A632.5.5.RB_MedleyKim_The Odds of Changing Protected Values

The Odds of Changing Protected Values

            Protected values, as explained by Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001), are those for which we “draw a line in the sand” and believe should not be sacrificed for any compensatory benefit, regardless of the level of sacrifice or size of benefit (p. 251). In his presentation before TEDGlobal (2005), Gilbert offers Plato’s prophecy, “What space is to size, Time is to value”. He goes on to describe the world from which our brains evolved and the world in which we now live. Initially, we lived in small groups, with little differences, short life expectancies, and our communal priority was to eat and reproduce (TEDGlobal, 2005). Gilbert states we are the “only species to hold its own fate” (TEDGlobal, 2005). Does that mean we also have the ability to hold our protected values, evaluate and re-evaluate, and attempt to determine expected values of remaining true to those values (TEDGlobal, 2005)? If so, then why as Gilbert notes, does making attempted adjustments with our values “bedevil our attempts to make rational decisions” (TEDGlobal, 2005)?

            I have strong opinions with regards to gun control. LaFollette (2007) queries if the very character of a gun is that which makes it “especially harmful” (p. 183). As he continues, he notes guns were specifically created for armies and “they were designed to cause (and threaten harm)” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 184). This fundamental purpose is what further drives redesign to achieve greater efficiency. We have progressed from flint, musket-ball pistols and rifles, to Glock handguns and AR 15 assault rifles. LaFollette (2007) contends gun control prescribes “what governments should allow private individuals to do” not what the private citizen should do (p. 185). I do believe people have the right to keep and bear arms. Do I think they need an AR-15 or some other rapid fire assault weapon when our ancestors survived quite adequately with long rifles and single shot musket balls? No. Suppose guns were outlawed? Does anyone believe criminals would not develop a way to get guns? We banned alcohol during prohibition and people still drank liquor. Just as extreme positions are taken with gun control; the same occurs with arguments regarding our environment.

            This past August, one of my favorite places in Flagler County was slated to be the site for what was described by the local news service as: 

 The hyper-endurance race, called the “Jacksonville Super at Palm Coast,” entails turning  the preserve into an 8 to 10-mile race course with 24 to 29 “natural” and artificial  obstacles that radically alter the landscape and by Spartan’s own description “may cause substantial wear and tear.” The obstacle courses include barbed wire, scalable walls, mud—though Dunn says mud pits will not be part of this course—fire jumps, tire drags, traverse walls, carrying heavy loads of one sort or another and other obstacles (FlaglerLive, 2015). 

I was absolutely sickened by the thought of such an event taking place at place that is a pristine part of Flagler, and Florida history. I grew up in Florida and spent many a weekend camping and enjoying the beauty of its natural wonders. I took my children camping and shared that same sense of wonder and awe of Mother Nature. Although I am a member of the local tourism and can appreciate their efforts for wanting to bring sporting events to Flagler in order to boost all of the relevant taxes and increase tourism dollars; this was a line in the sand moment. The overall cost and impact to the land far outweighed the added benefit to tourism, at least in my mind. As FlaglerLive (2015) provided:

  Spartan will be charging runners from $79 to $109, and more on the day of the race. It    will have exclusive rights to parking fees and concessions, forbidding the county from    having any competing, similar revenue sources. And Spartan “shall be entitled to retain    all proceeds for the event, including ticketing, merchandise sales, onsite food, beverage    and alcohol sales, coat checks, sponsorship and broadcast rights,” the contract states,    “all obtained and priced in Spartan’s sole discretion.

The ultimate slap in the face was this line, "Rather, the contract leaves Spartan harmless if it does not restore a venue to its original state" (FlaglerLive, 2015). Thanks to many like-minded people, a Facebook Group was created and the event was cancelled. Local happenings affect me more than world-wide events such as world hunger.

            I well remember my parents telling me there were starving children around the world who would be happy to have the dinner my mother worked to prepare. Funny, this same conversation always took place on the nights we had liver; a food I do not eat to this day. Singer opines we have a “positive obligation to help those in great need” so long as the personal cost is not excessive; and, I would add so long as we know the money being sent actually reaches the people and the region in need (Happy & Well, 2012). Singer offers a progressive table as a solution that allows a person to enter their annual earnings, adjust for currency and purchasing power, and arrive at a percentage that allows for charitable giving while not asking the person to give up luxuries such as eating out, or going to the movies (Happy & Well, 2012). Singer states the average Australian would be asked to give five percent of annual earnings. If the average middle-income family earned $50,000; then 5% would equal $2500 annually, or less than $50 weekly (Happy & Well, 2012). Could the average middle-income family afford to divert $50.00 a week? The dilemma, if you will, is that because hunger and poverty happens all the time, each and every day, we do not necessarily hear about it such as we would a disaster like Hurricane Katrina. We know it’s there; but, we don’t wade into the weeds.

            I well remember Katrina. The call to action was heard across the globe, thus demonstrating LaFollette’s (2007) position, “Our global economy makes our mutual dependence clear” (p. 244). Harm had been done and even though neither sole nor predominant responsibility could be assigned to any individual; and, while it mattered not which stage of the “demographic transition theory (DTT)” New Orleans’ residents occupied, there was never any cry to “let’em starve” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 242). Americans gave and gave greatly; and, when it was reported abuses took place regarding government funds that had been given to victims; people questioned purchases such as breast augmentations and designer purses; but, still gave.

            Yes, there are ways we can all help. I volunteer for a program known as Feed Flagler that collects food throughout the year in order to provide not only a Thanksgiving meal for the needy in Flagler County; it also donates canned goods to local food pantries. This is a continuation of helping collect food through the Boys Scouts’ program, Scouting for Food, designed as an Eagle Scout project to address neighborhood hunger. As Singer notes, people are often skeptical with regards to giving money as they are unsure if a greater portion of the funds actually reach targeted countries (Happy & Well, 2012). It seems to me if the IRS can ask for a $1 contribution to the presidential campaign fund; we should be able to designate a portion of our refund to a specific charity that has been approved by the U.S. Government as one that truly meets the needs of the hungry and can demonstrate its programs are effective.

            As I age, some of my views strengthen, while others soften. I see a greater need to be aware of the environmental issues than I did twenty years ago. Likewise, some gun regulation is required; but, not a complete ban and subsequent confiscation. I have grown more critical of world hunger issues primarily because of the groups running the programs. I still recall taxpayer dollars sent to Katrina victims that never purchased survival supplies. Nonetheless, our willingness to protect our values often begins with a line in the sand that in some situations can and should be adjusted based on new information and more experiences. It is the emotion we attach to our protected values that cause us, as Gilbert notes, to become so “bedeviled” with rational decisions (TEDGlobal, 2005). Time is what allows us to hold our ability to periodically adjust our values in our hands and know when to stand firm. Twenty years ago, the odds of changing my values on gun control, the environment, and world hunger were quite slim; but, as I age and acquire more education, I often pause to rethink and readjust. 

References

Happy & Well. (2012, Jun. 30). Peter Singer 'The life you can save' at Happiness & Its Causes             2012. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpV56D05ag0

Hoch, S.J., Kunreuther, H.C., & Gunther, R.E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions.

            Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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

TEDGlobal. (2005). Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions. [Video file]. Retrieved from

            http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness#t-1480

Tristam, P. (2015, Aug. 19). Princess Place Preserve Slated for Extreme-Sport-Type Endurance       Race, and 6,000 Racers. FlaglerLive. Retrieved from             http://flaglerlive.com/82576/spartan-race-palm-coast/

A634.9.5.RB_MedleyKim_Oh_Tannenbaum

Oh Tannenbaum!

