A634.4.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

 This is a question that has been turning in my head since I read our chapter on affirmative action.  I can most definitely see both sides of the argument but after much reflection I have to agree with LaFollette in that affirmative action is the only way that we can level out the playing field, he states “affirmative action is one weapon in the battle to overcome that disadvantage” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 92).

I think one of the most predominant arguments I have heard when I ask for people’s opinion on affirmative is that it is reverse racism.  First of all, let’s look at what reverse racism means.  When an employer decides to implement affirmative action in their company and chooses a qualified black candidate, in an effort to create more diversity within the workforce, they are not acting through the lens of racism.  They are not looking at the other white candidates and thinking “I am not hiring this person because they are white”.  That is not what is going through their minds.  Instead, they are making a conscious decision to diversify their workforce by introducing more qualified non-white employees.  It would be preposterous to assume that racism is at hand.  LaFollette (2007) makes an excellent point when he argues that:

Whites have subjected blacks to decades of systematic and widespread discrimination.  In contrast, affirmative action is not part of a network of discrimination against whites.  Whites are not thought to be inferior to blacks.  Indeed, whites’ interests have been – and continue to be – well protected by political, legal, economic, and social institutions. (p. 88).

Another argument from opponents of affirmative action is that people of today shouldn’t have to pay for the crimes of their ancestors.  I can understand the logic in this but LaFollette (2007) brings up another valid point.  He states:

Affirmative action does not punish sons for the sins of their fathers.  Rather it holds that the children and grandchildren of those who wronged blacks should not continue to benefit from those ancient wrongs, and that the progeny of wronged blacks should not continue to suffer effects of those wrongs (p. 89).

This makes perfect sense to me.  If my grandfather killed your grandfather and stole all his wealth leaving your grandmother to raise all of her children in poverty and with no opportunity to an education which means no opportunity for a good job.  Now their children also are born in poverty with the same lack of resources.  In the meantime my grandfather capitalized on his wealth and passed that wealth on to his children and then on to me.  Now I am reaping the benefits of what really is blood money.  I may not have been responsible but what I have inherited, whether it be money or opportunities, but it exists because of a crime that was committed against your family two generations ago.  Affirmative action is not saying that the debt has to be paid, it is only saying that compensation of some sort is warranted.  If not, what kind of people are we?  What kind of examples are we setting for our children and for society if we cannot assume responsibility for the crimes of our ancestors?  When I child breaks a neighbors window, who pays for it?  The parent does.  You do not see the parent shrugging his shoulders and telling the neighbor “it’s not my problem, my kid did it”.  Someone has to assume responsibility.

Another argument against affirmative action is that it stigmatizes blacks.  But there is a flaw in this thinking.  Stigma is only another form of discrimination.  If a black person is stigmatized by their white counterparts due to a gained opportunity through affirmative action, then that particular perspective or attitude is racist to begin with.  A stigma is “a mark of disgrace or infamy; a stain or reproach, as on one's reputation” ("Stigma,", n.d.).   To automatically assume that a black person has been hired or admitted to college due to affirmative action is a racist behavior to begin with and completely contradicts the argument.

But I think one of the strongest arguments for affirmative action is that it fosters cultural diversity and “helps create tolerant communities because it exposes people to a variety of cultures and ideas that are different from their own” (Mount Holyoke College, n.d.).  Dontigney (n.d.) states that by adding diversity to the workplace you also have access to many more resources and an array of perspectives.  “Companies that embrace a multi-cultural employee roster are better positioned to serve multi-cultural communities, by overcoming language and cultural barriers” (Dontigney, n.d.).

I think before someone refutes affirmative action they really need to reflect on why the idea upsets them.  Is it because the person is black?  Is it because they got the job and not you? Is it because you feel they are less qualified? And if so, how do you know this?  What evidence do you have?  It’s easy to yell “reverse discrimination” but you have to make sure your intentions are justified or you are just exhibiting a less overt form of racism.  

