A634.4.4.RB - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

The idea of affirmative action seemed well thought out and plausible, but in practice, this may not have been the case. LaFollette’s (2007) definition of affirmative action is “the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women in hiring and school placement” (p. 87).  When broken down into its simplistic form it means that when faced with two candidates who are equally qualified then consideration would be given to that which is in the minority.  Can this approach be ethical?  It may seem that there is a preference given to the minority, which can seem to be unfair. 

Those that are against affirmative action feel that the policy is unfair and is actually reverse discrimination.  Gu, Mcferran, Aquino, and Kim, T. G. (2014) stated, “Negative reactions toward the use of AA in organizations typically arise from the perception that AA-influenced decisions are unfair” (p 722).  In many cases, people believe that when a person of a minority is hired that they are so due to affirmative action instead of actually being qualified.  This misconception only adds fuel to the fire for those who believe affirmative action to be unfair, and in actuality, it can be hard to prove this theory either way.  Yukl (2013) offered a partial solution in that affirmative action would be most successful is all members of the company understand it and it is used in its intended form, without becoming reverse discrimination.

Burns and Schapper (2007) found that there are “strong ethical grounds to reassert the value of affirmative action programmes in global efforts to eradicate systemic discrimination and disadvantage” (p. 369).  The idea behind creating an equal playing field seems logical, however, in practice it doesn’t always work out.  Attempting to make up for the sins of the past is a huge task if even possible.  While the idea of affirmative action was in the right place, its execution may not have been the best. 

The argument for affirmative action often includes the idea of equaling the playing field for minorities.  LaFollette (2007) stated that we “must undercut racist habits and corral racist institutions, which affirmative action is a reasonable and effective way to do both” (p. 97).  In this belief ,the act of affirmative action alone can dispel racism and gender inequality.  In order for that to be true discrimination has to be active and obvious.  Within this theory lies the idea that when two applicants have equal qualification and skill the tiebreaker would go to the minority, it also encompasses the idea of meeting certain quotas in regards to race and gender. 

In both arguments, for and against, affirmative action there are some assumptions that are made, such as there is a need for a level playing field, the quotas are helpful in creating this and having incentives for maintaining a certain percentage of minorities in certain positions.  Though often times what happens is that other employees outside the hiring process assuming minorities are only offered the job because of their gender or race, leaving the white population feeling discriminated against themselves.  While I understand the reasoning behind affirmative action I’m not sure it is the best way to achieve equality in the workplace.  I believe it opens up more interpretive issues than it solves.                

Burns, P., & Schapper, J. (2007). The Ethical Case for Affirmative Action. J Bus Ethics

Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 369-379. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9625-8

Gu, J., Mcferran, B., Aquino, K., & Kim, T. G. (2014). What makes affirmative action-

based hiring decisions seem (un)fair? A test of an ideological explanation for fairness judgments. Journal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav., 35(5), 722-745. doi:10.1002/job.1927

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

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

A634.3.4.RB - The Harder They Fall

There seems to be an entitlement phenomenon happening in the world lately.  More and more people feel they are deserving of things just for being them, and for the most part, they aren’t anyone special.  In his article, Kramer (2003) described his “genius-to-folly syndrome” as a smart and well-played rise to the top followed by a series of miscalculations and bad decisions, which send the person down quickly.  Leaders seem to fall into these traps often once they reach their perceived goal.

After working so hard for so long to achieve the level of success these leaders desired, they felt it was time they were repaid for their commitment and dedication.  In all of the examples, Kramer (2003) gave the leaders starting making decisions that were not as calculated as the ones they made to get to the top and as a result they used poor judgment.  It seems that the power they had acquired had overcome them and they felt entitled.  That entitlement is what led them to make decisions they would not have made in the past.

There seems to be a great deal of entitlement happening lately and not just at the leadership level.  It is happening in schools, on sports fields and even in courtrooms.  In the rape case against Brock Turner, (who was found guilty yet only sentenced to six months) the judge took into account a letter from Brock’s father that stated his son should not be harshly punished for “20 minutes of action” (Fantz, 20016).  This sense of privilege is something that is occurring more often in our society, kids are growing up being told how wonderful they are and never having to face disappointment or struggle.  These attitudes are all stemming from relativism, which Lafollette (2007) defines as “moral judgments are not objective in any important sense, they are relative to the individual or culture” (p. 57).

We live in a time where boundaries are pushed and rules are made to be broken.  This generation of children is struggling to survive at college because they lack the skills they need to fulfill their basic needs.  If the idea of relativism is remotely true then we only have our generation to blame, as they learned what we have taught them.  And what we have taught them is that they are entitled to anything and everything they want in life regardless of the amount of work they put in.  So it isn’t really a surprise to me that top executives, who have put in the work, are making selfish and entitled decisions once they reach the top.          

Fantz, A. (2016, June 07). Outrage over six-month sentence in Stanford rape case.

Retrieved June 16, 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sexual-assault-brock-turner-stanford/

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

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

A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

Their are two major theories that can be used to help solve practical ethical issues, one that focuses on consequences, Consequentialism, and one that focuses on rules and principals which people should follow regardless of the outcome, Deontology.  LaFollette (2007) stated, “these two types of reasons are embodied in two categories of ethical theory that have shaped the contemporary understanding of ethics” (p. 22).  The two theories are based on different ways of looking at solving a problem, the difference between making a decision by looking at the end result and making the “right” decision based on a set of rules or guidelines.