            As LaFollette (2007) concludes, he asks readers to consider the method to his madness and the manner through which he introduces ethics. I couldn’t help but consider my own method and madness as I decorated the family Christmas tree. I began to consider the many lessons LaFollette (2007) presented. There are more than two sides to the many arguments of hot button issues such as gun control, racism, punishment, and world hunger. A hint of naiveté goes a long way in understanding others’ motives and resisting knee jerk judgements. Finally, although ethics and morality may be demanding, practice is required if we are to achieve an ethical way of living. How amazing is it that a simple, yearly tradition can help bring all of this into focus?

            The Christmas tree begins as a beautiful, evergreen anchor upon which we hang both our memories and hopes. Just as the tree serves as the anchor for a wide array of decorations; so, too are we the anchor for our ethical behavior, to which we can add many lessons and sharpen those already learned. The star which is the first ornament placed every year is my moral compass. For me, it represents all of the lessons learned from my parents. That foundation allows me to expand my knowledge and question long held beliefs and adjust in light of new information. Is it acceptable to tell my children, now my grandchildren that Santa delivers toys around the world in a reindeer driven sleigh? Does he really eat all those cookies and drink all those glasses of milk?

            The lights are next. They represent the light we must constantly shine on subject matters in order to ascertain factors such as knowledge, abilities, age, education, and time; elements that not only help us as individuals to determine our own standards of morality; but, those can alter expectations from others (LaFollette, 2007). The lights on my tree are multi-color. Imagine the argument of racism. On a Christmas tree different colors, resting side-by-side along the boughs of the tree, shed different lights on different ornaments. The same ornament may be viewed differently under the glow of a red, blue, green, or white light. Some trees have all white lights? Could that be racist? For me, one specific color, is rather boring. What about world hunger? Is it wrong for me to have a tree while others barely have food? The many colors of lights on my tree glow in harmony and add to the beauty of the tree. Just as lights come in many shades and styles; so, too does garland.

            Instead of gold or silver garland, I use ribbons and strands of golden pearl-style beads. The ribbons are the many theories of ethics running through the many corners of my mind. I place each ribbon to achieve the best result, or consequence, similar to the predications of consequentialism (LaFollette, 2007). I have dozens of styles of ribbons from which to choose; and, I choose the one that provides the best overall look for the tree, based on its size. Some years I use all of the ribbons, and other years only a few will do. The deontologist in me follows strict rules regarding the overall decorating process. Star first, then lights, followed by ribbons, and pearls. It’s a process my mother followed; and, decorating the tree has always been a way for me to keep her memory alive; therefore, although I could deviate, I do not. The strands of gold pearls remind us that if we get to close to a line that should not be crossed, once crossed the behavior becomes easy to repeat. The strands are hung very close to the end of each branch, giving the illusion of sparkling necklaces draping the tree. Placed too close to the edge, they easily fall and can cause a cascading, crashing effect with other ornaments. After years of decorating, I have learned to place the strands far enough from the edge which leaves room for the many ornaments.

            I always place the handmade ornaments on the tree first. They represent the many memories; and, in the sense of ethics, the lessons learned as a result of practice. I know the historical insight of each ornament made by my children. Making ornaments for the tree was something I enjoyed doing with my children. LaFollette (2007) states a key to becoming virtuous is we must enjoy doing it. It leads to habituation, required for both virtuosity and morality. Memory ornaments, like our own memories, help us recall lessons learned from mistakes, too. The familiar round glass balls that adorn many trees help us to recall that ethics is continual in nature and never-ending. Slippery slope arguments can lead us in circles and make us fear change (LaFollette, 2007). Like the lights, round balls come in many colors; and, again, one color makes for a boring tree.

            The final adornment to my tree are red bows and a set of handmade ornaments that provide the naiveté LaFollette (2007) urges us to cultivate. The bows represent the sense of tying all of the theories together in order to have the complete package for living an ethical life. The handmade ceramic ornaments are hand-painted, whimsical Christmas bears. Each year, I smile as I hang each one and that child-like spirit fills my very soul. It helps me to enjoy Christmas shopping rather than become cross with an overly aggressive shopper. I see the good in people first and blind myself to their faults (LaFollette, 2007).

            Ethics, at least for me, is much like decorating a Christmas tree. It begins with a good base tree. Its star is the moral compass that guides each of us. It requires patience, imagination, and caring to not only decorate a tree; but, to choose to and implement a plan that leads to a more ethical life.

           

References

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

A632.4.5.RB_MedleyKim_Negotiating Webs

Negotiating Webs

            As offered by Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001), almost 30 percent of negotiators lie about an issue and another 100 percent fail to inform of a problem or purposely lie during negotiations. “Lies of omission” are preferred over “lies of commission” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 189). Negotiators’ lies include: reservation prices, interests, intentions, and material facts (Hoch et al., 2001). Lies can also be organized to cover lies told to one’s self, lies told about a particular target, lies told about another person, and lies told about objects or events (Hoch et al., 2001). Those who were presented with sizeable incentives “to misrepresent a forecast were more likely to lie” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 191). Since the commission of the first sin, when Eve was deceived by the serpent; and, she in turn deceived Adam, lying is a part of the negotiation process. Thankfully there are ways to guard against deception.

            Before, during, and after the art of negotiating occurs, and the lying begins, steps can be taken to either reduce or avoid the negotiating webs of deception. First, before the process begins, develop questions to “identify missing information” and if necessary, as the questions more than once (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 194). The same question, worded differently, can also help catch lies being spun by the negotiator. Settings, such as face-to-face meetings, can also help curtail the negotiator’s propensity to lie. Learning certain cues and having the ability to detect both visual and vocal cues will also reduce the chance for lying (Hoch et al., 2001). While negotiating, listen, look for nonverbal cues, “ask direct questions”, and write claims made by the negotiator down (Hoch et al., 2001). This provides one with their own point of reference from which to develop more questions and by which to compare answers developed through the process. Once the negotiation ends, be respectful, treat people fairly, and do not let the other person know you have won the negotiation (Hoch et al., 2001). Had I been more aware of these few simple steps, I may very well have avoided being misled and would not have overstated a recent claim.

            I have a friend who believes she can paint and refinish cabinetry. I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination; but, with the help of my husband, I was able to paint our kitchen cabinets and apply a faux finish to the countertops by falling instructions from a kit. She marveled at the job done and took it upon herself to offer her services to a women she knew was getting ready to refurbish her kitchen. This past Monday she came to me and told me she a “done deal” with this woman and that she simply needed my help in choosing paint colors and the countertop kit. We spoke for more than thirty minutes at my house and when I asked specific questions, she did not have answers. She showed me a photo of the kitchen. I asked if new cabinet hardware would be purchased. I asked her repeatedly if the woman was completely aware the process relied solely on paint. I was to meet with her at this woman’s home in order to take a look at the kitchen. When the next day came and went without a phone call, I knew I had not been given all of the facts; and, honestly I was glad I had taken the initial position of not wanting to take this remodel work. By Wednesday, I was being told the woman now wasn’t sure what she wanted to do. I believe my friend oversold herself and misrepresented her own painting ability, along with her ability to take on a project of this size. What was initially presented as a “done deal” had all but evaporated in less than 48 hours.

            For the past few weeks I have tutored my son in College Algebra. I had convinced him to take the course instead of the remedial math courses and assured him based on my experience, I could get him through the class. I relied on my own history with the class, an A student, and did not listen carefully when he voiced his own concerns. He is diligently working to now pass the class and I fear my overstatement of my claim to be able to get him through the class may be causing him undue stress. Rather than avoiding overconfidence, I am quite sure I exuded the same. Did I consider my interests before his? Although I did not actively misrepresent information, did I somehow leave out the difficulties he might face?

