… it is typically 10% at the top, 30% middle, and around 60% for the bottom. Is this news surprising?

Previously the notion was that the boss had the answer. They must know because they are the boss, the president, the CEO, or just because they are in charge because how else would they have gotten there? Attitudes are migrating to the understanding that this is not necessarily part of the job description that those at the top have all the answers and to come up with all of the solutions. This is a good thing, because if they were coming up with all of the answers. That means no one else would get a word in edgewise.

 Some organizations are transitioning, while others not fast enough for those “at the bottom” of the pyramid. Speaking as a member of the bottom of the totem pole, it feels like a large weight to be holding up. The front lines are the proverbial Atlas with the weight of the company on their shoulders. We get it from both ends when things go wrong, those we work with such as customers or clients and also from the top ranks wanting to know why things are not working as planned. The ragdoll feeling of being tugged and pulled from both ends is enough to make those caught in the middle of it call out for a changing dynamic in leadership.

There are several reasons the percentage at the top is lowering. First, organizational structures are changing. Innovative companies daring enough to march to their own drum beat and reap the rewards of leading a parade are throwing away the ordinary hierarchy and are not looking back. Zappos, I am looking at you. Even without going to those extremes, so much needs to be done in a day, why not delegate it to lower levels if they have their ear to the ground? Those who assign a larger number to the top usually work within an organization that remains part of a formal hierarchy (Obolensky, 2014). “A related problem is that the most powerful managers are the ones furthest from frontline realities. All too often, decisions made on an Olympian peak prove to be unworkable on the ground” (Hamel, 2011, para, 3). When this is true and it has become actualized the number is likely to lower.

The composition of the workforce is also changing as older generations retire and it becomes time for newer generations to seek employment. The world has changed a lot prior to Millennials being born and even during adolescent years. Obolensky notes the more junior the level, the higher the number will seem that those solutions come from the top (2014). Whether this is seen as a positive is another story. “Many organizational leaders and human resource managers complain that Millennials are hard to manage. Indeed, this generation has grown up in the disruptive world of the Internet, where people’s influence is based on contribution and reputation, not position” (Laloux, 2014, para. 26). If any idea can back itself up, why not set it free and let it shine?

The concept and understanding of leadership is also evolving. Leadership is not an exclusive club for those at the top. Leadership can come from anywhere especially with organizations that have truly empowered their people. With an “all hands” approach, organizations have become wise to utilize their human capital. To compete in the ever-changing markets some essential ingredients are progress, growth, and quality. To mirror back to the fact that Millennials realize that influence can come from anywhere, that is sure to trigger the dominoes to cascade change through the entire leadership landscape.

While my organization is still very traditional I have confidence that meaningful ideas are accepted from any level. There is confidence in all of the members that we can make a change that we will speak up when something could be better. As an organization we are one team setting out each day to be the best we can. I feel creative license in my position to try things, shake it up, do something different and if it works to share it. I am not waiting for the top to give me the green light or to come up with ideas for me. It is a beautiful thing to be at work in a time of dynamic change.

References:

Hamel, G. (2011, December). First, Let's Fire All the Managers. Retrieved June 26, 2015, from https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers

Laloux, F. (2014, June 12). Misperceptions of Self-Management. Retrieved June 26, 2015, from http://www.self-managementinstitute.org/misperceptions-of-self-management

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower 

A633.3.3.RB- Complex Adaptive Systems

Obolensky makes his thoughts about organizations very clear… evolve or die. The world we operate within is increasingly face paced which requires the ability to react and adapt or else prepare to become obsolete. This is due to the fact that functional hierarchies no longer work well, they are too slow and too expensive (Obolensky, 2014). Some organizations have received the memo that extinction may be coming and have transitioned into cross functional matrices. Obolensky points out these will work for some time until the strains cause pressure to reduce costs, thus the need to recentralize and fall behind again (2014). This is where the might Complex Adaptive System (CAS) comes in with a flowing cape and gleaming sword. Complex Adaptive Systems are meant to reflect dynamic organizations. Each CAS is different, but share common features:

·         Information is shared openly

·         Hierarchy is informal

·         Hierarchies that exist within the company are flat

·         The hierarchy is most interested in meeting the needs of external shareholders