References

Dontigney, E. (n.d.). Advantages and disadvantages of affirmative action in the workplace. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-affirmative-action-workplace-18141.html

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

Mount Holyoke College. (n.d.). https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jesan20l/classweb/pright.html

Stigma. (n.d). Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http

A634.3.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Interestingly enough I am familiar with the types of behaviors that Kramer describes in his article.  I work with the educational system and for a university that is nonprofit.  And yes, even in the nonprofit sector we see leaders rise and we see them crash and burn.  I can give one example of a co-worker of mine let’s call him John, who started in the same ranks as I did.  He was blessed with a certain ambitiousness and assertiveness that I do not possess.  I watched him climb his way to the top of the food chain until he was working at our main headquarters head to head with the big honchos of our organization.  I remember at the Assistant Director position he was very well liked and all of us always looked forward to spending time with him at reunions, graduations, and other conferences that we attended.  When he was promoted to Director, he still maintained the same likeability and charisma with his fellow colleagues but his staff was beginning to see how his new freedoms affected his job performance.  We who shared similar roles were willing to forgive certain behaviors only because we knew him and still respected him as a person.  Kramer explains that the followers of great leaders usually are not pointing out their flaws and instead generally will look the other way (Kramer, 2003).  Kramer explains the dangers that leaders face when they don’t reflect on the ingratiating behavior their subordinates demonstrate towards them and thus it creates the false illusion that they are perfect.   Needless to say, when John was promoted and moved to the “White House” of the organization, which is the headquarters for the entire university, we began to see the changes in him.  Kramer (2003) likes to call one of the big follies of leaders in these positions as the “sin of omission” and this is where John started to fail as a leader.  What got him to the top which was his assertiveness, hard work and “whatever it takes” type of attitude began to slack.  He became lazy and started making a lot of mistakes.  Curiously, he had always been someone who paid attention to details but he stopped “sweating the small stuff” as Kramer (2003) would say.  Eventually his department suffered as well as his employees who had to pick up the slack for him.  

An interesting view on this topic is the fall of  religious leaders.  When we think of religious leaders we think they are endowed with values such as kindness, compassion, empathy, honesty and integrity, yet time and time again we see religious leaders fall from grace.  One of the reasons that we are seeing this is “because of the celebrity status we give” to these religious leaders   (Wallen, 2015).  They begin to lose perspective on why they began the kind of work that so impassioned them in the beginning and are given almost God-like qualities by their followers.  In this case, followers are just as much to blame in feeding the type of scandals and corruption that befalls religious leaders because they are not reminding them of their humility (Kramer, 2003).  Kramer explains that it goes beyond personal flaws or a lack of moral fiber, and in fact has to do with a change in behavior that comes with the pursuit of power.  According to social psychologist Dacher Keltner, empirical studies show that “people who have power suffer deficits in empathy, the ability to read emotions, and the ability to adapt behaviors to other people” and furthermore, "power can actually change how the brain functions” (Solomon, 2015).  Scientifically, how power changes our behavior as a leader makes a lot of sense.  The science of neuroplasticity demonstrates “the potential that the brain has to reorganize by creating new neural pathways to adapt, as it needs” ("Neuroplasticity," 2010).  In fact, the science of neuroplasticity is being used in many management and leadership programs to teach people how to “rewire” their brains. One example is the Neuro Leadership Institute which uses science to create better leaders.  Banking on this idea of neuroplasticity, we can imagine how leaders who are surrounded by power somehow lose touch with the basic principles that got them to where they are.  Our brains can easily rewire to adapt to new environments and in essence is a way of survival.  When you are at the top of the food chain, the only way to stay at the top is to survive, and that means doing whatever it takes.  Hence we are willing to make many trade-offs to guard this position and sometimes don’t even realize our mind has gone into survival mode.

References

Kramer, R. M. (2003, October). The harder they fall. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=09f16198-cfdb-44a9-bec4-5d9678b17694%40sessionmgr103&vid=0&hid=105&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d&preview=false#AN=10986098&db=bth

Neuroplasticity. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.whatisneuroplasticity.com/

Solomon, L. (2015, April 21). Becoming powerful makes you less empathetic. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/04/becoming-powerful-makes-you-less-empathetic

Wallen, A. (2015). Why Christian leaders are falling into scandal . Retrieved from http://www.charismanews.com/us/48807-why-christian-leaders-are-falling-into-scandal

A634.2.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

        Before delving into my personal thoughts on Consequentialism and Deontology, I would first like to offer the definitions of both schools of thought that resonated the best with me.  The first definition is of Consequentialism which is defined as:

An approach to ethics that argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or consequence. Thus, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome or result, and the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh all other considerations (Philosophy Basics website, n.d.).

Within consequentialism there are multiple types such as Utilitarianism, Rule Consequentialism, Egoism, etc. Each type is a variation of the main theory but all are based on the concept that “we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (LaFollette, 2007).  Now this is a very generic way to look at consequentialism, since apart from looking at consequences, the consequentialist also will consider whether the consequences are morally relevant, the importance or weight of each consequence and how it should be applied in moral reasoning (LaFollette, 2007).

Deontology on the other hand is “a system of ethics that judges actions based on whether they adhere to a rule or a set of rules” ("Deontological," n.d.).  Therefore a deontologist would decide if something is ethically wrong or right depending on whether it breaks or follows a rule (Goldstein, 2013).  One of the aspects open to debate for deontologists is determining which actions are right and which ones are wrong.

After studying both theories I feel that a combination of both theories is necessary and useful in making ethical decisions.  Basing our decisions from a purely consequential viewpoint could lead to very poor ethical decisions and cause us to act immorally, and the same can be said of deontology.  An example of this would be an act that most of us would consider immoral, which is rape.  What if all the men of a society decided that raping a woman was a good thing because it provided a benefit to the entire male population?  It would fill a very basic sexual need, provide a quick means of procreation and the general population would be extremely happy.  We could consider this an action that provides the greatest and most beneficial consequences.  Using this same example, let’s imagine an apocalyptic world where there are many men but only one or two women.  The men in this society have decided that rape is a necessary action that will provide the greatest consequences for all involved.  The human population has dwindled and there is an urgent need to repopulate the earth to create more life on the planet.  In both of these instances I feel rape is morally wrong, yet in the apocalyptic setting I would be more inclined to accept the action as a duty or moral obligation.  My standpoint would be considered consequentialist.  A deontologist on the other hand would consider the rules in both scenarios.  Imagining that the moral rule that raping is bad, a deontologist generally would say that rape is rape, regardless of the consequences, and therefore it is morally bad.  Yet, in the apocalyptic setting, if repopulating the world was a duty that we all needed to fulfill then raping would be considered good because it is a moral rule that enjoins “me to promote the happiness of others” but the action should not be taken “if I thereby violate some stronger or more important rule” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 31).  In this case, repopulating the Earth is an urgent need and the duty of all therefore ethically we can support the decision.

I would venture to agree with Smith when he says that “any consequentialist system of ethics requires deontological rules to make it tick” and “any deontological system requires consequentialism for its implementation” (Smith, 2011).  Smith resumes these statements by concluding that “all ethical systems are both deontological and consequentialist in nature, since they all require a rule for motivation and an outcome measure for implementation”.  The classic story of Robin Hood is a great example of how consequentialism and deontology come together.  A deontologist would say that stealing is morally unethical.  But if we set a rule that we only steal from the rich, and we can prove that the consequences are beneficial to all since the rich will still more than likely continue being rich, but the poor will be less poor but happier, then we can justify this action as morally acceptable.

I feel that we can’t adhere to the strict application of one theory or the other but need to consider each situation carefully and use thoughtful reasoning and ethical theorization when deciding how to act in different situations.  Being equipped with the knowledge of both theories and accepting the possibility of using one or the other or combining the two, will give us a better perspective and a higher chance of making morally just decisions.

References

Deontological ethics [Def. 1]. (n.d.). In Business Dictionary Online. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from  http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/deontological-ethics.html

Goldstein, J. (2013, July 2). Ethics: Deontology versus consequentialism - Lesson 1 Kant [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Da0EtI3b4I

La Follette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Philosophy Basics website. (n.d.). http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_consequentialism.html

Smith, N. [Noahpinion]. (2011, February 16). All ethical systems are both deontological and consequentialist [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com.es/2011/02/all-ethical-systems-are-both.html

A634.1.5.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

 The train dilemma offers us three scenarios in which there are people on the train tracks and we as the switchperson have to make a choice of pulling a switch that inevitably will kill some people.  The decision we have to make is who we decide will die to save the life of others.  Here are the scenarios:

Scenario #1: Kill five children versus killing only one child.  Option to switch the train between two tracks. One track kills five children and the other track only kills one.

Scenario # 2: Kill one old man versus killing five children.  Push an old man into the train which would stop the train and save the five children on the track.

Scenario # 3: Kill my own child or kill five other children.  Option to switch the train between two tracks. One track kills five children and the other track kills my own child.

In order to make this decision, I have decided to be guided by the CyneFin Framework which is a problem-solving tool that helps you categorize problems into five domains, each one describing a cause-and-effect relationship.  Here is a brief synopsis of the five domains and what they represent as far problem-solving assessment:

Simple Domain: Here the options are clear and apparent to everyone.  You are able to assess the situation, categorize it and then respond with the best practice.  There is only one correct answer and the solution is straightforward.

Complicated Domain:  Here there are multiple correct solutions.  In this case you assess the situation, analyze what you know and then choose the best solution by using good practice.  Generally this domain requires expertise.