            Hoch et al. (2001) conclude that deception is inherently human. Knowing this is half the battle to better negotiations and subsequently better decisions. Have a before, during, and after negotiation plan in place before talks begin. Look for tell-tale signs. Phrases such as “let me be honest with you” and “to tell the truth” should raise red flags (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 195). Hesitations with speech, a change in vocal tone and pitch, “longer response time to questions”, and stumbling for answers should send a flashing signal to beware of the webs of deception often found in negotiations.

References

Hoch, S.J., Kunreuther, H.C., & Gunther, R.E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions.

            Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

A634.8.3.RB_MedleyKim_Let the Lambs Contest

Let the Lambs Contest

            It is a debate that has raged for 239 years. Since the time of our Declaration of Independence, the “serious right to keep and bear arms”, as discussed by LaFollette (2007), is a debate often viewed from two extremes, either private citizens may not own “any gun” to private citizens may own guns “with no restrictions” (p. 179). Bailey (n.d.) presents the author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria:

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed  man.

LaFollette (2007) states, “the best overall moral practice is one in which normative questions arise from our attempts to wrestle with concrete moral issues” from which both “meta-ethical questions” and “careful reflection” may illuminate each inquiry and lead to reasonable considerations (p. 1). As with any ethical discussion, an historical perspective is always helpful. As LaFollette (2007) primarily discusses gun control in the United States, a brief look at the debates taking place at the time of the proponents and opponents of the U.S. Constitution provides the beginning arguments.

            Writing as Publius in Federalist No. 46, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay (2003) warn that is either State or Congressional legislatures fail to “sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare”, then “measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States” (p. 293). They imagine a time wherein “an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray” could amass power and control over the people through a standing army; however, the repel to such a danger would be well-armed citizens, ready to stand with their State (Hamilton et al., 2003, p. 295). They further offer if a standing army, controlled by the provisions of the Constitution, equaling “one hundredth” of our population at the time, not more than 30,000 men, were to be used to against the citizens, by sheer numbers, an opposing militia of almost 500,000 well-armed citizens would repel any such attempt to deny “common liberties” (Hamilton et al., 2003, p. 296). This was the reality facing our country at the time of its independence.

            Opponents, writing as Anti-Federalists and presented by Raffin (2010), are those, who through their “meta-ethical questions” helped lead to the development of the Bill of Rights (LaFollette, 2007, p. 1). The Federalists came up with a list of the “least restrictive” requests and assured opponents of their eventual passage (Raffin, 2010). George Mason, a strong voice of the Anti-Federalists copied “to keep and to bear arms” from “Virginia’s Declaration of Rights” and married those words with “concerning a well-regulated militia as the defense against a standing army” (Raffin, 2010). What concerns did Anti-Federalists express? Based on historical evidence from both England and our nation’s early years, it was well understood a standing armies “were the main tool monarchs used to impose their will in 17^th century England” (Raffin, 2010). This practice eventually led to the adoption of an “English Bill of Rights” which included a “Militia Act” allowing Protestant subjects to “have arms for their defense” (Raffin, 2010). This act only protected citizenry from the crown, not Parliament; and, because of this, Madison declares this portion of England’s Bill of Rights, “inapplicable” (Raffin, 2010). Our founders feared an out of control government, not simple an overzealous monarch. In 1774, “a secret military” standing arming seized “publicly owned gunpowder in the Charleston powder house” (Raffin, 2010). This led Patrick Henry to head a detail to either regain possession or reimbursement for the powder; and, more importantly, Massachusetts added “keeping” to its “bearing” of arms in its State “declaration of rights”, from which Mason borrowed the language (Raffin, 2010). Anti-Federalists also worried the Federal Constitution would overrule those of the States and not only would state militias be destroyed through defunding, individual rights would be lost to the federal government (Raffin, 2010). Pennsylvania, along with its delegation of Anti-Federalists, passed the following to its bill of rights:

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for   disarming the people of any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals (Raffin, 2010).

It is the element of real danger that drives the debate today.

            LaFollette (2007) queries if the very character of a gun is that which makes it “especially harmful” (p. 183). As he continues, he notes guns were specifically created for armies and “they were designed to cause (and threaten harm)” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 184). This fundamental purpose is what further drives redesign to achieve greater efficiency. We have progressed from flint, musket-ball pistols and rifles, to Glock handguns and AR 15 assault rifles. LaFollette (2007) contends gun control prescribes “what governments should allow private individuals to do” not what the private citizen should do (p. 185). Statistics listed by Williamson (2013) demonstrate a less than clear answer as to whether homicides in the U.S. are tied to gun ownership. The U.S. realizes a “4.8 per 100,000” homicide rate (Williamson, 2013). Switzerland, described as a “gun-loving” nation has a lower murder rate than the United Kingdom, known for its tight gun control measures (Williamson, 2013). Sweden and Cuba, the latter being a “police state”, realize a murder rate of 5.0, higher than the U.S. (Williamson, 2013). The majority of “gun deaths” in the U.S. are attributed to suicide, not murder (Williamson, 2013). Likewise, assault rifles accounted for 358 deaths in 2010 (Williamson, 2013). Guns defined as “legally owned fully automatic weapons” have been tied to only two murders and of those two, one was used by a policeman against a troubled individual (Williamson, 2013). Given there is a wide range of results with the combination of strict or liberal gun policies, the constant variable with any equation is the “violent crime”, not the number of gun laws on the books (Williamson, 2013). Williamson (2013) notes those states with strict gun laws and discovers many of the gun sales take place illegally and as such statistics are easily manipulated to provide the appearance of lower crime rates. For example, a gun illegally sold in Illinois and used to commit a crime in Indiana does not appear in any records of Illinois (Williamson, 2013). He goes on to suggest a correlation that differs from LaFollette (2007). Whereas LaFollette (2007) observes strong correlations between gun ownership and violent crimes; Williamson (2013) points to a “correlation between municipal liberalism and violent crime” that is much stronger than LaFollette’s (2007) observation. Williamson (2013) cites Detroit, Chicago, and Philadelphia, long governed with liberal policies and warns New Yorkers they will miss “nanny-in-chief Michael Bloomberg” once replaced by the same “cookie-cutter Democratic-machine liberal”. He may very well be on to something.

            Of the arguments LaFollette (2007) presents, I rather appreciate the idea of liability insurance. Certainly there is sufficient statistical data from which to form actuarial tables that could provide appropriate rate differences for a policy covering a hand gun as opposed to one insuring an assault weapon. I believe this would encourage owners to teach their children how to use the weapon, as was the case in the early days of our founding. Children, much younger than we can imagine, often learned to fire and care for a weapon before learning to ride a horse. As with teaching our children to drive, we encourage them to pass driver-educational course in order to receive lower insurance rates. We add insurance coverage so they can operate the vehicle. I have no doubt law-abiding citizens would endeavor to comply; but, criminals, regardless of the regulations, just as we saw with prohibition, will always find a way to obtain a weapon if they are intent on doing harm. Because of this, I do agree it is a citizen’s “right to keep and bear arms”, especially in the aftermath of California. Apparently others believe this, too, as according to many headlines, gun sales have increased because of the current administration.

References

Bailey, B. (n.d.). The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment. The Federalist Papers

            Project. Retrieved from https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/the-founding-fathers-       on-the-second-amendment

Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (2003). The Federalist Papers. (C. Rossiter, Ed.).

            New York: Signet Classic.

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

Raffin, R. (2010, May). Mason, Madison, and Militias: A Progressive for a Right to Bear Arms.

            Stanford Progressive. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-      bin/?p=559

Williamson, K.D. (2013, May 3). The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate. National Review.

            Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347263/dishonest-gun-control-           debate-kevin-d-williamson

A632.3.4.RB_MedleyKim_Keeping Frame Blindness in Check

Keeping Frame Blindness in Check

            The concept of “frame blindness”, defined by Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001) as an unconscious realization of viewing problems through the same “mental window”, can easily be explained by imagining a basket of collected eyeglasses and having to choose the right pair in order to see clearly (p. 139). How often do we hear others say, in a joking manner, ‘gotta get my eyes checked’? Rather than admit their eyesight has narrowed and/or diminished, they keep using the same pair of glasses. The insistence on using the same, outdated pair of glasses has the same effect as a manager who looks at problems and decision making by using the mental model; it limits awareness, it presents a false “illusion of completeness”, and it leads to an overconfidence with the manager that he or she is able to see all aspects of the problem at hand (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 139). Fortunately, just as it is relatively easy to update one’s glasses, managers can avoid “frame blindness” by first being willing to recognize their vulnerability to it and by using methods to control it (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 139). Although unaware of this concept at the time, I used these controls several years ago.

            In 2006, I was hired by the Flagler County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Within a month of my hire, I had been tasked as the department facilitator for the Circuit Civil division. At the time, there were fourteen clerks housed in an office space that was never designed to accommodate fourteen clerks, desks, file cabinets, and all of the other accessories typically found in a department. Suffice it to say tensions had mounted throughout a period of time and had reached the point where conversations did not occur. Levine (2009) proffers engagement sparks creativity and leads to resolution. Although senior management recognized a problem existed, mid-level managers had viewed the issue through the same pair of glasses and could not see the underlying issue further exacerbating the lack of communication. They lacked a complete picture and understanding of the problem. Levine (2009) notes, “When a situation is filled with emotion you must get to the …real source of the conflict, otherwise the solution will blow up” (p. 134). My role as facilitator began each week with a meeting that allowed each clerk to tell her story. A shared energy soon developed and this allowed for solutions to be reached and implemented (Levine, 2009). In the past, leaving a paper jam or an empty paper tray would lead to heated exchanges of words and management did nothing to address the issue. By listening to all of the stories in a detached manner, I avoided “frame blindness” and discovered the main issue was the majority of the clerks had not been trained with regards to paper jams, or even how to load a paper tray. Like some, I had thought those who left the copy machine inoperable were simply not being courteous; however, after listening, I knew the frustration came from not knowing. In addition to making sure I had a complete picture, a fresh set of eyes also helped address another concern in the Clerk’s office.

            When I first arrived, our department concentrated on inputting new cases. This decision was made in order to increase the weekly numbers reported to the state that would eventually lead to authorization for additional monies and/or staff. While this focus made our numbers look great; other areas were swept aside and that work was delayed. By viewing new cases as the top priority, suboptimal performance ensued as processing of other court documents decreased. To correct the situation, our weekly meetings turned attention to developing a work flow process. Each clerk was asked to help prioritize the daily work. As a result, the original frame of giving priority only to new business was replaced with a process that included a schedule that called for cross training of all clerks so that all knew how to process all court documents. Within a month, the complaining phone calls received on a daily basis had been greatly reduced, court orders were being processed more regularly, notices that required newspaper publication no longer had to be hurried at the last minute, and all work was given equal processing time by all clerks rather than a few.

            Perhaps the primary control I used while with the Clerk’s office was that of aligning my frames with others (Hoch et al., 2001). Most of the clerks recognized the production and office issues. They believed they could not challenge mid-level managers because of the attitude that had been allowed to exist. The weekly meetings allowed those of us who saw the problems to put our frames together which helped us to expand our vision, develop a more complete understanding of the problems, increase productivity, and increase our confidence about what we knew rather than overestimating what we thought others knew (Hoch et al., 2001). Challenging those who said a work flow would not work allowed for more conversation to take place. Initially, implementing the work flow was done by getting mid-level managers to “stretch” their frames (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 153). An agreement was reached such that if the work flow failed, we would return to the previous processes. We never had to return to the old ways.

            Each encounter, challenging why the copy machine was left inoperable, why new business took priority, and why select duties was favored over cross-training all, had to be presented in a way that called in to question the focus of the current frame. Identifying “frame misfit”, aligning my frames with others, and allowing others to stretch their frames, helped me to understand the frustration level of fourteen women, frame problems in a way that encouraged and created shared energy rather than shared animosity, and learn that although change alone represents a risk to some, the risk of staying silent and continuing to allow management to use outdated glasses does greater harm to the organization.

References

Hoch, S.J., Kunreuther, H.C., & Gunther, R.E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions.

            Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to Resolution: Turning Conflict into Collaboration. San

            Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

A634.7.4.RB_MedleyKim_Twin_Eagles

Twin Eagles

            In his presentation, Dr. Bruce Weinstein, also known as The Ethics Guy (2012), polls his audience as to what one ought to do when faced with the flu. Do we stay home? Do we go to work and limit interaction with others? Do we purposely interact with those we dislike? Of the points he discusses, understanding criticism, apologizing in an ethically intelligent manner, and making others feel appreciated combine to help us realize what we ought to do in situations (TheEthicsGuy, 2012). Imagine a situation wherein a graduate student earnestly endeavors to complete assignments and submit the same by the prescribed deadline. The student has demonstrated one of “Ben’s 13 Virtues” presented by Twin Cities Public Television (TCPT) (2002). According to TCPT (2002) resolution requires one to perform what one ought. Should the reverse apply with regards to the grading obligation of the professor? Should professors resolve to grade what one ought? Weinstein expounds on the value of criticism; and, that if it can be harnessed and applied correctly, criticism can bring out the best in others (TheEthicsGuy, 2012).

            It has been my experience, since returning to school in 2009, graded assignments often include feedback, a form of criticism. It is presented by the professor in a constructive manner that, if taken by the student in an open-minded way, can help the student learn and improve future assignments. Most of the instructors I have been fortunate to have are able to return graded assignments in a relatively short amount time. A select few return grades with lightning speed which is very much appreciated when working within a seven day period to complete assignments. One of my current professors is one of the select few. I wonder how many students take time to not only appreciate this; but, actually thank their professors. Weinstein demonstrates how making someone feel appreciated can change not only that person’s outlook; it can change the outlook of those who took the time and effort to show appreciation (TheEthicsGuy, 2012). For me, receiving grades and feedback in a timely manner, tells me that professor appreciates my work; and even if the feedback offers constructive criticism, he or she took the time and believed my work worthy of not only reading; but, the professor sees room for improvement. Yes, I am a self-professed perfectionist and grade “weenie”; but, taking in feedback and applying the recommendations helps me to resolve to be a better student and listener.

            Citing Aristotle, LaFollette (2007) provides the only way to develop virtues is “by habituation”, and that being virtuous is something one must enjoy doing (p. 215). Additionally, LaFollette (2007) queries, “Is morality demanding?” (p. 253). I truly believe the professor who posts grades with lightning speed enjoys what she does and resolution is a strong virtue. My second professor seems to be experiencing difficulty with posting grades; and, although several inquiries have been made, the reason for the delay is unclear. Is it morally wrong to not grade a paper within a reasonable amount of time and does it fall within the scope of morality (LaFollette, 2007)? What weight is given to grading a paper timely or grading a paper eventually? Is it possible for a professor’s personal interests to trump his or her resolution to grade assignments (LaFollette, 2007)? If circumstances were such the delay in returning grades could be explained; then an “ethically intelligent apology”, defined by Weinstein as one that demonstrates sincerity, ownership, and a plan of action to avoid future delays, would certainly go a long way in helping this student understand and further the student’s own sense of tranquility (TheEthicsGuy, 2012; TCPT, 2002). Unfortunately and sadly, such as not occurred. Instead, a student who strives to learn and submit good assignments is literally left to flap in the wind and continue with ongoing assignments without understanding or guidance timely grading and criticism would offer.

            Chuck Gallagher (2013) speaks of an “unethical continuum” whereby if one begins to slide down its slopes, illegal actions may result. Certainly it is not my contention such will come to pass with a professor simply because he or she fails to resolve to return grades in a timely fashion; however, what’s the difference between a professor who does resolve and one who does not? Is such a reputation good for the university? Who would know, especially if the practice is something many professors do? Students are required to submit assignments on time. From a moral and virtuous standpoint, a student ought to resolve to submit his or her assignments by the deadline. Shouldn’t the same apply to the professors? If the student were to voice concern and if the professor were to retaliate by assigning lower grades, could that lead the professor further down Gallagher’s (2013) continuum? If the professor could not discern any difference between returning grades timely or returning grades eventually, if the professor tended to personal tasks instead of university tasks like grading assignments, and if the professor violated university policy, written or unwritten with regards to grading and gave little consideration to his or her action; then it is plausible the slippery slope could lead to retaliation against any student who sought to question the process (Gallagher, 2013).

            Ethics and values can vary within the same organization. As Weinstein demonstrated, people view what one ought to do through different lens (TheEthicsGuy, 2012). Do I grade assignments timely? Do I only grade those assignments from student who routinely do well? Do I grade those assignments from students I dislike? Those professors, who resolve to do what they ought to do, grade assignments because they believe a student deserves to know his or her grade, are to be applauded. Those professors who choose to perform a task other than grading do their university, their student body; and, ultimately their selves a dis-service.

References

Chuck Gallagher. (2013, Jan. 27). Business Ethics Keynote Speaker – Chuck Gallagher – shares

            Straight Talk about Ethics! [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/gUJ00vNGCPE

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

TheEthicsGuy. (2012, Aug. 24). Keynote Speech Excerpts from The Ethics Guy. [Video file].

            Retrieved from https://youtu.be/eLxbHBpilJQ

Twin Cities Public Television. (2002). Ben’s 13 Virtues. PBS.org. Retrieved from

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

A634.6.3.RB_MedleyKim_A Little Patience

A Little Patience

            Perhaps it is somewhat fitting and proper to end the week with a reflective opportunity that provides for a bit of soul searching and a deeper understanding of a theory that “vanished from formal ethical discussion for more than a hundred years”, one referred to by LaFollette (2007) as the virtue theory. As the week draws to a close, group work has all but wrapped up; and, the emotions generated lead this writer to fondly recall the words, “Said woman take it slow, It’ll work itself out fine, All we need is just a little patience …”, performed and posted by GunsNRosesLive88 (2011). 

According to Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001), “People like to end on a high note” and “some people schedule their least favorite activities early in the day to obtain a positive contrast effect with those activities they do enjoy” (p. 69). Without realizing it, that is exactly what I had done as I began today’s lessons.

            I quite enjoy reflective exercises, particularly those that allow me to write and be expressive. Blending the writings of others and editing are somewhat less enjoyable tasks for me; so, I purposely decided to review and edit a group assignment and save what I consider the best assignment for last. Aristotle proffered one who is virtuous must: do the right thing, do it regularly, enjoy doing it, know the action is virtuous, and understand why the act is virtuous (as cited in LaFollette, 2007). A quiz, presented by Twin Cities Public Television (TCPT) (2002a), offers twelve questions; and, based on responses, one can determine how one measures up to Ben Franklin and his espoused virtues. Based on the virtues listed by Twin Cities Public Television (2002b): temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility, the results of my quiz “closely reflected Ben’s own self-improvement plan” (TCPT, 2002a; TCPT, 2002b). Because I had elected to concentrate on the group project early in the day, the day’s unfolding events allowed me to practice justice, sincerity, and the virtue the quiz recommended I consider, tranquility (TCPT, 2002b).

            Justice encourages us to “wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty”, sincerity warns that if we speak, to “speak accordingly”, and tranquility teaches us to consider that which is “REALLY important” and not to “sweat the small stuff” (TCPT, 2002b). Given my self-admitted propensity for perfection, it is extremely difficult to bite my tongue, give my all when at times others appear to not appreciate it, and to not “sweat the small stuff”; yet, I pressed on regardless and am now able to learn from the day and improve on the virtues needed (TCPT, 2002b). Taking a page from Greek philosophy, the function of a team is to complete a range of tasks so that in the end a final goal is accomplished together. An excellent team is one that fulfills this function and this fulfillment is the team’s virtue (LaFollette, 2007). Would justice have been served had my frustration gotten the better of me to the point I omitted benefits to the team that are my duty as a member of the team? What if any of my text replies had been sent in all capital letters? Would that be speaking accordingly? I think texting is a good way to slow down, bite the tongue a bit, and ask how my grandmother would react or consider what she would say if she read the text. Admittedly, remaining calm and not allowing little things to trouble me is a virtue that requires a bit more practice and inculcation. The virtue not listed on Ben’s list is perhaps the one I rely upon the most and is the one that allows me to practice the others.

            I have been told since I was young that patience is a virtue. I have repeated this epiphany to each of my children, and now I hear them repeating it to their children. My strongest virtues are those of order, a place for everything and everything in its place, frugality, waste not want not, and cleanliness (TCPT, 2002b). Just as Hoch et al. (2001) state “not all variety is created equal”, not all virtues carry the same weight and perhaps this is why little things present a challenge to someone who thrives on order, thriftiness, and keeping things clean. For me, a perfect grade is an attainable goal and when I perceive the acts of others may prevent me from achieving that goal, then tranquility and sincere speech tend to require much more practice. LaFollette (2007) concludes the “virtue theorist is right that we should pay special attention to our own actions since these are most within our control” (p. 223). It never hurts to admit I may need a little more practice; and, as I end, “a little patience” (GunsNRosesLive88, 2011).

References

GunsNRosesLive88. (2011, Sept. 23). Guns N’ Roses – Patience – HD (720p) Live American

            Music Awards 1989. [Video file]. Retrieved from

            https://youtu.be/njCUxuxjR1M

Hoch, S.J., Kunreuther, H.C., & Gunther, R.E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions.

            Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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

Twin Cities Public Television. (2002a). Ben Franklin Virtue Quiz. PBS.org. Retrieved

            from http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/exp_virtue.html

Twin Cities Public Television. (2002b). Ben’s 13 Virtues. PBS.org. Retrieved from

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

A632.2.3.RB_MedleyKim_Choices, Choices, Everywhere…

Choices, Choices, Everywhere…

            Not once have I stopped to consider the total number of decisions I make on a daily or weekly basis. Although I take many quizzes during the course of completing degree work, the vast majority of those tests do not formally test my decision making style; yet, perhaps in some manner they do. A quiz, offered by ChopraCenter (2012) and based on eight simple questions, provides the student with insight as to his or her decision-making style. These questions focus on choices that require time spent researching, choices that make us fret, choices that are second guessed, choices that freeze our ability to decide, choices that make us procrastinate, choices made by emotional input alone, choices that others will question, choices that avoid risk, and choices repeated in incorrect ways (ChopraCenter, 2012). The results of my quiz summarize a mastery level of decision making capabilities. According to the quiz, I am able to make decisions “without agonizing over difficult choices or choosing impulsively” (ChopraCenter, 2012). With all of the choices presented on a daily basis, how does one achieve this level?