·         Less focus on running the company

·         Great emphasis on personal responsibility

·         Underperformance is not tolerated

 At the time of print, Obolensky listed a handful of companies that are working as a CAS. Johnsonville Foods, Inc. is one of them. On their website the company has four statements that combined form the Johnsonville Way. First, those at the company have a moral responsibility to become the best company in the world. The first statement transitions to the second that this goal is due to serving the best interests in those who have a stake in their success. Next, “we will succeed by setting near-term objectives and long-term goals that will require a personal growth and superlative performance by each of us. We will change any objectives or goals that no longer require personal growth and superlative performance to ones that do” (Our Culture, n.d., n.p.). Lastly, is an agreement of understanding that the Johnsonville Way is about performance and accountability to the team. “My commitment to stretch, grow and excel is an unending one” (Our Culture, n.d., n.p.). The supporting values are: integrity, respect, trust, appreciation, caring, candor, humility, ownership, and innovation.

While Obolensky points out the working in a CAS may not necessarily be a nice place to work, it seems Johnsonville Foods counterbalances this with incentives such as traditional benefits as well as profit sharing, “extreme perks”, and a bonus system that could potentially be as often as monthly. Johnsonville Foods makes the hierarchal structure quite clear stating:

At Johnsonville, we aren't big on corporate hierarchy, rank or fancy titles. Your contribution to our team is the measure of your value to Johnsonville, not how far you've climbed a company ladder. In this type of "flat" organization, there's less emphasis on "moving up" in the traditional corporate sense. But you will have the opportunity to "move around" to new challenges and responsibilities. We value people who are multi-skilled, and we reward them. (Why work, n.d., n.p.)

My current organization might be having an identity crisis, but in the best way possible. There are many functional silos such as Academic Advising, Quality Management, Financial aid, Bursar, Registrar, Enrollment Operations, VA Department, and others. However, there is an emphasis on high performance, personal responsibility, and teams, within each of these silos. I act as liaison between all of these departments for my students in addition to helping select courses, enroll, and assistance with other processes. While I have points of contacts in all of these areas I realized by building interpersonal relationships that I do not really know what the everyday operations or goals are like for my counterparts in other silos. They also are without functional knowledge of what we do and why we do it. However, when I am with my team and in my department there is a great deal of transparency and flow of information.

I found it interesting that Johnsonville Foods lists candor as one of their values. Many organizations that have hierarchy protect the ideas of leadership within the hierarchy if bad news is received that a process is more difficult than helpful, for example. Or there are political interests within the hierarchy that might prevent change or staunch the flow of information. I do not think this is the case for our organization at all. I believe it is due to being cursed with knowledge. Those who communicate and meet with the other silo directors likely know a great deal about the whole picture and might believe that because there is nothing to hide that those not in the meetings have the same working knowledge. When there is a problem they are likely consummately professional in their communications thus not emphasizing the nitpicky, carping comments from the bottom of the organization that also have a way of adding to the bigger picture whether it be founded on opinion or fact, information is powerful in pointing out what could be improved.

If the dam could be broken and each silo as a whole began to learn why we make certain requests or what process oriented functions do not match up this would make way for the next level of effectiveness, thus reshaping our organizational context. I am sensitive to what others deal with on a daily basis and if there was a better time or a better way to achieve what I needed to accomplish and align this with other departments I would be more than willing to make these changes. My colleagues are all exemplary people, not just employees, and would likely willing be on board, too. This could be the future to move our organization forward. ERAU has a lot of similarities to Johnsonville Foods, with our new interim President, it is likely this is the future we will soon take part.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower

Our Culture. (n.d.). Retrieved June 20, 2015, from http://jobs.johnsonville.com/why-johnsonville/our-culture.html

Why work for Johnsonville? (n.d.). Retrieved June 20, 2015, from http://jobs.johnsonville.com/why-johnsonville.html#awards 

