A634.4.4RB_SeabournBeau

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

So after going back and forth with myself, I’ve decided that affirmative action is not ethical. Our reading this week defines affirmative action as “the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women in hiring and school placement” (LaFollette, 2007). Additionally, our reading goes onto say that “according to the principle of universalizability we should treat cases the same unless there are general and relevant differences between them that can justify a difference in treatment” (LaFollette, 2007). Making an ethical business decision should be made with no prejudice and with complete dedication to the direction of your business. With that being said, a business should be able to select the candidate that best fits the position the business has the need for. There should be no external pressure from anyone to correct that decision for the organization. Ethically speaking, we cannot as a country or as a governing agency, require what staff an organization selects. I would however understand if there were serious issues with a particular company openly and selectively hiring people because of their race or any secondary factor other then their work skills. To clarify, if Bob owns a landscaping business, he should be able to hire anyone he wants that will best get the job done for him. No one should have a say in that process. However, if Bob openly states that he will not hire someone because of his preference, not taking job skills into account, then we have to be careful in allowing that. Ultimately however, it is the owner’s preference to do what they like with their company. No one can tell someone what is going to be successful or who is going to do the best job for them. 

Observing the other side of the coin, the reading states “A person’s life chances are heavily shaped by their economic and social standing, as well as the educational attainment, of their parents” (LaFollette, 2007). I reply to that by saying that we currently live in a capitalistic state where anyone can succeed. My second source agrees when they say “you get to choose what kind of work to do, where to work, and have the freedom to decide how to spend your paycheck” (Tomasovic, 2014). I have serious doubts that in today’s society that people can still hold their parents accountable for their successes or failures. The source goes onto say that “Capitalism creates competition in the market by allowing people or firms to enter the market freely. Governments are not allowed to butt in other than to keep things fair and legal” (Tomasovic, 2014). If you focus on the last part of that reference, he says “fair and legal”. I think that plays in to my observation. We have to ensure that people can hire who they want, as long as it is lawful and just. The other only hang up might be determining who thinks the situation is fair. I think that debate can go one forever.

  

References

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

Tomasovic, N. (2014, May 24). Advantages of Capitalism: Freedom to Succeed. Retrieved June 24, 2015, from https://blog.udemy.com/advantages-of-capitalism/

A634.3.5RB_SeabournBeau

To begin, I want to focus my attention to a “good” dilemma that has recently come about in my professional life.  Recently it has been made clear that there will be an opening for a manager’s position at facility located around 15 miles from my current facility. I was called by my boss’s boss to consider the position. He outlined everything that was going to happen from now until the position is open. Currently, this new facility has a couple of employees who are making things hard on the manager there and they’ve basically caused that manager to move onto a new job. To rectify the current situation, they have assigned an interim manager to the location to smooth things over and get things back on track. Between January and June of next year, that interim manager will be leaving to go back to his old facility thus leaving the positions vacant again. That is were I come in. Once he leaves, they mentioned that I’m first inline for the job. The dilemma comes in because as a first time manager, should I take a job that has issues/personnel problems? I’ve been ensured most of the personnel issues should be resolved by the time I’d report but that’s not for sure. Secondly, the new facility is a longer drive from my home and the hours are completely different then what I work now. I don’t want this to sound like a bad thing though; I actually am looking forward to the challenges ahead. The dilemma is small career wise, I want to move up and this is my opportunity. If I pass, I’ll have to wait at least 3-4 years for another local opportunity like this to present itself. The reading mentions that “big time success usually comes after enormous sacrifice” (Kramer, 2003). That is the case here and it’ll be worth doing.

What I’ve learned this week is that once I get to that new position (assuming it happens as planned), I have to be careful not to let the power consume me. Kramer states “leaders create trouble for themselves when their indulgences become to out of sync with what other people believe is right or fair” (Kramer, 2003). I’ll have to remember that the people I’m going to lead are in the same position I am now. I have to keep their best interest in mind without taking advantage of them. Kramer also says “leaders can abandon practices once they’re at the top” (Kramer, 2003). I’ll have to make sure that I spend a lot of time trying to make sure that I don’t forget where I came from and how I felt when I was in the subordinate’s position. When I recall my time in the Navy, I always remember the people who made E-7 (Chief) rank. They’ve moved from a general rank to a move selected and established rank when that happens. When they make chief, they go through indoctrination and they become part of a “club” if you will. I would say that in nine times out of ten, they would become a different person. I don’t mean a different leader, I mean they immediately let the positional power go to their head and it is as if they forgot where they just came from. Kramer states that “successful leaders strive to become more reflective” (Kramer, 2003). In my experience in the Navy, those new chief’s were hardly reflective and mostly forgetful of their past.

