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