A633.2.3.RB- Butterfly Effect

If you asked someone what the Butterfly Effect is I would guess there would be two distinct answers. For a millennial like me I would have told you it is the movie starring Ashton Kutcher that came out in 2004. While the entire plot and outcome is a little shaky for me, the gist is that the main character wanted to change his life and the lives of those he cared about once they grew up because some of the things they either chose to do or endured set them on a course that left them with terrible lives. Kutcher’s character was able to go back in time and change one small event. The movie then flashed forward years later to their college years and he would see how one small change affected everything. Most of the time going back and pinpointing what went wrong changed things for the better for mostly everyone, but there would always be a flaw of something else that went wrong. For instance, once he stopped his friend from blowing up a mailbox with firecrackers and he ended up with severe life altering injuries. I believe the take away here is that it is the small choices can have a large impact.

Now that I have spent some time researching complexity science and theory I would put my money on it that the movie was inspired by Lorenz’s Strange Attractor which also became known as the Butterfly Effect based on the name he selected for his paper: Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas. It turns out that when graphing pressure, temperature, and wind speed that the simultaneous non-linear differential equations have an infinite number of possibilities. The graph itself looks like a butterfly which is why it earned the more common nickname (Obolensky, 2014). “In other words, when a situation has a great sensitivity to initial conditions a small change can have a  disproportionate effect” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 70). Examining the name of the paper, it is an interesting thought if something like the flap of a butterfly’s wings or even the absence of it would have such an impact. Previously I would have scoffed and said how ludicrous the notion is but I have learned that with the absence of bees humans would struggle to survive and eat after about five years. Earthquakes can produce tsunamis and even the Cynefin framework when discussing complexity notes that one change in a rainforest can drastically change the landscape and function due to the interrelatedness of the ecosystem (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

So, what if we bottled up this idea and started making small changes? Obolensky drew the conclusion that within complex organizations small changes can yield large results. He referenced several companies who have proven this idea. Even better I have seen this at work within my organization. The first example was set in motion several months before I started my position. Every term we would make announcements that students could enroll and some would pick their classes. It was odd that someone was pursuing a degree but not all that actively engaged throughout the year. Such is the plight of distance learners. Our leadership thought it would make a difference to do an outreach to each individual that was actively enrolled in the term to give them course suggestions and offer to assist with enrollment for the next term. We call this the term to term outreach. Sure enough we are still doing this because our retention made leaps and bounds of improvement. This is wonderful for our students because they are reaching their goal to graduate within a timely manner.

A second example is something that our team had not realized we could do!  We thought the Procedures Manual still noted that method of payment must be taken at the time of registration. We were enforcing that tuition assistance forms and payment already be made to register. While this kept our records tidy, it was not a great way to do business with our students. For lack of better analogy it was like holding the class they wanted over people’s heads and asking them to jump through the hoop to get it. That is not exactly encouraging if you examined the message… we want you to be a part of our institution and we are going to show you by making it difficult! It turns out the undergraduate team was not doing this and it made doing business with our students much easier. It was a breath of fresh air for the graduate advising team that we could enroll students and have the method of payment was in place by the first day of the term. Sure enough this also improved getting students into their classes.

Very recently we have seen a lot of changes. We have changed our Learning Management System from Blackboard to Canvas. To support our new LMS we have created what we are calling ERNIE 2.0 to support the new platform. If you were a student a year ago and came back to classes it would basically be unrecognizable. In a lot of ways it does create chaos at first. However, once everyone has acclimated to the changes it should be easier and better, thus allowing for more order than there was before. Hopefully this will make way for more growth. The implication of the first two examples of change is that you can use small strategic changes that can drive improvements, neither of which cost our department anything additional in the budget. It was not essential to throw globs of money at the problem to do something better, we took what we already had to work with and did it a little smarter. The lesson here is start with what you have to make small changes and watch what happens before deciding what big changes need to be implemented. You might end up surprised.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower

Snowden, D.  & Boone, M. (2007).  A leader’s framework for decision making.  Harvard Business Review, 85(11), Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making%20

