MSLD 634 Module 9 - A Reflection of Our Learning

A Reflection of Our Learning

The Leadership Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility course expanded my perspective on ethics in every sense and scope. Initially I thought ethics in leadership was either covering a more philosophical approach, or covered legislation related to the corporate world. I got to learn that there is no definite answer for any of the ethical issues, neither a right nor wrong answer. Instead, ethical analysis involves the process of critical thinking and the ability to choose what is less harmful overall taking in consideration a deep and thorough thinking process, from the individual to the societal level (Nosich, 2012; LaFollette, 2007).

One key lesson I have learnt is that having choices is not necessarily a positive aspect in the decision-making process. The train dilemma studied at the begging of the course made me think about the impact that alternatives have on the quality of our decisions. Choices can blind and freeze us. The challenge is often increased when the amount of options is increased, because the ethical issue is not only faced on the consequences of our decisions, but on our decision itself. Often, when it comes to alternatives in complex and sensitive situations, less is more.

Another lesson from the course is based on Kramer’s (2003) article “The Harder They Fall”. The author defends that the higher one climbs, the harder can be (not necessarily is) the fall. This statement has no correlation with risk taking, neither neglect the importance of ambitiousness in the societal, corporate and personal success. It simply alerts the precautions necessary to climb safely to the top and know your grounds when you are there. Blind ambition, aversion for rules and for failure, the prioritization of efficiency over effectiveness, and the down and upward omission to unethical behaviors can lead a individual (as follower and leader), a corporation and even an entire society to drastic and almost irreversible collapse.

Last, but not least, my key take-away from the course is the importance of formally teaching (or touching base on) ethics from a very early age to the highest degrees. The impact the educational institutions have in our behavior is powerful and can be drastic. Including ethics in school and universities can be a challenge but if it involves the inclusion of professionals (in philosophy, psychology, public science, etc.) in the course development, linking the materials with real and ordinary case studies, it can create fruitful impacts (Pavlo, 2014; Podolny, 2009; UW, 2015).

These three examples expanded my views in the individual, professional and societal level, as mentioned, as they illustrate situation on every scope. The presence of ethics in our everyday life, and the ethical impact of our small actions on ordinary daily situations stroke me. I have learnt that I face more ethical issues that I have ever thought. Every single word that comes out from my mouth and every small decision I make can gratefully or drastically impact individuals, my organization and even society as we are all part of it.

References

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

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

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (4th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson

Pavlo, W. (2014, January 13). An MBA's Thoughts On Being Taught Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2014/01/13/an-mbas-thoughts-on-being-taught-ethics/#6e7d36476c26

Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 62-67. 

UW Philosophy for Children (2015). Philosophical Children. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/136588083

MSLD 634 Module 8 - Gun Control: What is the Answer?

Gun Control: What is the Answer?

Often, the gun control issue is faced with only two starting points: support or opposition. With this limited mindset to the issue, we fall in the trap of defending ideas but jeopardizing effective solutions. A broader, but still limited way of thinking about it is the NA, MA and AA consideration, or respectively: no abolition, moderate abolition and absolute abolition. One important reflection is that restriction vary in strength and in content. For instance, the issue and possible solutions surrounds not only on the right to bear, but who owns a gun, how it is obtained, where and how it is stored and carried, so on and so forth, enabling us to have a content approach to the issue (LaFollette, 2007; Farrell, 2018).  

I believe citizens have the right to bear arms, but the context must be taken in consideration as the ones mentioned above, for example. I do not believe it is a solution for violence though, and neither I believe it is necessarily a good idea. The right to bear guns is supported, in the United Stated of America (USA), by second amendment, which says "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"  (Yuhas, 2017; Mervosh, 2020, Cornell Law School, n.d.) . LaFollette (2007), however, says that the right to bear arms is a moral question, not a constitutional one, highlighting the importance of compelling arguments. In this subject matter, for instance, Governor of the State of Virginia is making news headline lately, and people involved are already paying the price of every meaningful and complex change (Mervosh, 2020; Beckett, 2020; Schneider & Vozzella, 2020).

Back to my perspective of arms possession, let’s zoom out take a bigger picture of the issue. Gun control is a complex issue in most of country, and different countries with same approaches have different results, because the context matters. Here follows the background of my thoughts, which I believe must be taken in consideration:

1.      What the law says, in detail? If there is a gap, first this gap must be filled, to allow powerful discussions.

2.      How is the public safety of the country? If the police are not doing their job, citizens will find a way to protect themselves, obeying or not the law.

3.      What is the purpose of bearing a gun? Self-defense, sport, work, selling, etc.

4.      What is the minimum age to buy and bear guns?

5.      How is it stored?

6.      Who runs background checks (federal government, state, city, county, private organizations) and how often? Systems on background checks should be linked, and purchase should be under approval after a detailed analysis. Background should not only be necessary during the time of purchase, but in a regular basis, being part of a regulation to keep a license to bear guns.

7.      How many guns one can have? Which type of guns?

8.      If it is allowed for sports only, dedicated areas (not open and public) should be designated and guns could be the facility’s property.

9.      Arms should be carried or only permitted at home?

10.  Does background checks should involve only criminal backgrounds, or psychological?

Only when these and other important questions are answered, gun control can be discussed with a moral perspective. Rallies as the one planned for 2020 January 20^th, in Richmond, does not only put solutions farther that they already are, but increase the chances of a shift in focus (Schneider & Vozzella, 2020; Mervosh, 2020. There are no effective changes without all parts sacrificing a piece of their believes, pride, money or whatever holds them to an extremist point of view and to an “either or neither” solution. People will keep fighting about guns, while in the meantime others will be using guns to fight. Until a decision is made, one, if not both parts, is using a rhetorical speech in social media, news outlet or streets, instead of using this time and platforms to have a meaningful debate about the subject.

Leaders of militias and public figures, including the President of USA, as stated in Schneider and Vozzella (2020), are so determined on fight for their interests, that they fall in the trap of missing the big picture and jeopardizing their impact in society. While I have no issues with my ideas being opposed, I do not believe that by standing and watching, the mass shooting issue in USA, for instance, will be solved. It takes efforts from all parts and forces, and a piece of all pies. But who is willing to share that piece? Who is willing to get up and move the needle towards the “opposite” side? Until then, the constitution will be the only stable field to step on, the only common ground among us all. Perhaps this, in fact, is the greatest moral issue: defending written words while neglecting human lives.

References

Cornell Law School (n.d.). Second Amendment. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Beckett, L. (2020, January 17). Pro-gun activists threaten to kill state lawmaker over bill they misunderstood. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/virginia-lee-carter-school-strike-bill-guns

Farrell, D. (2018, July). A Solution to Gun Violence found in US History. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/david_farrell_a_solution_to_gun_violence_found_in_us_history#t-787124


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


Mervosh, S. (2020, January 17). What to know about the Virginia Gun Rally. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/virginia-gun-rally-explainer.html


Schneider, G. S., & Vozzella, L. (2020, January 18). Richmond braces for giant gun rights rally on Monday. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/richmond-braces-for-enormous-gun-rights-rally-monday/2020/01/18/0dc41a76-3702-11ea-9541-9107303481a4_story.html


Yuhas, A. (2017, October 5). The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-meaning-history

MSLD 634 Module 7 - Egois: Psychological and Moral

Egoism: Psychological and Moral

           

            Ethical egoism is the claim that people should always act to promote their own self-interests. Psychological egoism, covering morality and self-interest claims that everyone always seeks to promote self-interest, independent in which field you work, ranked position or if it is related to personal causes. It defends the idea that one engagement in moral behavior is the best way to advance his own interest. Although it gives a brief notion that is a selfish way of thinking, it holds some moral truths in it, as neglecting the motives and consequences, the roots of one’s action, the real and perceived interests, and the frequency of when it happens (LaFollette, 2019).

            I rather apply relativism in the subject of egoism. One’s motives and consequence of his acts shouldn’t be put aside. I also understand there are limits to whether someone neglect herself in favor of others and do not realize that the only way to give to others is when our own wellbeing is taken care off. For instance, if someone volunteer in a remote place, where diseases are spread around, the is no basic condition of life, and food provision is a scarce, for how long this philanthropical action will last and which real impact will bring. Even if the motives are genuine, eventually, there will be a point that we need to be egoist to give back to the world, otherwise there won’t be something to give.

            One problem of egoism, in the organization field, is when ego gets in the way of the decision-making process. Ego is defined as a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance. An ego that is never satisfied and always craves more never appreciates the moment and is never grateful for the present (Miller, 2017). I believe ego blinds one thinking, and when it comes to decision making it impact on the effectiveness of the results. A perfect illustration is observed on the TV series Suits, where the character Louis Litt, because of his ego, constantly makes poor decisions, leading to him to lose trust of his coworkers and making him stagnate.