Complex Domain: A correct solution is difficult to identify.  The best course of action is to identify patterns and wait for the answer to emerge.  This is the most common domain and requires patience and intuition.

Chaotic Domain: Problems that fall into this domain have not determined cause and effect relationship because they are constantly changing.  In these cases you are not trying to find a solution at first but instead trying to stabilize the situation as fast as possible.  This are generally crisis situations that need immediate attention where order must be established first then once the situation has scaled down to the complicated domain a solution can be found.

Disorder:  Here you do not have a clear direction and instead must gather more information so that you can move into one of the other domains in which you can make a clearer decision.

It may seem that in the train scenario there is no time to think but only react, yet if one is to make such drastic decisions on who must live and who must die, there must be some order of critical thinking and ethical theorizing.  If I were to categorize the three scenarios using the CyneFin Framework I would categorize in the following way:

Scenario #1: Kill five children versus killing only one child

I would categorize this scenario into the simple domain.  It seems the only solution is to save five children as opposed to one child.  One might say that it is unethical to consciously choose to take the life of one child who was not in harm’s way in order to save the lives of five children who were.  In my opinion it is a numbers game.  Now the question I ask myself is the following: would it be considered murder that I killed the child who was not in the line of danger in order to save five children who, for whatever reason, were in the line of danger?  Should one child, who technically was not on the track where the train was travelling, give up his/her life to save the lives of five children who were on the travelled track?  Is it fair to ask this?  Could we say that it was the fate of these children for being on the wrong track?  Even after considering these questions, I still feel ethically, when having to choose, generally speaking and in simple terms, I would choose the option that saves the largest group of people.  If I were to use a theory as a basis for this decision I would say that I would choose from one of the Consequentialist theories which are: The Utilitarian Approach, The Egoistic Approach and the Common Good Approach (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  In this instance I feel the Utilitarian Approach, which can be traced back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus of Samos, would apply best (Bonde & Firenze, 2013). This is said to be one of the most common approaches to making ethical decisions in regards to consequences that affect larger groups of people.  The Utilitarian Approach focuses on comparing the good and bad that is produced by our decisions (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  The idea is to choose the action that causes the least amount of harm.  In this case, choosing to save five children in my opinion causes the least amount of harm. 

Scenario # 2: Kill one old man versus killing five children

This scenario falls more into the complicated domain in my opinion.  There is more than one right answer.  If I follow my original rule of saving as many lives as possible, we could say that sacrificing the old man to save five children would be the most ethical decision.  But, if we theorize ethically on the situation we should ask ourselves if we have the right to designate the sacrifice of this man (against his will) in order to save five children.  The old man has not offered himself to be a martyr and I do not believe we have the right to sacrifice his life for those of the children.  He was not in the line of danger and the children were.  Pushing him into the train in my opinion would be considered murder and is unethical.  In this scenario I would apply the Common Good Approach which was promoted by Plato and Aristotle (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  “This approach to ethics underscores the networked aspects of society and emphasizes respect and compassions for others, especially those who are more vulnerable” (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  Although I feel a deep moral obligation to save the life of five children at the expense of one old man, I feel that I do not have the right to decide the validity of the old man’s life and whether or not he should live.  And as I feel the elderly as well as children are one of the most vulnerable members of society, I feel I would choose for the man to live.

 Scenario # 3: Kill my own child or kill five other children

My immediate response to this question is to save my own child.  The only explanation I can give, and the only way I can theorize this ethically, is that I have an emotional attachment to my child and not the other five.  At the end of the day I have to live with the consequences of my decision. I do not think I could live knowing that I sacrificed my child for the five other children who I do not know.  On the other hand, although I would experience massive guilt about the five children that died, I would feel secure in my decision knowing that I had chosen to keep my child safe.  In this case I think the Egoistic Approach, a variation of the utilitarian approach, is the most appropriate theory to apply in this situation as it states that “an individual often uses utilitarian calculation to produce the greatest amount of good for him or herself” (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  If we must choose to do good it will inevitably begin within our closest circle and aimed at those who we have emotional attachments to.

References

n.d. (2016). The Cynefin Framework: Using the most appropriate problem-solving process. Retrieved March 28, from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/cynefin-framework.htm

Snowden, D., & Boone, M. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.

Bonde, S., & Firenze, P. (2013). A framework for making ethical decisions. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions

A632.9.3.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Professor Baba Shiv brings up three important factors in regards to emotion and its role in the decision-making process.  He tells us in his lecture that passion, confidence and the extraction of utility from the experience that we get based on this confidence, affects our decisions.