A633.1.2.RB- Leadership Gap

I went to see the action film San Andreas starting The Rock last weekend and cannot stop thinking about it. Surprisingly it is his character that has stayed on my mind. Wow, what a leader. In the movie he is a veteran and a rescue helicopter pilot who has extraordinary skills well versed in flying planes, sky diving, and driving cars and boats. Sure his mission eventually became self-serving when he went to rescue his daughter instead of other people who needed help, but that is what makes him a leader in my eyes. He did not wait for someone to show up and pin a title on him and say you are a leader now, it was simply within him. You can look at movies and see seemingly ordinary characters and start to identify those with leadership and those without it. Because you see the story unfold from beginning to end this is the easiest place to start. Then look at real world examples. There are wonderful, talented people out there every day in our world taking initiative and being a leader. Some have titles like those who startup companies and become CEOs and there are also those who remain relatively anonymous and volunteer their time, energy, abilities, and passions.

My personal attitude of a leader has changed in my lifetime, largely due to pursuing a Masters in Leadership. I have a great admiration for those who are able to bring people together and accomplish great things. I am sure I had a rose colored naivety about leadership because sometimes I became disappointed that a teacher or an adult leader that I had squandered their opportunity and dropped the ball on a class project. I just assumed that those who were leaders had it completely together and would always be there for others and wouldn’t let me down. I used to think if you were to leader it meant you were the A plus out of all of the A plus qualifying members. When we believe leaders are superheroes it puts a lot of pressure on very human people and it opens us up to want to criticize them for not being perfect.

I think a lot of my beliefs came from my father who was taught by his parents and generationally Baby Boomers really believed in putting blood, sweat, and tears in for the company. Millennials, my generation, see how our parents and grandparents have spent their countless hours in the office sometimes without any retribution and at times when the company turns its back on aging employees and forces them into early retirement or even lets them go in the midst of their prime. It is hard not to have the attitude that it is all about serving me first and an organization second. This creates a lot of entitlement and perhaps why there is a changing trend in attitudes.

When we see these leaders in fancy suits, with luxury cars and access to private planes that jet off to vacations most will never have in their lifetime mess up there is a Marie Antoinette-like response that we the people want to eat cake and it is off with their head! The internet age has made every mood highly visible. Not to say Britney Spears is a leader by any stretch of the imagination, but this is one of the first celebrities where the boundaries were pushed to know every move of this person. This has since become to norm. Nothing is entirely a secret anymore. This extends to those in government and private leadership to athletes and actors. We even keep tabs on our colleagues through social media. I think this also shapes why there have been changes to the perception of leaders. I looked up my house on Google Earth and can see details of my life on full display for anyone with the internet to see. The game has completely changed and everyone is on notice.

Obolensky (2014) quotes Lau Tzu’s definition of leadership:

The worst leader is one that lies and is despised; not much better is one that leads using oppression and fear; a little better is the leader who is visible, loved and respected; however, the best leader is one whom the people hardly knows exists, leaving them happy to say, once the aim is achieved, ‘We did it ourselves’. (p. 6)

This brings me back to The Rock and the Leadership Gap. Leaders can be from any walk of life, title or no title. To me a leader is someone who is an example, who helps others with betterment, and energizes others. Though I am not a manager, director, or someone who gets paid to be in a leadership position I am still a leader. I work with adult students and part of what I do is to bring my best self to work every day and give all I can do help solve problems and get my students to reach their goals. If I have five hundred students admitted to the University that belong to me, my desire is for all five hundred to earn their diploma and even better would be to see them in their cap and gown. I might be considered an anonymous leader but I am still a leader. I have responsibilities that I carry with me whether I am at on the clock or at home. You do not check out for the day on being a leader, it is who you are through and through, day in and day out and not just because the internet is watching. It is the mark of real leadership.

Many companies are specialists in their industry whether it is medicine to fashion. I have worked at several small companies that have no form of structure and the leadership lacks in something to be desired. It is not uncommon to believe leadership is super easy and you innately know what to do. I think one of the reasons there is an explosion of study is because leaders and followers feel a void and realize that things could be done better and there could be more fulfillment for both parties in the process. Seeking the structured knowledge that exists can only benefit in closing the leadership gap.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower.

