A634.9.4.RB - A Reflection of Our Learning

Reflect on the three key lessons you take away from the course. Reflect on your perceived value of this course

The MSLD 634 Leadership Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility opened my eyes and educated me on many things.  However, I will limit my value added lessons learned to the three that were among the top of my list:  living morally, ethics and technology, and three generations in the workplace. 

Living Morally

I had my interpretation of how to live morally before I began this course and believed I was doing a good job.  Additionally, I always felt I had an open mind when it came to others and their behavior and I took pride in my open-mindedness.  LaFollette (2007) strengthened how I can enhance my moral thought and avoid bias towards others through identifying five factors:

• knowledge of the morally relevant facts;
• knowledge of the effects of our actions;
• having a vivid moral imagination;
• caring about others;
• interpreting others’ behavior

These factors really helped me understand that I need to be more cognizant of how I think and act.  I realize I can accomplish this through persistent education, increased self-awareness, and thinking through the effects of my actions.  Furthermore, I can apply another key lesson I learned in the course to my actions, which is the Golden Rule.  I have always tried to live by this rule and it was refreshing to really see the value of a phrase that seems so simple, yet so powerful.  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a valuable tool which can and should be practiced throughout all areas of our lives.  Seeing this lesson incorporated into our curriculum validated how priceless this phrase truly is.  It makes me feel like I have been doing something right when serving in a leadership capacity because I have always believed that if I took care of my people, they would take care of me.  Also, we typically behave in a manner that will provide us personal gain.  However, if we change from selfish behavior to selfless behavior, we will automatically find ourselves avoiding these pitfalls.  I really want to act more selflessly and assist in creating a better society.  I believe LaFollette (2007) states it best in saying “the most significant way of shaping other people’s moral behavior is by what we do rather than what we say” (p. 209).      

Ethics and Technology

I have always been fascinated by technology, its evolving advancements, and the impact it has globally.  I never really viewed technology as relating to ethical issues because I had tunnel vision of only the positive aspects.  For example, technology helps improve communication, health, travel, and the list goes on.  However, it is a little scary how dependent we have become on technology as a society.  I have experienced on numerous occasions the crippling effect losing connectivity has on productivity in an organization.  I always tell people that technology can be our best friend at times and our worst enemy.  Also, I realized that technology also has an ugly side and can cross ethical boundaries.  My military experience exposed me to a lot of technology and I witnessed the benefit of having such advanced technology when used in a wartime environment.  Of course it was wonderful to be on the side possessing such technology because it gave us distinct advantages.  Drone technology was especially useful in such an environment.  Ironically, we are now seeing the evolution of drone technology in our country and ethical issues are arising because of it.  Our Fourth Amendment right to privacy is one such issue being threatened by increasing drone use.  The lesson I learned here is that ethics plays an enormous part in technology and its advancement.  I failed to see how important the correlation was before this course and will now take a more cautious approach relating to ethics.   

Three Generations in the Workplace

Another take away from this course was the eye-opening subject of generations in the workplace.  I consider myself a person who is extremely aware of my surroundings.  Yet, I never really made a connection to understanding the importance of the dynamics between different generations in the workplace.  I work in an organization which consists of a multi-generational workforce and frequently interact with such a workforce on a daily basis.  I have found at times I can become frustrated with the differences that each generation possesses.  For example, I am considered part of Generation X (born between 1965 and 1979) and work professionally with many Baby Boomers (born between (1945 and 1964) and Generation Yers or Millennials (born between 1980 and 1999).  I can relate to both generations in some ways and I can also at times see the strengths and weaknesses of each generation in how they work.  I tend to have computer technology related issues when dealing with a lot of Baby Boomers, but have come to the realization it is because they simply have not been exposed to such technology like other generations.  It is not that they are bad workers or do not care, it is just that they had different experience and training compared to younger generations.  Conversely, I have noticed a lot of Baby Boomers do not rely on technology so heavily.  The Generation X and Y employees would rather use email, whereas, Baby Boomers have no problem picking up the phone to communicate.  I saw the value in this straight to the point method years ago.  I have followed suit because sometimes simply talking to someone resolves issues much faster than sending misconstrued emails back and forth.  These are just a couple examples of the many differences between the generations in the workplace.  This course really helped me recognize the challenges and benefits of having such a diverse workforce and these exist because of the multi-generation employees.  I will someday find myself the older generation in the workforce with my own set of generational challenges and will remember that is not necessarily a bad thing.  Every generation will have their strengths and weaknesses.    

References:

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

A634.8.3.RB - Gun Control: What is the Answer?

Do citizens have a right to bear arms? 