            I have often heard variety is the spice of life. As Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001) observe folks like to frequently change their consumption patterns; and, this propensity for change leads to many decision making processes by managers and others that not only allow for the variety; but, provide a mechanism whereby the decision maker does not make “suboptimal” choices simply for the sake of variety” (p. 65). The reasons why variety is sought includes relieving boredom, assuring consumers “get everything they need” by choosing more than one option, and trying various options helps us learn to adapt to a changing environment (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 67). Hoch et al. (2001) consider the added costs that come with offering more variety. They, along with Sheena Iyengar, as evidenced by her presentation at TEDSalonNY2011 (2011), also understand consumers can become “frustrated or confused” by that which Iyengar terms as “choice overload problem” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 65). In his presentation before TEDGlobal (2005), Dan Gilbert explains we experience difficulties in making good decisions as we have trouble with estimating odds and values. Based on Iyengar’s research, it is the model of multiple choices that causes the overload; and, perhaps this partly explains our difficulty with calculating odds and values (TEDSalonNY2011, 2011). Iyengar also reports the results of a study she conducted which indicate half of the numerous decisions mangers make are completed within nine minutes or less and only twelve percent of decisions required one hour or more (TEDSalonNY2011, 2011). Choice overload can lead to a delay in choosing, poorer choices, and choices that leave us less satisfied (TEDSalonNY2011, 2011). Fortunately, there are four tools decision makers can become aware of and use in order to improve their decision making process and ultimately their choices.

            Iyengar outlines the importance of the four Cs in overcoming choice overload (TEDSalonNY2011, 2011). Cut, which follows the principle “less is more”, can result in increased sales, reduced costs, and an improvement of the choosing experience (TEDSalonNY2011, 2011). Concretization helps a consumer to understand the consequences of choices in a vivid and concrete manner. Categorization helps us tell choices apart and we have the ability to process more categories than choices. The final “C”, conditioning for complexity, starts consumers off with fewer choices and gradually increases the number of choices so that consumers can learn to choose, not become overloaded, and avoid the negative consequences of choosing for the sake of choosing (TEDSalonNY2011, 2011). According to Iyengar, the average person makes 70 choices a day, 25,550 choices annually (TEDSalonNY2011, 2011). If I begin my adult decision-making process at age eighteen, then I have made at least 945,350 choices. Of the four methodologies discussed by Iyengar, I have benefited from and improved my decision making style by incorporating cut and categorization.

            I well remember having only three, sometimes four, television channels from which to choose. We did not pay to receive the channels. A well-positioned television antenna that sometimes needed to be turned provided many memorable nights of quality television programs. The excitement and choices that came with the introduction of cable television was incredible; given we now had to pay for television programming; and, at first, the variety was welcomed. Instead of a television with a manual channel selection knob, a sleek white box with a sliding channel selector, that ran the gambit from 2 to 42, sat atop the television and opened the windows to a plethora of viewing choices. Unfortunately, as Hoch et al. (2001) note, the special programming offered by HBO lost its appeal of variety as airings became redundant and something once considered special simply became regular. The next choice was that of either satellite or enhanced cable through options like AT&T U-verse. As the choices, delivery options, and resolutions increased; so, too did the cost. As Iyengar predicts, at least in my experience, my engagement and satisfaction with television programming have decreased and many times I simply select a channel for the sake of having background noise for studying (TEDSalonNY2011, 2011). At one time, I had over five hundred channels. Today, I have the lowest package offered; and, even then I find myself scrolling down the channel guide in search of quality programs. Today, it seems as if there are more info stations than regular viewing stations and more often than not re-runs fill the airwaves. Rather than become frustrated, I quickly scan my favorite stations and choose a program from that list. It saves me time. I do not second guess. I do not fret. I am not paralyzed as I can find something to watch. There are not questions from others and even if I choose a re-run, at least the decision is a good one. The second “C” I use on a consistent basis is categorization.

            As Hoch et al. (2001) state, it is crucial for decision makers to easily find the choice that best suits their need. Categorization, as explained by Iyengar, helps the chooser to distinguish among the vast array of choices (TEDSalonNY2011, 2011). One of my favorite stores is the Goodwill Store. There are many choices; however, the simple categories of men’s, women’s, and children’s clothing further categorized by blouses, pants, skirts, dresses, jeans, and separated by colors and sizes help me to focus on the particular article of clothing I might be seeking. This also saves me time as I do not have waste time looking at each tag, nor, do I waste time by looking for a blouse in the skirt aisle. Since the clothes hanging on the racks are all Goodwill has in stock, I do not fret about a size or color not being available. Rarely does anyone know if I am wearing clothing from Goodwill, so the need to worry about what others will say or think is drastically reduced. The variety is amazing; and, the best part of this decision making process is I realize savings while re-purposing clothing.

            Iyengar’s four Cs fit nicely with my decision making style; however, neither the style nor the techniques are acquired overnight. Decision making, like any skill, requires practice and that comes with making more decisions. The more we practice our craft, the less we agonize or choose impulsively. We soon learn that fewer channels were much easier to navigate from and select a quality program. We also recognize that designer labels can be had for fractions of the cost by focusing our decisions in a categorized manner. “Variety truly is the spice-of-life”; but, choices, choices, everywhere do not need to lead to choice overload (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 76).

References

ChopraCenter. (2012). Is Your Decision-Making Style Holding You Back? Quibblo

            Adknowledge EN, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.quibblo.com/quiz/bywpzuF/Is-Your-     Decision-Making-Style-Holding-You-Back

Hoch, S.J., Kunreuther, H.C., & Gunther, R.E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions.

            Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

TEDGlobal. (2005). Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions. [Video file]. Retrieved from

            http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness#t-1480

TEDSalonNY2011. (2011, Nov.). Sheena Iyengar: How to make choosing easier. [Video file].

            Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose

A632.1.4.RB_MedleyKim_In the Flow

In the Flow

            Dan Gilbert, during a presentation before TEDGlobal (2005), states humans find difficulty in applying Bernoulli’s gift, “How To Do Exactly the Right Thing at All Possible Times”, as we are prone to make mistakes with both estimating odds and value. Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001) observe that once odds and values are known, a straightforward, mathematical approach, known as “dynamic processing”, can be applied to know the expected value of decisions made (p. 42). Unfortunately, as Hoch et al. (2001) note, “total utility or value in not always so linear”; and, because of this, humans more often than not rely on past experiences, past solutions, and emotions when making decisions about new problems (p. 43). Suppose a student was faced with the decision of accepting a scholarship award and having it applied to a course taken during a normal semester whereby the student loan award would be reduced by the scholarship award, or, taking an additional course, outside of the normal semesters, so the student could realize a disbursement as a result of the balance remaining between the scholarship award and the total tuition. What would be the optimal decision?

            By looking at the formula presented by Hoch et al. (2001) “” wherein “V” is the value gained by either the potential reduction in student loan or the instant gratification of a disbursement of $200.00; in all probability, the decision that should have been made would be that of applying the scholarship award to a course offered during January, March, August, or October, standard semesters rather than taking on an additional course only to realize a relatively small return (p. 41). Gilbert quickly and correctly points out the flaw when the decision that should have been chosen is not; it is an error in value (TEDGlobal, 2005).

            Having forgotten that which Krogerus and Tschäppeler (2012) term as “The Flow Model”, that which makes us happy, this student cast aside the more relaxed environment of working towards a Master’s degree, one course, one semester at a time in favor of picking up another course and receiving a $200 disbursement (p. 46). Using Brodie’s (2007) steps, I defined the problem, considered the implications of my decision, looked at different viewpoints, invited feedback from others, understood what I wanted to achieve, weighed pros and cons, and finally pulled the trigger and acted. Taking another course, while half-way finished with the October semester course brings me one class closer to completing my degree work and I am reimbursed for the difference in tuition and scholarship award. Some may see this as a relatively small reward given the added workload that will come with two courses; however, happiness, as defined by Csikszentmihalyi, “occurs when we are: intensely focused on an activity of our own choosing, that is neither under-challenging (boreout) nor over-challenging (burnout), that has a clear objective, and that receives immediate feedback” (Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2012, p. 46). I did not agonize over the decision neither did I make the decision just for the sake of getting it done. I looked at what my future holds, a run for political office, and realized I may have to set aside my scholastic goals next year in order to attend events and run an effective campaign. By adding to my school schedule now, even if it means my calm environment is disturbed for a few weeks, I will not have lost any ground in pursuit of my Master’s degree. As Csikszentmihalyi notes, those “in the flow… lose track of time and forget themselves completely because they are so immersed in what they are doing” (Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2012, p. 46). Here’s to becoming immersed “in the flow” (Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2012, p. 46).

References

Brodie, D. (2007, Nov. 5). 6 Steps to Better Decision Making. Ezinearticles.com. Retrieved

            from http://ezinearticles.com/?6-Steps-to-Better-Decision-Making&id=817450

Hoch, S.J., Kunreuther, H.C., & Gunther, R.E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions.

            Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Krogerus, M., & Tschäppeler, R. (2012). The Decision Book: 50 Models for Strategic

            Thinking. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

TEDGlobal. (2005). Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions. [Video file]. Retrieved from

            http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness#t-1480

A634.5.4.RB_MedleyKim_ PF Flyers: I Didn’t Jump Higher or Run Faster

PF Flyers:

I Didn’t Jump Higher or Run Faster

            I remember the commercial as if it was yesterday, Johnny Quest racing against time to save “Race Bannon” from the lava flowing jaws of an exploding volcano, and almost certain death (TV Toy Memories, 2013). Thanks to the technology of the day, a flashing decoder ring, and the design genius of “B.F. Goodrich”, Johnny is able to grab a rope, “run like the wind”, and jump as high as an antelope in order to execute a miraculous save (TV Toy Memories, 2013). It was one of my most favorite Saturday morning cartoons and like many six year old girls, I had to have my own PF Flyers; and, of course, flashing decoder ring. PF Flyers were the Reeboks and Nikes of my childhood. I remember pleading in earnest with my mother until the day came she took me shopping for my very own PF Flyers. Finally! My wants, and at the time, my needs, to own a pair of “action shoes” complete with an “action wedge – built right in” had been successfully fulfilled by the marketing team at B.F. Goodrich (TV Toy Memories, 2013). Did I run faster, jump higher? Sadly, no; but, I never forgot my PF Flyers.

            El Sayed and El Ghazaly (n.d.) observe that marketing revolves “around a powerful entity… “the customer””. Marketing is the tool used to determine customers’ wants and needs and then provide the services and products to quell and keep customers satisfied. If marketing is but one tool in a corporation’s tool box; then can we not view this tool as any other tool found in a tool box? A hammer is a tool, is it evil? A knife in a kitchen drawer is a tool, is it evil? A piano wire, when struck provides melodious music, is it evil? If the hammer is grabbed and used to repeatedly strike a person in the head, is the hammer held up as evil, or is it the person holding; and, thereby swinging the hammer who is evil? Similar arguments lead us to ask if the person who does the stabbing, or the mob boss who strangles with a piano wire is the evil one, and not the tool of choice. Perhaps the question to consider should be, “Is the marketer evil”?

            LaFollette (2007) contends a conversation about morality must include “everyday ethics: the ways in which we talk, listen, treat, behave with and around our friends, family, colleagues, neighbors, and brief acquaintances” (p. 199). “Unless I care about others, I will not standardly act morally” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 201). Is this the key to ethical marketing? Does the marketer need to care about the person(s) to whom a product or service is being marketed? When prompted to respond to a blip about his blog, Godin (2009) asks, “Are marketers evil?” and answers “some of them”. Is it evil to market housing deals and mortgage rates to those who will wind up in foreclosure (Godin, 2009)? Is it evil to portray a cartoon character as cool simply because he smokes cigarettes and target kids for smoking (Godin, 2009)? If advertising to plus size women makes “obesity acceptable” is that marketing ploy evil (Godin, 2009)? As with any tool, the effect “comes from the craftsman, not the tool” (Godin, 2009). According to Godin (2009), more marketing and its influence can be attained with fewer dollars. With more impact available for less, what do marketers do, or what should they do with the equivalent of a faster, more powerful tool (Godin, 2009)?

            As outlined by Marketing-Schools (2012), the problem and relationship presented by doing what’s right and making a profit “has been studied… with little consensus reached”. As they continue, they note unethical marketing can be “just as effective as it is unethical”; yet, “unethical behavior is not necessarily against the law”. Look at the diet pill industry. Sneaky business models continue to result in thriving businesses (Marketing-Schools, 2012). Dove soap attempted ethical marketing when they launched their “real” models campaign which featured “realistic body images” and was meant to help girls embrace how their bodies looked; however, they did not maintain this approach and reverted back to using supermodels whose images were enhanced to “hide imperfections” (Marketing-Schools, 2012). Is this evil? Do consumers have an obligation to become knowledgeable of “relevant facts” in order to “make the appropriate moral decision” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 200)? Did Dove market its soap as a way to achieve a body style or as a way to clean the body?

            Godin (2009) notes the good side of marketing helped people to decide to “get a polio vaccine” or understand the need to wash hands before returning to tasks such as surgery or serving food. El Sayed and El Ghazaly (n.d.) point out marketing tools “have been used to achieve morally dubious ends by businesses”. Again, is it the tool, marketing, or the marketer that performs the act regarded as good or evil? Marketing-Schools (2012) suggest “a delicate balance” between the truth and the persuasion of the customer is needed. If due consideration of the company, its markets, and its clients is given; and if profits can be maintained; then companies can take advantage of the advantages from ethical marketing (Marketing-Schools, 2012). Improving one’s public image and reputation is a great way to connect with customers and promote social responsibility and is often used as a way to separate a company from its competition. Whole Foods Market and The Body Shop are two such examples wherein the “marketer and consumer are both aware of what’s happening and are both satisfied with the ultimate outcome” (Godin, 2009).

            Was it evil to take the camel from Camel’s cigarettes, make him “Joe Camel” and cool and specifically target kids, especially when they knew of the dangers associated with smoking? Yes. Are all marketing pronouncements this simple? No. “Ethics resides in a gray area with many fine lines and shifting boundaries” (Marketing-Schools, 2012). Is it ethical to track my buying habits or is that taking advantage of a faster, more powerful marketing tool? If used in a way that demonstrates care for others, knowledge of how such actions affects others, understanding of how others will behave, and an understanding of morally relevant facts; and, if all of those variables produce positive results; then tracking my buying habits or learning which websites I frequent is not evil. If; however, such actions take on stalker behavior or qualities, then a line is crossed and a consumer would do well to avoid business with such a company. For me, the guiding light to ethical marketing is that of caring for others and the Golden Rule. As Godin (2009) notes just because I have a fast, powerful marketing tool doesn’t mean I need to use it a full throttle. Treating others the way I would want to be treated as a customer is how I view ethical aspects of marketing. LaFollette (2007) concludes, "The primary aim of moral thinking is to help us be less cruel, more caring, fairer, and more just - in short, to make this a morally better world" (p. 208). Sounds like a good rule of thumb when considering marketing decisions. Was B.F. Goodrich evil to market PF Flyers and the flashing decoder ring to a young sixth grader who waited with anticipation, each Saturday morning, to watch Johnny Quest? No, of course not. I never was a fast runner, or someone who could jump high.

References

El Sayed, H., & El Ghazaly, I. (n.d.). Is Marketing Evil? Marketing Viewed as a tool.