A634.9.5.RB- A Reflection of Our Learning

I am a bit amazed that until this class I have never taken an ethics class. I was not really sure what to expect. I was excited because I heard rave reviews about this class. I was also nervous because I thought that even though I try to be on the up and up that maybe I should be worried that I am going to find out how tragically immoral I am. Luckily, it turns out I am doing alright! While there were aspects I found challenging I feel like there was a great value in checking in with these ethical concepts to reinforce doing the right thing even when it is tempting not to or when you just aren’t sure it matters. It does matter. Without further ado, these are a few of my favorite things:

One of the first things I realized when I started examining ethical theories is that I am largely not a consistent person. Consistency was one of the most interesting themes to me throughout the course. I have the Piccadilly of ethical beliefs. I pick and choose, just like at the restaurant, what I believe. I have mentioned before in my blog that if Jack Bauer breaks a bunch of laws and acts unethically but at the end of the day saves the world then the ends justify the means. I do not usually tend to allow consequentialist ideas to be my guiding light. The saving the world analogy is an above and beyond circumstance. If it is a regular Tuesday and you are trying to make it to the bus on time and you push people down and shove past them just to make it that is quite a stretch. That would be an example of hiding behind ethical theories. Just when you think I am going to bob I weave and my opinions are not necessarily predictable based on one theory. However, a classmate of mine and a dear friend told me that no ethicist worth their moral salt sticks to one ethical theory for everything. I learned that it is okay to examine things as if they are relevantly different, which is what universalizability asks of us. I fail to be consistent in the concrete, but I would like to believe it is because I am keeping a watchful eye for relevant differences.

This brings me to one of the biggest eye openers for me and perhaps my favorite lesson, moral relativism. I read the LaFollette text and was still at a loss. A couple articles later and Pecorino dropped some knowledge on me. Another source to feeling that I am inconsistent lies in the fact that we have relativistic ideas operating in my system. I concur that unless you walk in another’s shoes it is hard to say what is right for someone else. What is right for me might not be for someone else. I am not one to push my beliefs off on another person, especially if I only assume I understand what someone else has gone through. On the other hand, there are Middle Eastern countries sometimes believe in honor killings. If a woman is raped the family kills them. That seems pretty harsh when in our society we tell victims it is not their fault, because it isn’t and we try to help them piece together their lives. To me honor killings are insane. But here I am with my relativistic ideas in conflict with each other. I am holding two opposing ideas at the same time. It blows my mind how I thought I was so open-minded, but within mere sentences I am contradicting myself. The LaFollette text points out that not all moral beliefs are equally as good.  

Lastly, when critical thinking meets logical fallacy and ethics we meet the slippery slope argument. There are two types plausible and implausible. Slippery slope arguments are a form of logical fallacy that is based upon a chain of reasoning that follows a format such A leads to B, and if B is not morally permissible, therefore A is unacceptable and we should stop A. “The key claim in the fallacy is that taking the first step will lead to the final, unacceptable step. Arguments of this form may or may not be fallacious depending on the probabilities involved in each step” (Dowden, n.d., para. 2). This reminds me that just because something is said at work, by a friend, in the media etc. that is might not be a valid claim. This reminds me of mudslinging in political campaigns. “This candidate was seen watching Fifty Shades of Grey in theatres; therefore they are too immoral to be our leader!” Okay, that is a total parody and was never said… but if you think about it that is kind of how slippery slope arguments work. It also reminds me how those with certain moral beliefs can let fear become fuel for anger and how there can be an outcry to stop social progress. I am thinking about Equal Marriage Rights here. When these arguments are used it can impede our ethical thinking about what we ought to do with often unfounded and incomplete thoughts that are not based upon fact or critical thinking.

References:

Dowden, B. (n.d.). Fallacies. Retrieved April 22, 2015, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SlipperySlope

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

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?

Gun control or the right to bear arms… this ethical issue is something in which I feel surprisingly complacently neutral. My understanding is also fairly rudimentary and I feel that there is so much mudslinging on both sides that the waters are not clear enough to discern fact or fiction when listening to televised debates and conversations, after all just because it is said does not make it correct. So this is how I initially started thinking about this issue: Some people have guns and others do not. Some people like guns and others do not. Sometimes people fear what they do not know or understand and this could be true for both sides of the argument. Guns can be used to hurt people and hurting people is something I am passionately against. Though anything can be used to hurt people, which is why the definition of what constitutes a weapon has been expanded for when people get creative. In fact, airplanes were involved in terrorism and glue and spray paint are used as drugs, sadly even the most innocent seeming items can be turned into something dangerous.