I have noticed in my experiences at work, that when I am confident and passionate when speaking to my students about their academic careers, that this energy becomes contagious.  My students can feel my excitement and believe in things I tell them regarding education and their future.  Starting college for the first time, especially for adult learners, can be scary and I engage with many hesitate individuals.  I engage my students from the start by being confident about our programs and confident about their ability to be successful.  I am passionate about education and I prove this to them not only through my emotions but also my actions.  I have seen that these kinds of interactions have a positive impact on my student’s success because I let them know that I believe in their abilities to accomplish these academic goals.  They enter our programs with more confidence and passion on their end as well and have a higher chance of succeeding.  Emotionally I was extremely excited, proud and encouraging which I feel these emotions transferred through to my students.

An example of a situation that I did not feel confident about was when I tried to convince one of my friends to make a trip with me.  The trip was something I had to do because I needed to submit some important paperwork in another town.  I did not want to take this trip alone and tried to convince my friend that the trip would be fun and exciting.  Because I knew the town we were going to really had nothing to offer in the means of tourism, my confidence did not show through.  I showed no passion when describing the area and was only able to offer factual details that were less than desirable.  Had I confidently described the many possibilities we had in entertaining ourselves in this town, I may have been able to convince her of the benefits of accompanying me on this trip.  In this situation, I was hesitant, unsure and unrealistic which my friend easily picked up on affecting her decision to come with me.

A632.8.3.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Problem solving within multiple contexts requires good critical thinking skills and good perspective.  To be able to move between a simple, complex, complicated and chaotic context takes skill and good-decision making skills. “Effective leaders learn to shift their decision-making styles to match changing business environments” (Snowden & Boone, 2007).   

 One great example of moving and responding within multiple contexts is when I worked for a nonprofit called International Hospital for Children.  Those of us working on these medical missions, found ourselves bouncing around in different contexts, depending on the situation.  First there was the simple context.  This was the routine interviews with  patients and their families, collecting information and categorizing each child depending on their degree of severity.  This is how we decided who got surgery now and who had to wait until our next mission.  Once all the data was collected we moved into the complicated context.  The data needed to be analyzed.  Here is where the expertise of the surgeons and nurses came in.  There were several options and surgeries available.  Based on the interviews and data we decided what kind of surgery, when and what resources were needed.  The situation many times slipped into the complex context.  Children with multiple problems, or serious illnesses or unidentifiable symptoms required further analysis and interpretation.  Their health history was probed, backgrounds were researched and other entities needed to be brought into the decision-making process such as our partnering clinic, government officials and sometimes even other specialist.  All parties needed to communicate well and a well thought out response to the issue needed to be made.  When surgeries went bad or there were complications, the situation could go from complex or complicated to chaotic.  This was the “life or death” decision-making process that needed to be made in the moment and with a top-down control.  Our surgeons being the ones with the expertise in these situations had the last say and the rest of us just followed suit.

When looking back at this experience, I can see how we reached a decision in each context.  During the initial assessment of the patients, it was easy to make decisions since everything was based on straight-forward medical records and data.  When it came time to choose the best candidates for surgery, the complicated context, we used a general assessment process based on a list of questions and standard criteria for each type of surgery.  When and if there were complications during the surgery, the complex context, our surgeons had to become creative.  For example, prior to a brain surgery, the electric drill they were using stopped working, we had limited resources, so we sent someone out to secure an orthodontist hand drill that could drill through bone and the surgeons were able to conduct the surgery.  They needed to use their creative skills.  Lastly, when the situation went chaotic, we had to consider the fastest course of action which was to leave it to the experts, our surgeons.  They had to make decisions on the spot without consulting anyone and only basing it on their life experiences and training.

I feel that the Cynefin Framework provides an improved context for decision-making because it provides guidelines and boundaries for different situations.  First, knowing which context you are in will also alert you to the danger signs attributed to that context.  Second, we have some clear guidelines on how to respond depending on the context.  Third, seeing problems through the Cynefin Framework provides a better visual of the problem at hand and how it can deescalate or escalate, allowing us to prepare for change.  Fourth, the framework provides structure to the decision-making process which can assist in situations of doubt. Lastly, the framework is a reminder of how easily things can spiral out of control and how we need to be prepared for anything.  We cannot remain complacent because we live in an ever changing dynamic environment. As Snowden and Boone tell us "good leadership is not a one-size-fits-all proposition" (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

References

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making/