            Naïve is to ignore that one is completely absent of ego. The problem is not the existence of egos, but in whether one lets it get in the way of decision making, especially large egos, as stated my Miller (2017). A large ego is threatened by anything or anyone who could possibly damage their notions of self-worth. This leads one to act constantly on the defensive mode, being necessary some ego checks to avoid being trapped on this pitfall.

            Although I believe benefits is a form of incentive, I do not believe that leaders should get it by the decision they made. It should get contractual benefit, independent of results, if its intention is to use benefit as a motivational tool. When results are involved, I believe the entire team should get benefits, as a leader does not act alone in the workplace. A leader without a follower, is not a leader per se. A perfect example that happens in my organization is that high ranked leader gets bonuses in all profitable years, while the workforce and the leadership at the bottom of the ladder, is due to company’s discretion. My question is, who implemented the decisions? A decision without implementation is simple a talk, if no one walks it.

            When it comes to rewards and ethics, I do not believe a leader should be rewarded to promote ethical behaviors. It gives the idea that being ethical is going beyond, while being ethical is the basics of one’s employment, a non-negotiable requirement. A reward to leader, in the wake of ethics, in my opinion, is an unethical decision on itself.

References

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

Miller, R. (2017, February 7). Unwelcome egos in the workplace. Retrieved from timesunion.com/tuplus-business/article/Unwelcome-egos-in-the-workplace-10916035.php

MSLD 634 Module 6 - What are Virtues

What are Virtues?

            Most people think morality constrains human behavior and is a set of rules barring us from doing what we want to do and demanding that we do things we had rather not. Virtue theorists think morality is a prescription for the best life we can live. Aristotle holds the belief that a virtuous person must do the appropriate action; do so regularly in a variety of circumstances; enjoy acting virtuously; know what is virtuous; and know why is virtuous (LaFollette, 2007).

Benjamin Franklin, a man with less than two years of formal education, reflected his entire life in self-improvement, working constantly to improve his mind, body and behavior. At the age of 20 he decided to embark on a journey which he called “moral perfection”. He created a list of four resolutions which included a set of thirteen 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 (PBS, n.d.).

Benjamin Franklin's self-improvement program included the following virtues:

Temperance: Eat not to dullness. Drink not to elevation.

Silence: Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself. Avoid trifling conversation.

Order: Let all your things have their places. Let each part of your business have its time.

Resolution: Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.

Frugality: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself.

Industry: Lose no time. Be always employed in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary actions.

Sincerity: Use no hurtful deceit. Think innocently and justly; and if you speak, speak accordingly.

Justice: Wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.

Moderation: Avoid extremes. Forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

Cleanliness: Tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes, or habitation.

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

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.

Humility: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

            Upon taking the Virtue Quiz, developed by PBS, the following result was presented:

            “You made some very virtuous choices. You chose the answers that closely reflected Ben's own self-improvement plan. You might want to think about how you approach cleanliness. Ben wrote "tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes or habitation”. 
            
            I do not believe in anything that should be not tolerated. For instance, when it comes to cleanliness, I would not clean anything in the middle of the night (if already in bed) or avoid going somewhere with a stain in my clothes (examples based on the quiz). For not being concerned about others’ opinion, I keep myself and my surroundings clean but not constantly and perfectly tidy. Cleanliness is in the bottom of my list virtue, if ranked. And tolerance, based on context and priorities, should be part of the content of virtues.

Three of the virtues that I believe I need improvement are: tranquility, silence and industry. When it comes to tranquility, I do not have the ability of not being disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable. I often catch myself anxious or worried about something out of my control, which leads to my other two undeveloped virtues. Although I have learnt a lot throughout the years on how to control my words, often I fall into the trap of expressing all my opinions, especially if lacking tranquility. The loudest voice is of my own mind. For the agitation, among other reasons, I often lose time, employed on useless things and taking unnecessary actions.

To include tranquility and silence in my life, I believe meditation to be the most effective strategy. It would assist me on calming down my mind and silencing my thoughts, consequently enhancing my self-awareness. Including five minutes of mediation in the first and last hours of my day, in my perspective, would generate fruitful results. Regarding the industry virtue, I believe the best move would be following my timetable. Knowing the waste of time on useless actions and procrastination is a pattern behavior which I have been through lately, I have already created a general timetable to assist me on having a more productive day, however my efforts faded.

I believe Franklin’s strategy of putting into practice one virtue per week and journaling the progress being great. Creating small goals have being an effective way of achieving overall results. Journaling the process and progress could have triple positive effects: follow up, documented opportunity for improvements and self-awareness.

References

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

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

PBS. (n.d.). Self-improvement plan. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/1726.html