My experience with guns began when I was ten and my dad bought me a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun. Funny enough I had not seen A Christmas Story until last year despite the fact it airs for twenty-four hours on Christmas Eve almost every year without fail.  I had very clear instructions that I was never to touch this outside of my dad’s supervision and this is something I honored. I loved going in the woods and shooting soda cans that we found off of logs. A couple years ago a bunch of my friend’s and I got together and did some target practice. I have several friends’ that have extensive training with guns so they were teaching me and some of the other novices the proper handling and use. I am virtually at sniper status with a .22 rifle (soda cans beware!), but I have no business with a handgun. I do not feel capable that I would not shoot my own miniature fingers off. This became one of my many concerns of why I did not want a gun in my own home. I felt that an accident was more likely to occur, with my luck, than the need to use it to protect myself. Eventually we settled on a shotgun and it took a long time for me not to be paranoid that my cat was not going to make it shoot the house, us, itself, the other cats, the dog etc. somehow magically, you know because magic makes guns discharge…

One of my main qualms for forms of gun control is that I am not a proponent of challenging the Constitution, if our founding fathers felt it important enough to want to include this then there has to be something with historical context that they felt we would be disadvantaged not being able to bear arms. I have never lived in a time in which this was not a freedom we had; I cannot imagine what it was like during the creation of this law. My other issue is that when has banning anything ever caused stopped anything. LaFollette and I were on the same page in terms of the example of prohibition. Outlawing alcohol made it that much more of a commodity with back channels, bootlegging, the rise of the speak easy, gangsters, and crime. Anyone with alcohol was automatically a criminal. Illegal drugs are also not sold on the open market, yet they exist. At this point trying to enforce severe control or banishment would not mean the disappearance or use of guns, though that is not a terrible idea at its core.

Ethically I feel like LaFollette makes another good point that there is not really a need for bullets to be able to pierce bulletproof vests. My frequent ethics argument is just because you can do it doesn’t mean you should. So certain gun control actions could have its benefits. Conversely, if someone other than the police are wearing Kevlar that would make stopping the situation perhaps more difficult. So to get a little more perspective I wanted to get both sides of the story from both gun proponents and those that support gun control. Pratt makes a strong case in his blog that schools like Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi were able to stop a situation with the proper use of a gun before the situation escalated in 1997. Some store owners during the LA riots kept their businesses standing while others burned to the ground. This was attributed to the fact that they loaded down their store with large capacity gun magazines for assault weapons (Pratt, 2012). Pratt goes on to make note that in 2012 “all of the mass shootings that have occurred in this country, with the exception of one, have taken place in gun-free zones” (Pratt, 2012, para. 3). On the other hand, the Brady Campaign is working diligently to ensure that guns are sold with a background check so that they are not sold to fugitives, felons, of domestic abusers. While some, like Pratt, are not so keen on the work of the Brady campaign as their vision is to change gun laws, gun culture, and the gun industry.

Is it possible to meet in the middle between making sure citizens are safe and can protect themselves when chaos ensues simultaneously while controlling who can get a gun? That is a large goal with a lot of conflict toward the other’s point of view. Ethically it is hard to say that either is completely wrong or completely right. For now I am still sticking with the opinion that taking something away doesn’t mean it will go away or the problem will be solved. While there are differently places on the scale that those who support gun control sit the answer is not to completely take guns away. There is no indication in history that such a thing has been successful.

References:

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2015, from http://www.bradycampaign.org/

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

Pratt, E. (2012, December 19). Stricter Gun Control Laws Will Only Make Citizens Less Safe. Retrieved May 17, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/did-the-sandy-hook-shooting-prove-the-need-for-more-gun-control/stricter-gun-control-laws-will-only-make-citizens-less-safe

A634.7.4.RB- Ethics and Behaviors

Ethics and portraying our values is not only important in our personal lives but also our professional lives, because like any open system, one feeds back into the other. Two interesting, but brief videos outline the ideas of ethical behavior and the costs in which it can have when we make a departure from our best behaviors. At first it can seem rather innocent, but isn’t one action a possible gateway into another?