The short answer to this question is that I do believe citizens have a right to bear arms.  However, we may think we are entitled to have basic human rights for numerous reasons, but who actually determines the rights we have?  Whether we think we deserve such fundamental or derivative rights is irrelevant because governments ultimately have the final say.  Luckily, for those of us in the United States, it has already been determined we have the right to bear arms as stated by the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights.  It states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (U.S. Const. amend.  II.).  Rarely do we hear someone use the Second Amendment in its entirety when trying to defend our right to bear arms.  It does seem to bring a slightly different meaning when the full amendment is applied to whether we actually have the right to bear arms in our nation under all circumstances.  If the amendment simply stated we have the right to bear arms, it would be a clear blanket statement.  Going back to the era when it was written and then considering the context for why it was written, one would probably think it would not hold the same weight today.  There are no militias currently being formed to protect freedoms of their State from the government or any other threat, nor has there been such in many decades.    

           

A lot of things have changed since the Second Amendment was written 1789.  Just to name a few: the world, our nation, people, technology, and guns are incredibly different now.  Our right to bear arms has come under intense scrutiny because of so many gun related crimes and the increase of mass shootings.  We are no longer living in the days of muskets.  We now have to be concerned about handguns, semiautomatic weapons, automatic weapons, and even explosives.  The problem with so many different types of guns being available to the public is that there are cases these guns are used irresponsibly.  Our right to bear arms would be a nonissue if we did not have to worry about people committing murders and mass shootings.  LaFollette (2007) states “each of us has a fundamental right of non-interference: we should be allowed to live our lives as we wish, so long as we do not thereby harm others” (p. 182).  The reality is people discredit this right and the right to bear arms when others are harmed using guns.  Therefore, there is a belief that if guns are removed from the equation or extremely limited for use, then people will not be harmed by guns and crime will decrease.  This way of thinking creates some problems.  For instance, gun advocates believe taking guns from law abiding citizens makes them defenseless to criminals.  In contrast, gun control supporters suggest only a small percentage of violent crime victims use a gun in their defense.  According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2013) from 2007 to 2001, “less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using firearms to defend themselves during the incident” (p. 1). 

I own guns and keep all of them secured in a locked safe.  I use them strictly for hunting and target purposes only.  I am not opposed to banning some weapons such as assault rifles or any weapon that should be confined to a military environment.  Many recreation target shooters and gun enthusiasts may disagree because they believe it is their right to bear arms, regardless of the firearm’s capability.  But where do we draw the line?  I may enjoy going out to the country and shooting a grenade launcher or any other weapon that can result in mass casualties.  However, just because I enjoy it does not mean I have a right to possess such weapons.  Does my enjoyment using a single shot rifle for hunting or shooting targets take precedence over someone who enjoys using an assault rifle legally and responsibly for targets?  In this case, I do not believe it is a matter of fairness; it is more a matter of removing the capability to easily inflict harm on many people.  I believe the law abiding citizens should not be punished for the acts of irresponsible criminals.  Some believe a total ban on guns is the answer.  But the issue I have with that blanket approach to solving a problem is it is comparing apples to oranges.  A farmer in rural Iowa who legally possesses a gun is not using it in the same manner a gang member is using it on the streets of Los Angeles.  Taking the farmers gun accomplishes nothing.  

Some people may argue removing guns or stricter gun control laws will combat mass killings.  A mass killing is when four or more individuals, not including the shooter, are killed according to the FBI’s original definition.  Of the gun related mass killings, Meghan Hoyer (2015) states most are committed with handguns and “they are not these high-capacity assault rifles or high-capacity assault weapons that we hear so much about. We looked a little bit at legal vs. non-legal acquisition. In a majority of cases, they’re acquired legally. And even in cases where they’re not, what experts say is that these are people who tend to be very determined. And where there’s a will, there’s a way. Even if they have been banned from getting guns, if they have a prior record, generally, they find a way to find a weapon”.  There is no easy way to finding a balance of maintaining our right to bear arms and senseless gun related murders and crimes.  For every study or article I read that says gun control is statistically proven to decrease crime, another one states the complete opposite.  For instance, a study on the effect of instituting strict gun laws in Australia claims “no evidence was found to suggest that increasing numbers of legally owned firearms are associated with increasing levels of crime; rather, modest negative associations were found between levels of legal gun ownership and violent firearm crime. The results suggest that reducing levels of legal gun ownership is not necessarily a prerequisite for reducing levels of violent crime, and that reductions in firearm crime can occur in the context of increasing levels of legal ownership” (Mcphedran, 2013, p. 127).  This inconsistency makes it difficult to conclude on what is the best approach in finding a balance of owning guns and fighting gun related crimes.  Our nation may never come to an effective way to minimize gun crimes while simultaneously keeping the public happy with gun possession.    