In the first theory, Consequentialism, the focus in on the outcome, as LaFollette (2007) described with the claim “we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (p. 23).  This theory does make sense logically, as a large number of everyday decisions are made based on the outcome they will produce.  The area where ethics can become difficult with this theory is whose interests are most important, the person making the decision or that of the whole.  In his description, LaFollette (2007) talked about how a consequentialist must be able to explain “which consequences should count, the weight we should give those that count, and how we should use these considerations when deliberating” (p.25).

On the other side is deontology, which Lafollette (2007) describes as “our moral obligations are defined by the rules and are independent of consequences” (p. 24).  This theory is based largely on a set of rules about what people shouldn’t do in order to maintain morality, even if the outcome is less than ideal.  As LaFollette stated, many choose to believe in deontology simply because they believe that consequentialism is flawed.  Instead of looking at what could happen as an outcome, deontologists look at which option most closely follows their set of moral rules. 

I feel that both theories have their place.  When making decisions where the only people affected are you, and possible your immediate friends and family, then using a consequence based approach, such as consequentialism, may be appropriate.  This theory works on decisions where there is no harm to the masses no matter the decision, such as buying a new house or staying in the current one.  In general, for most people this decision has no effect on anyone outside a small circle of friends and family, therefore, if can be looked at those the lens on consequentialism.  These are the types of decisions I tend to make on a regular basis, and I have based my decisions on what outcomes they hold. 

On the other side, when decisions can effect others then outcomes may not be the best way to look at it, at least not personal outcomes.  For example, if you had found a way to make yourself a large amount of money in a short time, but it involves taking money for others who will never get it back would you do it?  If you look at this decision based on the personal consequences then the idea of getting rich quick seems logical, but what about the hardship of the others.  It would seem that the morally responsible decision here would be to not become involved with the plan.  In a sense, the idea of deontology is about taking a step back and thinking about how your decision will affect others, and whether you would be comfortable having the decision you chose happen to you.  It reverts back the idea of the golden rule. 

As a leader these theories play an important role, if one was to only look at the consequences then they may make a decision that is not morally sound.  I would like to think that as a leader I have the ability to step back and see the options from the perspective of my followers.  While there will be decisions in which the outcome is the essential aspect, there will be other times where doing the right thing is the most important.             

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

   

A634.1.5.RB - The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

While I would like to believe that I am able to make the right decision most of the time, I know that it is not always the case.  In almost every decision in life, there are extenuating circumstances that play a role in our decision, whether it be past events, our upbringing, or certain values that we hold dear.  When it comes to ethics, it would be simple if there were clear black or white answers, and then it would be obvious which people have certain moral standards and which don’t.  It would also help the process of decision-making become easier. 

In the first scenario of The Train Dilemma the train is heading toward five children, however, you have the option to throw the switch to change the track in which the train would only hit and kill one child.  Now from sitting behind my computer imagining this scenario, I would not throw the switch, as it would change the fate of that day.  The idea that one life is less important to lose than five is not necessarily true, however, the idea of creating fewer casualties is generally promoted.  LaFollette (2007) stated, “if my behavior harms others, then it is subject to moral evaluation” (p. 15).  In theory, one could interpret this to mean that if I pulled the switch thus altering the course of the train I would then put that one child’s life at risk and I would be subject to moral evaluation.  For this reason and the idea that it is not my job to determine the fate of the single child, I would not change the direction of the train.  This is all based on the assumption that I was not the one at fault for the train traveling out of control.      

In the second scenario, the option is to push an elderly man in front of the train to stop it from hitting the five children.  This too revolves around my making a judgment that the old man’s life is less valuable than that of the five children.  I would still choose to not change the direction of the train or the fate of the children, which as LaFollette (2007) described is morally consistent.  If I did decide to sacrifice the old man to save the kids then I would be subject to justifying my actions to others.  As Lafollette (2007) explained “we should treat two creatures the same unless the are relatively different, different in ways that justify treating them differently” (p. 17).  While I can justify that the older man and the young children or inherently different due to their ages, I am not sure I can justify treating them differently due to that different.  Just because a person is older does not necessarily mean they should die first.

The last scenario, and the most personal, involves the single child being your own.  In this case had I chose to flip the switch in the first scenario and killed the single child to save the other five then I would have a tough time making the decision on this one.  However, I did not choose to flip the switch in the first scenario and I would make the same decision for this one also, regardless if it were my child or not.   Now with that said I need to explain that I realize these are all hypothetical situations and that I am making these decisions while I am calm and level headed sitting at my desk, I do wonder how my thinking may change if I were actually at the controls of the speeding train.  The pressure and stress of the situation may take its toll and I may choose a different option out of reaction and fear, but I would hope that I would be able to step back from the crisis and make an informed decision.

In all the train scenarios there is no good choice, either way, a person or persons will die but I am not willing to change the course of fate and make the decision as to which person will perish.  While in my moral mind I can debate how killing one child would be “better” than killing five, I’m not willing to be the one that makes that decision.  I feel I would be able to make consistent choices to not flip the switch or push an elderly man in front of the train just to save others.                        

  

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