Lastly, for me I have to take time to know that I actually did put in the hard work to get to where I am. Kramer states “getting ahead means doing things differently from ordinary people” (Kramer, 2003). What I assume that to mean is that the leaders often times work harder and more effectively then their new subordinates. After all, leaders are leaders for a reason. If becoming a good leader was easy, everyone would be in a management role. Sometimes hard work and sacrifice will lead to a better outcome. What I’ve learned from this reading this week is that we have to remember that things will change going into management level jobs but we cannot let things change us otherwise we may face our own demise. I look forward to taking this lesson and applying it to my potential new role in my company.

Reference

Kramer, R. M. (2003). THE HARDER THEY FALL. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

A634.2.4RB_SeabournBeau

When I’ve made a lot of decisions in the past, I made them based on the outcomes or consequences that would be associated with the failure of my plan. The reading this week opened my eyes to the actual mental thought process that is associated with my actual pattern of thinking. The reading states “consequentialists claim that we are all morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (LaFollette, 2007). I wouldn’t say that I’ve always thought in terms of long term consequences but more in the “what do I do if this fails” mentality. I’m not sure those two are the same thought patterns but they’re close. I think of consequentialism as predicting the outcomes of larger scale decisions we make. Like the reading says, we don’t often think about the smaller ramifications of our actions. Consequentialist theory “must specify which consequences are morally relevant, how much weight we should give them; and how, precisely, we should use them in moral reasoning” (LaFollette, 2007). Personally, I feel like I don’t go through that entire process but it seems like it would be exhausting to do in every major thought/decision. I’m more free spirited in that I go with what feels correct. 

On the other hand there is Deontology. We all know by a young age, the things that our family and social setting deems appropriate. Deontology says we can “be confident that we know how we should act and how to morally evaluate ours and others actions” (LaFollette, 2007). I wonder how many times I think to myself, “doesn’t this person know how to act here?”. Sometimes I pair the two together. I want to project outcomes and consequences based on my knowledge of a situation. Deontology gives us an outline of the things we should not do and we are taught these things at a very young age. My initial thought is that a lot of people must base deontology to morally correct decision making which in turn, equates to sound ethical decision making. I would argue that both consequentialistm and deontology can lead to sound ethical choices. 

I personally feel that there isn’t one correct way to process information. I like to think in terms of outcomes and consequences if I fail. Some people like to make choices based on moral reasoning. I also think that in order to be totally successful, you have to use moral reasoning and consequential outcomes. As leaders, we should try to always do what is best for our long term success and the success of our business, even if that means trying new techniques or observing from another person’s point of view.

Reference

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

A634.1.6RB_SeabournBeau

            Like most things this week, I was unaware of the growing issues within the business school MBA programs. To be very honest, I didn’t know there were any issues. After the reading this week, that all changed for me. I am now well aware that there is a very real issue with the ethical decision making processes MBA graduates are leaving with and taking directly into the workplace. One thing that stood out for me in the article was “teaching one ethics course doesn't ensure that a marketing professor will, for instance, discuss privacy-related issues while describing the Net's use as a marketing medium” (Podolny, 2009). The reason that caught my attention is because of the outcomes and consequences of not linking real time information with ethical decision making. Any student can take an ethics course and talk about the “what-ifs” but until the actual business classrooms identify those ethical situations in practical application, I don’t think we will see any really change in the way things are being done.           

            Personally, I feel as though the monetary gains linked to an MBA far outweigh any actual ethical decision making. What I mean is, when a graduate leaves and starts looking for a job, I’m sure they’re not looking for the most ethical and responsible company out there. They are looking for someone who is going to pay the bills and put lots of money in their pocket. The ethical principles of the company are only secondary to the salary. If we want there to be more honesty, integrity and trust in the financial institutions, maybe we should start holding companies to a higher standard. If we don’t do that, why would institutions change their procedures for churning out graduates? It could work the other way also; companies could and should be looking for the most sounds decision makers they can find. I feel as though they are focusing their attention on performance and outcomes rather than the ethical principles an employee brings with them. They then wonder later why they have employee issues and HR problems. The article states “In order to reduce people's distrust, business schools need to show that they value what society values” (Podonly, 2009). I agree with that observation but society values the dollar now. So how can we expect that observation to help anything?

             I actually found some information in reference to a business school that is worried about this issue. One source states “Stern, which claims to have been one of the first business schools to require an ethics course more than 30 years ago, was ranked eighth on the Aspen Institute's 2009-2010 Global 100 List of business schools that prepare M.B.A.s for "social, ethical, and environmental stewardship” (Wecker, 2011). I think that it is imperative that institutions like this continue to be recognized and understood. One last observation mentioned “colleagues at his institution, which requires a course in business ethics and government, have noticed more professors integrating ethics into syllabi” (Wecker, 2011). If they are already trying to implement the ethics into practical use, we need to get the businesses to offer financial rewards for ethically sound MBA graduates. It won’t be until that happens that we see a major swing in more ethical behavior from our financial institutions.

Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School (Links to an external site.). Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 62-67.

Wecker, M. (2011, September 20). Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2011/09/20/business-schools-increasingly-require-students-to-study-ethics