            Ethics Based Marketing – German University in Cairo. Retrieved from

            http://www.ethicsbasedmarketing.net/2.html

Godin, S. (2009, Feb. 23). Is Marketing Evil? Typepad.com. Retrieved from

            http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/02/is-marketing-evil.html

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

Marketing-Schools. (2012). Ethical Marketing. Marketing-Schools.org. Retrieved from

            http://www.marketing-schools.org/types-of-marketing/ethical-marketing.html

TV Toy Memories. (2013, July 4). Vintage Johnny Quest PF Flyer Commercial – Saving Race

            Bannon from Death Because of PF Flyers. [Video file]. Retrieved from

            https://youtu.be/vlHUzfzdeMI

A634.4.4.RB_MedleyKim_In a Word... Yes

In a Word… Yes

            Recalling LaFollette’s (2007) charge, the goal of ethics is to better the way by which folks live through an assimilation of knowledge from “history, psychology, sociology, and biology”; then, in a word, “Yes”, it is ethical (p. 1). Its history begins with Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” and is furthered with the promise of equal opportunity delivered on a bloody battlefield in Gettysburg. Like a carousel at the center of an amusement park, painted ponies saddled with actions from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government carry enumerated dos and don’ts that rise and fall with each passing generation while the attempts to find balance between who and what a person is alludes us all (Connerly, 2000).

            Lincoln’s Executive actions gave it life. The proposed and ratified actions of the Legislative branch, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution gave it room to grow; and, as offered by Abbott, Argersinger, Argersinger, Barney, Anderson, Goldfield and Weir (2011), led to many branches such as the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. A few ten years, after the Executive and Legislative arms of the government attempted to right a wrong perpetuated for centuries, the Judicial Branch, as explained by Marlow and Rowland (1989) added its painted pony to the circling carousel and pruned its growth with this pronouncement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Bradley:

            when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficial legislation has shaken

            off the inseparable concomitants of the state, there must be some stage in the progress of

            his elevation when he takes the rank of mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite

            of the law (p. 542).

This acclamation combined with withdrawal of armies from the South and further judicial ponies i.e., Plessy v. Ferguson (Plessy), took the founding principle, “all men are created equal”, and the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provided by McAdams, Neslund, and Neslund (2007), “equal protection of the laws” and twisted its branches as “separate but equal”, which led to decades of sanctioned actions that further harmed a group who had already suffered centuries of systemic abuse at the hands of another group (Marlow & Rowland, 1989, p. 542).

            Its re-birth began with a dream. Sixty years after the Plessy pony was added to the circular motion of the carousel; and, as noted by Loevy (1997), Brown v. Board of Education (Brown) caused the rising action of Plessy to fall and the carousel reversed with a new direction, “separate facilities were, by definition, unequal and, therefore, unconstitutional (as cited in Moreno, 2003, p. 16). Moreno (2003) states Kennedy’s Executive Order called for government services to volunteer to enact it. President Johnson attempted, through executive action, to speed up the carousel by mandating it (Moreno, 2003). Marlow and Rowland (1989) and Moreno (2003) observe it quickly turned from an attempt to once again address equal opportunity to a way to realize equal outcomes and pay for discrimination of the past. Perhaps this is the point from which further arguments against it gained traction. Rather than seeking to address “ancient wrongs” in a manner commensurate with the length of time that had elapsed from the time the wrong began to its end, society sought immediate actions to assuage its own guilt (LaFollette, 2007, p. 89). From Reconstruction to the present, it has invoked battles that have entangled every branch of government; and, with each rise and fall of painted ponies, firmly affixed to a carousel spinning in a circle, the ethics of it have been viewed from each side.

            LaFollette (2007) provides “we should treat all people the same unless there is some general and relevant difference between them that justifies a difference in treatment” (p. 75). With the exception of indentured servants, who had the ability to choose to come to America and work for a pre-determined number of years to pay off the debt and secure freedom, the mistreatment of black slaves was inescapable and resulted in unbearable work hours and circumstances, unhealthy and insufficient living quarters, verbal abuse, physical abuse, mental anguish from family separations, and a host of other consequences for which we may never fully appreciated the implications (LaFollette, 2007). Those who argue it seeks to correct the sins of the past by now wronging the group responsible for such sins either overlook or simply do not acknowledge the centuries of abuse suffered by and that harmed an entire group of people (LaFollette, 2007). Further, the simplistic notion of “two wrongs, do not make a right” ignores the very tenets that must be considered when practicing ethics (LaFollette, 2007, p. 88). Opponents further contend “those who suffered and those who perpetrated the most egregious harms (slavery) are long since dead” and since “blacks have had sufficient opportunity to overcome any lingering effects of slavery and Jim Crow”, their children should not have to continue to pay for the wrongs of the past (LaFollette, 2007, p. 90). Voices raised against it believe it keeps those who deserve jobs or college placement out while rewarding those less qualified (LaFollette, 2007). None of these positions advise if it is justified, merely, voices against it are not convincing.

            Those who support it, admit it favors black; however, not because of the color of their skin, rather because of the systematic victimization of an entire race. They also recognize that while today’s descendants did not personally inflict the harm, they, nonetheless continue to benefit from the power and wealth amassed by their ancestors’ efforts to suppress an entire race. Finally, the qualification factor acknowledges the “most “deserving” students” are the ones who will be recognized by the college’s admission process as those who can best serve society’s or the community’s needs (LaFollette, 2007, p. 93). It is clear to see, from both sides of the argument, those painted ponies placed on that circling carousel so many decades ago are still rising and falling with each passing generation. “Many Americans now reject” it, although the Judicial Branch still recognizes instances where it is “legally permissible” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 87).

            If we recognize and accept the premise, “People’s history shapes their opportunities. Since the history of the blacks in America is one in which they have been systematically harmed, then their opportunities have been, and continue to be, limited”; then we must accept the notion there must be a remedy that will help to improve their lives and the lives of their future generation (LaFollette, 2007, p. 91). If its practice is to simply look at what a person is i.e., a person is white or a person is black, in an effort to realize equal results rather than equal opportunity, then it is ethically wrong as it does nothing more, in this author’s opinion, than lead to what Connerly (2000) described as “an annoying intrusion of racial bean-counting” that runs the risk of placing people in a position of possible failure and immediately being stereotyped as one who landed a job or got into a university simply because of the color of their skin, rather than the content of character. If; however, it seeks to do that which this writer’s grandmother explained some forty years ago, to give opportunity to a group of people who suffered greatly and often ran the risk of being killed for learning to read and write, and to provide for their children to one day return to that impoverished neighborhood that sparked their dream of becoming a doctor and delivering quality care to those less fortunate; then, it, affirmative action, in a word, “Yes”, is ethical.

References

Abbott, C., Argersinger, J.A., Argersinger, P.H., Barney, W.L., DeJohn Anderson, V., Goldfield,

            D., & Weir, R.M. (2011). The American Journey: A History of the United States.

            (6^th ed.). (Vol. 2). Boston: Prentice Hall.     

Connerly, W. (2000, March). My fight against race preferences: a quest toward 'creating equal'.

            The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(27), B6+. Retrieved from:

            http://go.galegroup.com.db06.linccweb.org/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA59793347&v=2.1&u

            =lincclin_dbcc&it=r&p=AONE&sw=wn

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

Marlow, E.K., & Rowland, K.M. (1989). Affirmative Action: Federal Support, Supreme Court

            Decisions, and Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management, 28(4),

            541-556.

McAdams, T., Neslund, K., & Neslund, N. (2007). Law, Business, and Society. (8^th ed.). Boston:

            McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Moreno, P. (2003). The History of Affirmative Action Law and Its Relation to College

            Admission. Journal of College Admission, (179), 14-21.