Dr. Bruce Weinstein, “The Ethics Guy”, discusses ethical intelligence saying that ethically intelligent people know how to use this awareness the right way. Being ethically intelligent doesn't just mean knowing what is right, but also having the courage to do what is right. Weinstein's work simplifies five principles: do no harm, make things better, respect others, be fair, and be compassionate. Dr. Weinstein believes that making ethics our main concern is the best way to lead a richer, more fulfilled life and by taking ethics seriously, we serve as role models to our children and increase the chances that they will go into the world and make us proud (Weinstein, 2007, n.p.).

Chuck Gallagher’s concepts appear to expand on why behaving ethically is paramount. He explains that the choices you make will have a lasting effect on the life that you lead. Our choices and decisions do not go away after they have been made. Gallagher uses a slippery slope argument regarding professional ethics and generally accepted behavior to illustrate how easy moving from unethical to illegal may be:

Not good for the customer: Selling a customer something they do not need

Not good for company: Using company resources for personal use

Policy violation: Misrepresenting expense account charges

Unethical behavior: Harassment, information sharing

Illegal: Actions that result in jail time

I have been with ERAU for a year and a half and have never seen my superiors behave unethically, and I do feel that they really are models of ethical leaders for our company. When I think about Gallagher’s slippery slope argument of ethical behavior I realize that the area I am most guilty of is doing something not good for the company. I have printed tickets to a concert before I dashed out the door on personal leave (vacation time) or have printed an assigned reading article for school. This is bad and I should definitely not do this ever again! The paper, the printer, the ink… they are not mine for my personal needs. These supplies are purchased from the money we have in our budget. Ultimately it is a form of stealing and that is not okay. I know I am not the only one at fault from this type of petty theft, but that does make it right for me when now I see the error of my ways. 

There have been times when it is questionable whether I was being ethical toward the company. ERAU allows employees a couple hours a week to pursue their own educational endeavors as part of our culture and policy. While there are plenty of my colleagues pursuing degrees I do not believe anyone is utilizing this time allowance because we are in the Department of Online Learning and are interested in doing Online programs due to the flexibility and also to understand the student life cycle better. Others who have used the time usually went to class on campus. I know some like to do assignments on their lunch breaks using their work computers. I have done this from time to time, too. I am not sure if using the company’s computer to do our academic work is bad for the company or not. After all we are using the company’s resource, the computer, but the company’s culture is to pursue education and wants to give that to the employees. I think this would be a good policy to clarify. If we start to believe that this action is okay, what else becomes okay…? I circle back to printing articles and then possibly other stuff like concert tickets. It really is a slippery slope.

That lapse of judgement aside, I have seen a lot of unethical behavior, especially when I worked as a paralegal. I have worked in several firms, but one stood out as more corrupt than the others. To be fair, I worked in a mid to large sized firm when I got start in the business that could wipe the floor with some of these other places in terms of standards and ethics, so there are good places out there. I won’t go into details because when you are defending people who have done bad things you feel you become part of their wrongdoing by being part of the defense team. I didn’t stay long in that position, but it is one of a few very defining moments in my life that shaped me and what I believe about the world.

Seeing the things I saw is why I am passionate for wanting to do better for myself and also wanting everyone to do better in general. Dr. Weinstein’s advice is that ethical intelligence and behavior can make us feel good. If egoism alone is not a reason then knowing that acting with ethical intelligence is beneficial for everyone should be a good enough reason. Let’s do better for ourselves and others without distorting what that means.

References:

Gallagher, C. (2013, January 7). Business Ethics Keynote Speaker - Chuck Gallagher - shares Straight Talk about Ethics! - YouTube. YouTube. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE

Weinstein, B. (2012, August 24). Keynote Speech Excerpts from The Ethics Guy - YouTube. YouTube. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ

Weinstein, B. (2007, January 10). Five Easy Principles? - Businessweek. Businessweek - Business News, Stock market & Financial Advice. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-01-10/five-easy-principles-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice