A634.6.3.RB - What are Virtues?

A634.6.3.RB - What are Virtues?

Benjamin Franklin's self-improvement program included 13 virtues that he felt were important guides for living along with principles for each that would, in his opinion, define a person of good character. He developed a scorecard for evaluating how well he measured up to his own ideals. Throughout his life, Franklin tried to live by these virtues though not always successfully.

Ben Franklin’s 13 Virtues (PBS, n.d.):

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.

Select three of Franklin's virtues and reflect upon them in your blog. Ask yourself, how can I include them in my daily life?

Even before I took the on-line test to see how I measured up to Ben’s list of virtues, I picked Tranquility and Resolution as two of the three virtues I needed to work on and incorporate them more into my daily life. The third one, Order, definitely needs a place in my daily life as well. (My test said that I should work on Temperance but since the reality is that I usually have a glass or two of wine a week - I'm going to skip that one. I'm 43 for crying out loud; I'm too busy to be drunk.)

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.

11. Tranquility: Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.

Looking at Resolution, basically to perform what I ought and perform without fail what you resolve. It’s basically do what you say you’re going to do and do it well. I have such a problem with procrastination that this resonated with me on many levels. Actually, the procrastination that I have such a problem with comes from my lack of tranquility. I get anxiety about doing the things I’m supposed to be doing so much so that I actually self-sabotage. Then I realize that I’m doing it and stress over that too. If I had more order in my life though, perhaps the tranquility and resolution would follow. The 13 virtues do seem somewhat interrelated.

Ben Franklin’s 13 Virtues have a place in modern day life and the fact that Ben was not as virtuous as he said we should all be in his list of 13 virtues actually gives me hope. While Franklin never accomplished his goal of moral perfection, and had some notable flaws (womanizing and his love of beer probably gave him some problems with chastity and temperance), he felt he benefited from the attempt of it (McKay, 2008). Most of the great leaders that we celebrate today, even hundreds of years after their deaths, were still just humans after all. They tripped and fell, learned right from wrong, made mistakes, and were still able to make a lasting mark on humanity that will outlive their human forms. Jesus and Socrates included! [V]irtue theory puts excessive emphasis on the individual agent...overemphasizes the agent's personal purity and the actions of individual agents...in ways that are psychologically implausible. (LaFollette, 2007)  

Most of us try to be good people and we live by some personal credo or set of rationale that sets us up in the right direction every day. It could be some motto that we repeat to ourselves while getting ready to face the day or even a song we play on our way to work to get us in the right mindset. We try to do our best but we make mistakes and hopefully learn from those mistakes which help us make tomorrow better. I think that’s what the virtues Ben Franklin wrote were to him too. They were his list of things to work on, and he kept track of those things and what he needed to work harder on. We all falter in life and it’s just nice to know that we’re in good company!

References

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

McKay, Brett & Kate (2008). Lessons in manliness: Benjamin Franklin’s pursuit of the virtuous life. Lessons in manliness. http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/02/24/lessons-in-manliness-benjamin-franklins-pursuit-of-the-virtuous-life/

PBS.(n.d.). Ben’s 13 virtues. PBS.org. http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html

A634.5.4.RB - Is Marketing Evil?

A634.5.4.RB - Is Marketing Evil?

After reading the article "Marketing Ethics" by Linda Ferrell:

1. Do you feel ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers?

Ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers as long as it is profitable for them. This sounds jaded and is very much a generalization. I know that some ads have a legitimate intention of just informing the public of something. A jazz club marketing team tasked with advertising upcoming acts and happy hours probably have no other ulterior evil motive. However, having worked in on-line marketing for the Seattle Times, I can say with confidence that most marketers will have no problem targeting specific people any way they possibly can. Companies can target their potential customers down to the IP address of their computers. The people who decide how, when, and where to target their preferred market have guidelines that do have to be followed though. Part of my job was to test the ads and edit for grammar, links that didn’t work, and inappropriate content. We had one advertisement for a weight loss product where if the user clicked on the “X” to clear the ad a confirmation would pop up that said something like: “By closing this ad you are indicating that you are a fat loser who doesn’t care about their health.” It was brutal and definitely not the image or message the Seattle Times wanted to convey and we removed the ad immediately. No marketing strategy can be implemented without complete understanding of its objectives and employee cooperation to make it work. (Ferrell, n.d.)

2. How can companies balance the need to win with being ethical?

If all companies adhere to the ethical guidelines then yes. Unfortunately, those companies that play fast and loose with the guidelines tend to get the upper hand.  Transparency though can be that balance. If I, the consumer, know what I’m getting into from the beginning, then I’ve entered my personal information willingly and understand the consequences. When companies use underhanded tactics like the examples of Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart to gain footing in another market it really just assumes that the consumer isn’t smart enough to make their own choices. Marketing in itself is a study of the human psyche though; ad agencies have to work miracles to make something common uncommon while convincing the public that they will become better people if they buy it. The key is whether the organization has adequately planned to mitigate the potential results of poor choices through leadership, effective ethics programs, prompt response, disciplinary actions, appropriate disclosure, communication to the workforce, and the public crisis management communication so that they do not escalate into catastrophes. (Ferrell, n.d.)

3. Is it ethical to track your buying habits or web visits to target you for marketing purposes?

No, it really isn’t. However, is it ethical to put a bunch of ads in the Sunday paper knowing that more people buy a Sunday paper than any other day? Pop-up ads and strategic ad placing on websites has become the new normal. Somehow, we’ve bought into the belief that companies that track our buying habits is actually a convenience for us. How lovely that since I ordered my face cream on Amazon yesterday that today I’m seeing ads for youthful skin and other beauty products that somehow tie back into that purchase. What if I made that purchase for my sister? The same can be said for grocery stores that have the “loyalty” cards. We get “special” discounts without coupons just because we’ve signed up for the Safeway Loyalty card and inadvertently given them access to our purchase history. Is it ethical for the websites to allow companies to do this tracking through their sites? If you open the door, isn’t whoever is standing on your doorstep going to try to come inside?

4. As a leader, how will you manage the ethical aspects of your marketing efforts?

As a leader, you have to hold people accountable, lead by example, and live the values you tout. This situation is made more dynamic because individuals are culturally diverse, have different values, and have different personal attributes, such as personality, age, and gender, which may influence how they will react in an organizational decision.  (Ferrell, n.d.) Again, I have to say that even as a leader marketing your product, whether that product is a new soft drink or data that backs up a recommendation to spend millions of dollars, transparency is essential; transparency and thorough preparation. Recently at work, a presentation was given to primarily executives and finance about three new CAMS (I think it stands for Camera Measurement Software) shoot tools. These are basically super fancy laser level/tolerance/balancing tools to make sure that when the airplane is joined together, everything lines up. It’s done before and after the join. The presentation mentioned how the tools were part of a strategy and of course it mentioned the cost. The justification for the cost was wrong though. The data given was full of false promises like they would never have to replace these tools, they never broke down, etc. Ridiculous claims that had anyone with any background at all working with these tools been present would know to be absolutely not true.  Marketing is a functional part of an organization, and ethical decision making must be coordinated with the other functional areas. Without the ability to coordinate across functional areas, key oversight and understanding will be lost. (Ferrell, n.d.) Now that the project has gotten approval and we’re moving forward on the purchase, the true capabilities are being talked about like the real maintenance and upgrade needs, possibility of downtime, and the need to always have a back-up for this downtime, etc., the people who approved the money disbursement are all in shock and feel lied to. Once we recognize that both actions and omissions shape [our] propensities for future behavior, it is apparent that slopes cannot be avoided. (LaFollette, 2007) I don’t know who was more wrong, the people over-promising or the executives who did not ask critical questions about the tools and the processes. I feel that the company who sold this amazing-never-breaks-down version of this tool marketed their product with half-truths and bloated data. I also think that the leadership involved didn’t want to admit that they needed help from the lowly mechanics to make this decision. These assumptions on my part are all conjecture since I heard about this second-hand but I’ve been in these meetings before, and I’ve been with my organization long enough to know that while most of our leadership have the very best of intentions, ego can be a problem.

References

Ferrell, L. (n.d.) Marketing ethics. University of Wyoming.

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

A634.4.4.RB - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

A634.4.4.RB - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Use Chapters 5 and 6 (LaFollette, 2007) as the foundation for your reflections regarding if affirmative action is ethical. Be sure to include external sourced content. Present your opinion, support your opinion, and opposing viewpoints.