References:

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

Mcphedran, S. (2013). More guns ... more or less crime? an australian perspective on an international question. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 15(2), 127-133.

U.S. Const. amend. II.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.  (2013).  Firearm violence, 1993-2011.  (NCJ 241730).  Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

PBS NewsHour.  (2015, July 24).  Why is it so difficult to stop mass shootings in the U.S.? Retrieved from https://youtu.be/egs0NiC9HJE

A634.7.4.RB - Ethics and Behaviors

My organization portrays its values through constant communication of what our values represent and sharing real examples of how we are achieving these values.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began an initiative to create a value based culture a few years ago called “I CARE”.  These values reflect a promise of how each employee should represent themselves in their vital role of serving our nation’s Veterans.  Their website (n.d.) states: 

“VA’s five core values underscore the obligations inherent in VA’s mission: Integrity, Commitment, Advocacy, Respect, and Excellence. The core values define “who we are,” our culture, and how we care for Veterans and eligible beneficiaries. Our values are more than just words – they affect outcomes in our daily interactions with Veterans and eligible beneficiaries and with each other. Taking the first letter of each word—Integrity, Commitment, Advocacy, Respect, Excellence—creates a powerful acronym, “I CARE,” that reminds each VA employee of the importance of their role in this Department. These core values come together as five promises we make as individuals and as an organization to those we serve.

Integrity: Act with high moral principle. Adhere to the highest professional standards. Maintain the trust and confidence of all with whom I engage.

Commitment: Work diligently to serve Veterans and other beneficiaries. Be driven by an earnest belief in VA’s mission. Fulfill my individual responsibilities and organizational responsibilities.

Advocacy: Be truly Veteran-centric by identifying, fully considering, and appropriately advancing the interests of Veterans and other beneficiaries.

Respect: Treat all those I serve and with whom I work with dignity and respect. Show respect to earn it.

Excellence: Strive for the highest quality and continuous improvement. Be thoughtful and decisive in leadership, accountable for my actions, willing to admit mistakes, and rigorous in correcting them.”

These are some values I have applied throughout my life before my employment with the VA.  My family instilled such values upon me growing up and my military career reinforced them further.  The core values in the Air Force were similar to the VA’s core values in applying “Integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do”.  I found it odd when employees would leave work promptly when their shift ended after I first started working at the VA.  I came from a work culture where we put our service before ourselves and the mission of our organization always took precedence.  Some organizations, including mine, do not push such a selfless demand on their employees.  However, I still find myself putting the needs of my organization first because that value is engrained within.  I personally witness the VA’s values being exercised every single day by my coworkers.  These are some of the hardest working, selfless, ethical, and caring people I have ever worked alongside.  Despite the VA having such an exceptional workforce, the organization continually receives negative attention for the unethical actions of a small percentage of employees.  This is unfair and unfortunate because the entire organization should not be considered unethical or incompetent based on a few bad apples.  For example, an individual in a leadership position made our organization look bad when she engaged in an unprofessional relationship and abused her position to benefit her own self-interests.  She blatantly steered government funds to her boyfriend (with whom she was having an affair) because she controlled the approval of contracts to be awarded to a company in which her lover owned.  LaFollette (2007) states psychological egoism is “the theory that everyone’s actions are always and completely self-interested” (p. 272). The aforementioned example is a good illustration of an individual succumbing to their motivations of being completely self-interested and supporting the psychological egoism theory.  The most frustrating aspect of unethical behavior in our organization is that when it is publicized, it falsely substantiates the media’s and public opinion that the entire organization is unethical and has problems beyond repair.  This is simply not the case. 

     

Gallagher (2013) advises that every choice has a consequence and we must make ethical decisions because we may find ourselves sliding down the slippery slope of the unethical continuum.  He used excellent examples of using the printer at work for personal use or upselling a customer to benefit the organization.  Some unethical practices that occur every day in the workplace are sometimes seen as normal and accepted behavior.  However, rationalizing what we view as small and harmless unethical choices pave the way to illegal and harmful decisions.  After all, if we can rationalize what we identify as unethical yet minor actions, where do we draw the line?  This is why we have to avoid justifying all unethical behavior which serves our self-interests, no matter how insignificant we may initially perceive it to be.  Engaging in ethical behavior is vital because, as Weinstein (2012) suggests, acting ethically is not only the right thing to do; it also benefits us by making us feel better and everyone wins.  

References:

Core Values. (n.d.).  About VA. Retrieved from http://www.va.gov/about_va/mission.asp

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

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

Weinstein, B.  (2012). Keynote Speech Excerpts from The Ethics Guy. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