A634.6.3.RB_Davis Carl What are Virtues?

  

1.	Temperance: Eat not to dullness. Drink not to elevation.
2.	Silence: Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself. Avoid trifling conversation.
3.	Order: Let all your things have their places. Let each part of your business have its time.
4.	Resolution: Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.
5.	Frugality: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself: i.e., Waste nothing.
6.	Industry: Lose no time. Be always employed in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary actions.
7.	Sincerity: Use no hurtful deceit. Think innocently and justly; and if you speak, speak accordingly.
8.	Justice: Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
9.	Moderation: Avoid extremes. Forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10.	Cleanliness: Tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes, or habitation.
11.	Tranquility: Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
12.	Chastity: Rarely use venery but for health or offspring; never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.
13.	Humility: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

From: http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html

Welcome back, readers! We have an interesting topic to cover this week: virtue.

Looking up virtue at the on-line Miriam-Webster dictionary ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtue ) provides two primary definitions. One is that virtue is “conformity to a standard of right”, and the other being “a particular moral excellence”. Given the overarching topic of our class is that of ethical leadership, a discussion of virtue, and virtues, is in order.

A founding father of the United States, Benjamin Franklin, wrote about the virtues he felt every person should follow. Here is a link to the list: http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html . The Public Broadcasting System also provides a link to a test that can be taken to see how one stacks up to living by Ben’s virtues. The test can be found here:  http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/exp_virtue.html . 

The test does not take long to take and is entertaining and informative. The website provides feedback based on the answers given. I was notified that I need to work on the virtues of temperance and moderation.

Mr. Franklin was known for being very wise. I find his list to be thought compelling. I don’t disagree on the outcome of the test. I enjoy a good meal and know I need to work on moderating my portion sizes. I have been known to tell my children, “Don’t forget, even drinking too much water can be bad for you,” as I try to point out they may be binging on something and need to moderate themselves. Practicing what I preach would be a good start. As my example suggests, moderation does not apply solely to food. As our society becomes more and more impacted by the digital revolution, too much time in front of a computer or television or on a cell phone are all becoming exercises in gluttony for many. Addiction is a difficult disease from which to recover and moderation is a tool that assists in combatting its manifestation.

On an apparently similar vein, Mr. Franklin’s definition of temperance http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html invites one to “Eat not to dullness. Drink not to elevation.” Again, I’ll watch the portion sizes of whatever I ingest, be it orally, aurally, visually, or via another of my senses.

As a leader, I believe that the virtue of resolution is one worth contemplating. Mr. Franklin espoused making the conscious decision to do “what one ought”, and then to carry out that action. Said another way, don’t shirk your responsibilities. Those that follow you or work for you will expect you to do what you say you will and to follow the ethics and morals accepted by all of you. It has been my experience, both as a leader and a follower, that the message delivered by leaders that fall short of being resolute is extremely powerful and longer lasting than the messages sent by being resolute. While that seems unfair, it is a lesson to remember.

Mr. Franklin’s focus on cleanliness is applicable to leadership because those you are leading will judge you by the non-verbal messages you send. Dressing shabbily, smelling too much (that includes overdoing the cologne or perfume), or just appearing to have little care for hygiene will impact your ability to lead. I have been around some leaders with halitosis so bad it was nearly impossible to concentrate on what they were saying when they talked. (Yes, at a private opportunity later, I mentioned the issue to the leader in as polite a way as I could. It went well and the person appreciated I would give them feedback no one else had.) I strive to dress well, keep my appearance sharp, and to be aware of my level of cleanliness. My desk can use some help, though. I tend to let it get messy and then clean it every-so-often. I could use more focus there.

Take some time and review Mr. Franklin’s list. Take the test and see how you fare. Take the recommendations from the test and resolve to apply them! (See what I did there? 😉)

See you next week!

A634.5.4.RB_DavisCarl - Is Marketing Evil?

Welcome back, Readers! We’re going to look at ethics in Marketing this week. The question posed in our assignment for the week is, “Is Marketing Evil?” I harken back to reading comic books as a young lad. The allure of the advertisement for “X-ray glasses” that could see through clothes certainly was strong. How many of my peers sent money to the address and received a pair of sunglasses? I do not know. Even though I often wondered if such powerful glasses really existed, I did not send them and money.

Were those marketers evil or were they just betting that they could get enough 10-year-olds to get their parents to write a check for $4 to pay for the advertisement and maybe make a few dollars for themselves? Is that evil? Evil may be a bit too harsh a name for their fishing technique, but it was definitely false advertising.

Do ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers? Ferrell (2008) noted that most unethical behavior is driven by a need to meet performance goals, not for personal gain (p. 6). Given that premise, the goals set by the marketers’ bosses may have far more impact on their behavior than ethical guidelines the marketers may personally hold or that their organization espouses. Ferrell also pointed out, “In evaluating the key influences of ethical decision making, it is important to remember that ethical decisions are often made in groups or committees, and group thing combined with peer pressure often becomes more important than the influence of the individual” (2008, p. 6). Therefore, while ethical guidelines may be influential to the individual in the marketing department, pressure to hit various corporate goals combined with team interactions could lead to straying from the ethical path.

So, how can companies balance the need to win with being ethical? The simple answer is that being unethical can lead to situations that could lead to financial losses, personnel losses, or even the loss of the company. Ferrell referred to ethical issues that ended with people going to jail at WorldCom and in the loss of millions of dollars at Wal-Mart (2008, p. 6). I can recall Skecher’s shoes being fined millions of dollars for falsely claiming their shoes would tone people’s derrières just by walking in them (Chung, 2012). As Ferrell (2008) wrote, having an ethics plan can be a way for companies to bond to customers. If they can understand where their customers’ moral philosophies lie, it is advantageous for the company and they can build on that information. Wal-Mart has drawn on the idea that they provide lower cost goods for the middle-class and below to build an impressive market share. Hershey foods has built a reputation for quality that stands to this day (2008, p. 9). The loss of reputation due to ethical scandal should stand as a warning to all companies and marketers. WorldCom, Enron, and Union Carbide stand out as examples where marketing and ethics issues have led to corporate disaster. Yet, the issues persist. Ferrell cited data that fortified the rule of thumb known as the “ten-percent rule”. “In fact, academic studies have shown that in any workplace, at least 10 percent of the employees will take advantage of situations if the opportunity exists and the risk of being caught is low” (2008, p.6). Maintaining an ethical culture is difficult and must be attended to regularly.

As we shop, our buying, spending, and browsing habits are being tracked tallied. Is the collection of this data ethical? Is the use of that data to tailor marketing to us ethical? I think it goes back to how the data is collected and then used. If I agreed to allow the supermarket track my spending habits for a percentage off of each purchase, I am complicit. The line gets blurry when I see Amazon ads pop up with a comparable product when looking at Best Buy’s website. I don’t recall giving Amazon the right to see what I am shopping for elsewhere, but then again, I didn’t read the reams of agreements I “agreed” to when accessing Amazon’s site, either. Does that make me complicit? A lawyer would probably say so. A grander question may be whether the incredibly long user agreements are ethical. I think society has given marketing and sales departments across the globe access to amounts of data they never dreamed. Having access to that kind of data may far outrun the ethics departments at the companies mining the data and lead to more and more complicated issues.

As a leader, I will undoubtedly face ethical issues regarding the marketing of products or capabilities. The baseline for maintaining an ethical stance is my moral code and the ability to apply critical thinking to the situations I face. I can look to my company’s rules for guidance, but I must remember that the same pressures that caused many before me to falter will be present. The pressure to hit various performance targets, the pressure to make my superiors happy, and the pressure to go along with my peers and colleagues will be present. It is up to me to remember I am ultimately responsible and accountable for what I do, do not do, allow, or do not allow. I will rely on my ability to approach issues with a critical eye and I will rely on my beliefs and those whose opinion I value and trust.

Chung, J. (2012). Skechers Will Pay $45 Million And Stop Claiming Your Butt Will Look Better In Their Shoes. News.  Retrieved from http://gothamist.com/2012/05/16/skechers_will_pay_45_million_stop_c.php

Ferrell, D. L. (2008). Marketing Ethics.   Retrieved from http://college.cengage.com/business/modules/marktngethics.pdf

A634.4.4.RB - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Welcome back, readers! It’s week four of our class on ethics and we are going to talk about affirmative action. Without a doubt, this is a topic that generates high-energy conversations among most Americans. Given the subject of our class, the question we face is whether affirmative action programs are ethical. I contend that the concept of the program is ethical, but the various applications of the program have not always been so. In our textbook, LaFollette contended that affirmative action programs are both necessary and ethical (2007).

In their inception, affirmative action programs were to provide a leveling of the playing field for groups that were historically underrepresented in the workforce and in other areas, like university enrollment. The programs were to give minorities and women a fair chance to compete for jobs. As the website www.civilrights.org noted, “As President Lyndon Johnson said in 1965, ‘You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete with all the others, and still just believe that you have been completely fair’"(2017). Additionally, www.civilrights.org stated, “The emphasis is on opportunity: affirmative action programs are meant to break down barriers, both visible and invisible, to level the playing field, and to make sure everyone is given an equal break. They are not meant to guarantee equal results -- but instead proceed on the common-sense notion that if equality of opportunity were a reality, African Americans, women, people with disabilities and other groups facing discrimination would be fairly represented in the nation's work force and educational institutions” (2017). It is worth noting that the US Congress still does not meet the measure of the ‘common-sense notion’ mentioned above.

To strive for each person to have an equal opportunity to be considered for a job or a college enrollment is an ethical position to take. If we are to believe that all people are born with the capability to perform equally, given equal opportunity, then representation in the workforce and other areas should closely resemble that of the population.

Some high-profile court cases regarding various affirmative action programs have damaged the image first proclaimed by President Johnson. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court faced a case in 1978 where a white male, who was more qualified than African-American applicants to the university, was denied entrance to the school because 16 slots were kept for ‘qualified’ African-Americans. All the designated slots were not filled, yet Bakke was denied entry. This happened two years in a row and then Bakke filed suit (Wasson, 2004). “In 1987, the high court said temporary and “narrowly tailored” quota systems were allowed. The case stemmed from an affirmative action plan that imposed a promotion standard of “one black for one white” in the Alabama state police ranks. The quota was justified, justices ruled, because of the department’s “long and shameful record of delay and resistance” to black employment opportunities. Twenty years later, a more conservative court declared that public school systems cannot try to achieve or maintain integration based on explicit race rules. In a 5-to-4 opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” At issue in the case were programs in Seattle and Louisville, Ky., that tried to maintain racial diversity by limiting transfers and admissions”(Fontaine, 2009).

A key point of affirmative action was that it was to serve as a guide and not a quota. The court cases I have seen appear to have been caused by programs using a more quota-like approach. My experience with affirmative action programs has been positive, in that the program served as a guide and not a quota. If there were no minorities who were qualified to fill a position, we could move straight to recruiting members of the majority. My understanding is that this approach is a function of a cooperative relationship between my company and our State’s EEO office.

In summary, I believe affirmative action programs are ethical. It is in the implementation of these programs that issues of reverse discrimination arise.

Have a great week and we’ll see you again soon at The Educated Leadership blog!

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

Unknown. (2017). Affirmative Action.   Retrieved from http://www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/affirmaction.html?referrer=https://www.google.com./

Wasson, G. P. (2004). Affirmative Action: Equality or Reverse Discrimination? , Liberty University. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1148&context=honors 

A634.3.4.RB_DavisCarl - The Harder They Fall

                                             The White Tower - London - 2015 - C. Davis

Here we are, moving through another week of the Educated Leadership blog! This week we read an article about business leaders that seem to lose track of their morals and ethics after reaching the highest levels in their companies.

The article was called, “The Harder They Fall”, by Roderick M. Kramer and was printed in the October 2003 edition of The Harvard Business Review. The premise of Mr. Kramer’s article was that the skills required to climb the corporate ladder to its highest level are not the same skills one needs to remain in the job, once it is attained.

To become CEO of a major corporation, many hurdles and challenges must be faced and conquered. In the end, the competition often comes down to one or two extremely qualified candidates. The contest can be cut-throat and the experience can change the personality of those involved. Mr. Kramer noted, “Indeed, to get to the apex of their profession, individuals are often forced to jettison certain attitudes and behaviors – the same attitudes and behaviors they need for survival once they get to the top. As a result, we often ended up with leaders who lacked the prudence, sense of proportion, and self-restraint needed to cope with the trappings of power” (2003, p. 60).

In my career, I have seen variations on this theme. Usually, they fall into a version of what is known as the “Peter Principle”. The idea was proposed by Laurence Peter in 1969 and presented in his book titled, “The Peter Principle”. Mr. Peter proposed that people tend to rise to "their level of incompetence." Thus, as a person moves up to higher and higher corporate levels, they become progressively less effective because good performance in one job does not guarantee similar performance in another.

Kramer (2003)

 pointed out that the tools of self-reflection and restraint no longer are available to those who have fought for and reached the top. I would add that it also becomes increasingly difficult to maintain connectedness to the lower levels of the organization. I have seen several reasons for this happening. The first being that the breadth of responsibilities for the manager increases greatly with each step up. The bandwidth required to maintain a level of understanding gets strained with each move. At the same time, the number of people vying for time and attention with the manager goes up. The complexity of the inner workings of the organization over which the manager presides becomes more difficult to intuit.  Additionally, many fall into the trap of only listening to those who agree with them. The biggest reason I have seen people struggle as they earned promotions is that they do not have the management and leadership skills needed to delegate to and trust those they now have in their charge. I put the moral dilemma here at the feet of the corporation, or at least in the lap of the managers (or Boards of Directors) that do not provide training and tools to those they promote.

Taking this idea and applying it to life, I think it isn’t a far leap to make. My first thought is parenthood. How many of us got “promoted” to being a parent with very little in the way of skills or knowledge about what we were getting into? The responsibility and workload are hard to comprehend until one is thrust into the job. There are plenty of books and classes available, but few have the time or wherewithal to avail themselves of the information. To tie this back into our class, does that make becoming a parent without the skills to perform a moral dilemma? There are certainly cases where it seems immoral for some people to have children in their custody.

As I consider other areas where this unpreparedness or the phenomenon of needing one set of skills to get to a destination but a separate set after arrival occurs, I can see it other places. There are moral questions about giving 18-year-olds the right to vote when our education system isn’t teaching them critical thinking skills. Our current political situation highlights the lack of prerequisites our election process requires of someone to sit in the highest seat in our government. The morality of having someone with no political experience as president is in question now.

We will all face dilemmas. We will need to draw upon our own morals, gather all the reliable information we can get, and decide. We need to learn from the examples of those who have climbed to the top only to fall, sometimes spectacularly, and do our best to do better.

See you next week!

Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

Peter, L. J. (1996). The Peter Principle: Buccaneer Books. Orig. Published 1969