After reading those chapters, my husband and I had a pretty in-depth conversation about affirmative action. I generically asked him what he thought about affirmative action and he had a negative reaction to it. He had been an Army recruiter in the 1990’s and said that he had seen people who were really unqualified in to be soldiers brought in to fill a quota. He said that these soldiers, primarily black soldiers, were unmotivated and actually held their units back because they knew they wouldn’t get kicked out, that it was illegal to discriminate so they really worked the system. He did say that it wasn’t every single black soldier, obviously, but there were a few that really made everyone else look bad. I believe it was situations like this that gave affirmative action the negative connotation it has and also confirmed the fears of those who opposed it.

Companies today are quick to tout their diversity metrics, they know that in order to be relevant and to be attractive to their customers, they must show that they are diverse and accepting. The most successful enterprises believe that it is necessary to build in diversity from the ground up. (Anderson, 2015) This is great in theory but troublesome in practice. Unfortunately, not everyone is on board with this whether they show it or not. In our text, Lafollette talks about racism as being a deep seeded habit that no matter how wrong we know it to be, deep in people’s psyche and their guts, if they are racists, they will always be racists just not publically or where anyone can notice. Their inner voice is going to always default to that way of thinking, like a bad habit. Habits have motivational inertia. Simply removing the cognitive elements that shape them will not eliminate visceral and reactive elements. (LaFollette, 2007)  A manager may not outwardly show that he or she is racist but their default instincts will tend to favor non-black subordinates. The same goes for those who are feminists or misogynists. I am a proud feminist and I know that as a manager, I would have to make sure that I’m not just giving the good assignments to all of the women on my team because I feel as though they deserve it more. I know my default reaction is to help build up the women that I work with because in my opinion, men already have preferential treatment.

Affirmative action also brings a stigma to those who fall under its protection. If I was a black woman who was hired, no matter that I have impressive college degrees and years of related experience, I would possibly feel like I have to constantly prove that I deserved to be in that job. Would other people look at me and assume that the only reason I got the job was because of my ethnicity? That is a heavy burden to bear. People who have struggled to be accepted will be best placed to eliminate the cultural and societal barriers that they had to overcome. (Anderson, 2015) LaFollette mentions that because the black people have been held back for so long that they’re at a disadvantage. Because white people have had their wealth and power longer than everyone else, the rest of the non-white world will never catch up. [S]erious wrongs usually have significant effects rippling into the distant future. (LaFollette, 2007) The price of slavery and oppression continues into the future and ideas like affirmative action were put in place to help correct that gap. People’s history shapes their opportunities. (LaFollete, 2007)

As a woman, I’m part of a group who has also been oppressed – although not on any scale close to that of black oppression. I don’t want to say that my comparison is apples to apples. Not at all. But for a very long time, women couldn’t own property, had to succumb to the rule of their husbands and fathers, and were thought of as inferior to the almighty man. We are the weaker sex, delicate and emotional. We were finally given the right to vote in 1920. Since then, women have been trying to catch up with men, financially, politically, and in business. We’re still called “sweetie” and “honey” by our male colleagues and bosses. We’re not treated as equals and still have to prove ourselves worthy of our positions and any wealth we acquire.   

But the benchmarks so often cited -- the right to vote, working outside the home, laws that make domestic violence illegal -- don't change the reality of women's lives. They don't prevent 1 million women from being raped, female troops from being assaulted or the continued legal discrimination against gay and transgender people. And seriously, are American women really supposed to be satisfied with the most basic rights of representation? Thrilled that our country has deigned to consider us fully human? (Valenti, 2010)

 

All groups who have been held back from the same opportunities as other human beings have to work harder to be heard. A program that was meant to help people who needed help bridging this extremely wide gap in education and employment has become something that people are hesitant to be affiliated with.  Whether that affiliation is at a job or in a school it still brings with it a stigma of somehow getting something for nothing. [W]hat affirmative action has done is level the playing field.  It makes sure that people who have potential but whose life circumstances have meant they have been unable to realize it still have access to all the opportunities they deserve. (Anderson, 2015) Personally, I think that if we spent less time trying to guess if someone is qualified to be in a job or attend a school and more time just listening to each other, affirmative action and things like diversity metrics will just melt into obscurity. We shouldn’t still be fighting these fights. We just shouldn’t.

References:

Anderson, D. (2015) 10 reasons affirmative action still matters today. https://www.listland.com/10-reasons-affirmative-action-still-matters-today/

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

Valenti, J. (2010). For women in America, equality is still an illusion. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902049.html

A634.3.4.RB - The Harder They Fall

A634.3.4.RB - The Harder They Fall

Using concepts from the Kramer (2003) article as a baseline, share your insights on dilemmas that happen in society, work, and in your life.

In the article, The Harder They Fall, author Kramer talks about how some hard working, deserving people change when they make it to that proverbial corner office or executive level. People who are highly motivated and work hard to get through the ranks somehow forget how to function when they are faced with a large expense account and access to more power than they’ve ever experienced. The article was full of examples of well-meaning and deserving people who just couldn’t handle the pressure that came with the big promotion.  I actually experienced something like this, on a much smaller scale, when I became the Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) Coordinator for all of Puget Sound when I worked at North Coast Electric in 2006. I’ve written about it before because it had such a profound impact on my life.

I had started working for North Coast in April 2004 and worked my way up from a temporary job counting inventory in the warehouse to being a VMI associate to actually managing over 60 sites in Washington State and three VMI associates who covered the day to day work in under two years. We drove vans that supplied job trailers and smaller job boxes at construction sites and commercial manufacturers who had electrical shops internally. We supplied all of their electrical components from switch covers to copper wire, to electrical boxes and automation supplies.

It was awesome. I had a company credit card, an auto allowance because I used my vehicle so my team always had access to the actual company VMI vans and trucks, tech allowance that paid for my laptop and snazzy new Blackberry phone with the Nextel walkie-talkie feature, and a gas card. I had autonomy and the ability to be wherever I was needed at any time. I worked 60+ hour weeks and would occasionally put over 1,000 miles in a week on my vehicle. I loved being able to troubleshoot and help the customers wherever they were. I loved the challenge, I was good at it, and it went to my head. I honestly thought I was untouchable. I thought that I brought so much value to this team that I could do whatever I needed, break whatever rule I had to in order to get our customers what they needed. As it turned out, I could not.

I started making assumptions about what should and shouldn’t be part of my team’s responsibilities. I was being an advocate but I was also straining relationships between service centers and my team. One of my rules was that my team did not have time to pull their own orders. They were to go to a service center, check their orders for accuracy, load up and get going. If they had an understanding that they would pull their own orders at a particular service center because of timing or whatever I vetoed it. They were trying to build a good working relationship with the service center that helped them out. I saw it as they were being taken advantage of. One day, I walked into one of these warehouses where my team spent about three hours a week pulling their own orders. As I turned the corner, I could see that the warehouse guys were actually playing baseball. In the warehouse. My VMI guy was pulling his orders and trying to get out the door. I was fuming. Later that day, I received an e-mail from the VMI director asking why we were not supporting a customer (that was supported through the warehouse I just mentioned) like we said we would. (Most customers had a contract with us saying that we would replenish their sites once or twice a week, or however necessary.) I replied back to him that if that warehouse hadn’t been playing the “World Series of Warehouse Baseball” we could have gotten to the customer on time. Unfortunately, that had been a “Reply All” response and everyone who was anyone at North Coast Electric in WA and OR saw that e-mail. I got a threatening phone call from the warehouse’s manager and shortly thereafter was invited to go back on the road or find another job. There had been other incidences that compounded with this made it the nail in my coffin. I had also rushed a large order in the Seattle warehouse that ended up putting all of the other customers second and had thought that buying pizza for the entire warehouse to show my appreciation would smooth things over. (Which it did for the warehouse team, they didn’t mind helping us from time to time. It was the Big Boss who was not amused.) There were a couple of other things but I think you understand what happened. I ended up leaving after three weeks of dragging my feet and feeling sorry for myself. It took me a few years to really get over what happened and understand that while some of it wasn’t my fault, there were big chunks that were.

Kramer talks about the genius-to-folly syndrome. [A] swift and steady rise by a brilliant, hard-driving, politically adept individual followed by surprising stints of miscalculation and recklessness. (Kramer, n.d.) My example is so much less than the examples that Kramer shares in his article but the impact was still pretty heavy to me. I sincerely hope that when I have an opportunity to be in management again that I am more cautious and thoughtful with how I treat the people I work with, internally and externally. I learned a lot from that experience and it humbled me quite a bit. It actually impacted my self-confidence drastically. I still don't fully trust myself almost a full ten years later.

My intentions were to be an advocate for my team but in the end, I was really just a crazy person on full tilt. [W]hat we really need to do is to shine a light on our weaknesses to understand them better. (Kramer, n.d.) Obviously, in hind-sight on this situation, I can see that the risks I took in the name of advocacy of my team actually put other people in unnecessarily stressful or rushed situations. My actions were selfish and not considering the bigger picture. Today I’m hesitant to volunteer or apply for too big of a leadership role but I also don’t make decisions without considering everyone’s perspective.

References:

Kramer, R.M. (n.d.). The harder they fall. Harvard Business Review.

A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

In Chapter 2, LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your thoughts on these two theories.

Consequentialism is the idea that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences. Deontology is the idea that we are obligated to follow moral rules regardless of the consequences. (Lafollette, 2007) After reading the chapter twice, both of these philosophies seem to have many holes and produce more questions than answers. If this was a world where rules were rules and consequences didn’t matter, then we would all be blindly doing and not doing things just because that’s what we’ve been told is right. If that’s the case, then where did the rules come from? Ideally, society has rules to keep people in check, to make sure that things run smoothly. But if consequences were of no…consequence, then why have rules? It’s like the chicken or the egg…which came first? It makes sense that rules were derived from bad decisions that had terrible consequences. When roads were first started and cars started getting faster, did speed limits come before speeding accidents or were there so many accidents that those folks in charge felt there needed to be a rule to adhere to in order to cut down on speeding accidents?

According to consequentialism, before making a choice on how to behave, we are obligated to think through every possible scenario, or consequence, weight them, and choose the option that has the best outcome for everyone. What I don’t quite understand is what are the scenarios measured with? Who defines what is bad, good, better, or best? What is the criteria upon which these choices are weighed? Whose thumb are we using? What’s beneficial to me may have no impact whatsoever on someone else. My good doesn’t equal your good every time. I think we could both agree that some things are beautiful, but you may like birds singing in the morning and it might drive me crazy because I work third shift and am trying to sleep. This isn’t really saying that the actual singing of the bird is good or bad overall.

I think the idea of trying to weigh the choices against a possible outcome is smart, we shouldn’t jump into things without thinking them through at least a little bit. When facing a moral decision, we should consider available actions, trace the likely consequences of each for all affected, and then select the one with the best overall consequences. (Lafollette, 2007) In the example of the woman having to tell her father, who is already weak from heart surgery, that his sister has died, no one knows what the best outcome is truly for the father. Perhaps the sister had been suffering for years from a terrible disease and her death was actually a relief because she wasn’t suffering anymore? No matter what the woman decides to do, she has to make some pretty big assumptions about what her father can and can’t handle. Consequentialism on its own is definitely flawed, it is full of assumptions and speculation and is just too subjective to be an all or nothing proposition.

Deontology is primarily a list of rules, and is familiar in that most of us started out with basic rules in which to navigate life: “Don’t eat mud.” “Say please and thank you.” “Don’t pick your nose.” These were all helpful when we were young because our moral decisions at that time were of little consequence. If I chose to ignore a rule and eat mud, I would most likely end up with a tummy ache and a scolding. As adults, we still have those rules but they have become nuanced and full of caveats. Our moral decisions are based on the rules but also our values and belief system. If I apply for a job that I’m not super interested in and actually get an interview, I’m denying someone else, who may really want that job an opportunity to interview. To me it’s just a practice interview, for someone else, it could be life changing. Deontologists claim that our moral obligations – whatever they are – are defined by the rules, partly independently of consequences. (Lafollette, 2007) If there are rules that don’t pay any mind to consequences then there seems to be no risk to not following the rules. When there is no consequence, the rules lose their authority.

Together, or some hybrid of Consequentialism and Deontology would be more impactful with making moral decisions. Then, there would be rules, consequences that would give the rules heft, and possibly a systematic way to weigh the options. (Although, the question of what these choices are being measured to still troubles me.) Rules with consequences are like checks and balances...they keep us on the right track. According to the Philosophy Basics website, Rule Consequentialism, is a theory that moral behaviour involves following certain rules, but that those rules should be chosen based on the consequences that the selection of those rules have. (Mastin, n.d.) This form of consequentialism would sort of merge the two theories. Either way, I still believe that choosing how to make a decision is less important than the actual decision that is made. Choosing how to make a moral decision is hypothetical and actually making that decision is an action. That action moves us forward.

References:

Lafollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Blackwell Publishing.

Mastin, L. (n.d.). The Basics of Philosophy. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_consequentialism.html