Theories of Ethics

A634.2.4.RB

In Chapter 2, LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your thoughts on these two theories.

This week our course text introduced two theories of ethics; consequentialism and deontology. According to LaFollette (2007), “Consequentialism states that we should choose the available action with the best overall consequences, while deontology states that we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and that these rules or rights are at least partly independent of consequences” (Kindle Locations 354-355).

Consequentialism holds that the greater good is central when guiding ethical decision making. Dependent on the level of collective interests that is at stake, the more likely commonly accepted ethical rules or rights may be sacrificed in order to ensure the best consequence for all involved. It is important to highlight important elements that shape the moral discussion of consequence considerations. LaFollette (2007) states that, “consequentialists must explain (a) which consequences we should count, (b) how much weight or consideration we should give those that do count, and (c) how we should use these considerations when deliberating” (Kindle Locations 398-399).

Deontology, on the other hand, firmly believes that rules are an essential aspect to making ethical decision. Indeed, instead of compromising or “sacrificing” the rules as a consequentialist may determine to be justified, the deontologist’s moral center and obligation is directed by such rules. “deontologists claim that our moral obligations - whatever they are - are defined by the rules, partly independently of consequences. Even when following moral rules does not have the best consequences, we should adhere to them” (LaFollette, 2007, Kindle Locations 383-384). While guided by rules, at some point, some rules may conflict. In such cases, all rules must yield to the “primary rules.” LaFollette (2007) tells us that, “If a primary rule clashes with another rule, the primary rule always takes precedence” (Kindle Location 521).

Reflecting on these two theories, I can say with confidence that I subscribe more to consequentialism than deontology. However, I do believe that in more personal situations, I find myself recognizing the moral obligations that deontology rules prescribe. Having been a leader (or in a leadership position) in sports, clubs, and in the military, those personal situations are far and few in-between. In other world, to some degree, I have spent most of my adult life giving more consideration to others (the greater good) than my own personal situations. I have done so willingly and with the passion that service and accountability to something better than myself deserves. While I do believe that mitigating consequences or seeking the best consequence for all tends to be my first course of action; I also believe that certain rules are necessary to adhere to regardless of the consequences. For example, I believe in dire situations, sacrifice is necessary to ensure that the greater good remains intact and perhaps better off. However, when something is truly scarified, the only thing we ensure is complete loss where no one wins. Thus, certain rules do in fact prescribe our ethical decision making.

References

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Kindle Edition.

The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

A634.1.5.RB

Decision making is an important process in our everyday lives. Typically, these decisions are centered around what to wear for school/work, what to eat for lunch or dinner, or even which route to take because of high traffic areas. Fortunately for us, we can make such decisions without investing much thought. There are, on the other hand, decisions that create an ethical dilemma, in which the outcome has varying degrees or consequences for all. In these complex situations, our values and morals guide our decision-making process as the pros and cons are weighed. “By acknowledging edging that this consequence is a reason, we show that we are committed to the claim that consequences of our actions are morally relevant” (LaFollette, 2007).

Below are three scenarios that are designed to create an ethical dilemma. For this week’s assignment, we are to: Consider the following ethical dilemma and create a reflection blog regarding what you would do when having to make a choice in each train scenario. Justify your position and create a synopsis of your position and the implications. 

Train Dilemma  

Scenario One: A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switch person. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch? (Source: Thomas Anderson, Case Western Reserve University)

Being placed in any situation in which lives are in jeopardy, one is forced to weigh many factors. These factors involve our morals and values. In doing so, understanding that tragedy is inevitable, I would strongly lean towards trying to prevent or mitigate the amount of tragedy by deciding to save more lives at the expense of one. Aside from the emotional cost of sacrificing another human being (especially a child), the decision to save many more is relatively easier.

Scenario Two: (Same scenario except) You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

Absolutely! Although my natural inclination is to preserve life, again, knowing that tragedy is inevitable, more lives would be preserved by the loss of a few (or one in this case). I believe there may be another alternative to this scenario that includes sacrificing myself to stop the train. Obviously, the children’s lives are in jeopardy, nowhere in this scenario is the elderly man’s life in jeopardy until I determined his life is deemed “tradeable.” It would be difficult for anyone to claim that “no matter what,” they would save others at their own expense (life). In fact, these situations are rare, but they do exist.

Scenario Three: (Same scenario except) The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

I feel confident saying that any parent’s purpose in life is to ensure the safety and well-being of their children. Thus, trading the live of your own child to save others (non-family) may be contrary to our very own preservation. In this case, I would not sacrifice my own child to save the other children. Reflecting on this decision, I believe it comes down to being able to live with such a decision and know that the “best” decision was made. I also acknowledge that this perspective is my own and may look different from other points of view. Nevertheless, I believe that any one whom ensure the safety of their child would feel the same regardless of other perspectives.

Summary

As a former military leader (and even now), I expected and did my best to prepare for difficult and complex situations causing ethical dilemmas. Though one can rarely prepare for all unthinkable scenarios, understanding my own values and morals made my decision-making more responsive and centered around the greater good. “To make better choices, we must become aware of our options and the relevant background information; we should identify the consequences of our actions for others, for ourselves, and for the people we will become” (LaFollette, 2007).

Reference

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Kindle Edition.

Transformational Strategies

A635.8.3.RB

How do you relate and make sense of the approaches taken by Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale and Stanley McChrystal compared to the information presented in your textbook? Use the below figures: Figure 15.4 Relative Strength of Corporate Cultures and Figure 15.5 The Strategy-Culture Matrix in your response.

In a typical organizational life-cycle, there may have been one or several events (crisis) where the organization was forced to undergo significant changes to its culture and/or business practices in order to survive. Brown (2011) identifies this as organizational transformation and defines it as a “drastic, abrupt change to total structures, managerial processes, and corporate cultures.” He continues by stating that, “It requires a redesign of everything in the organization, including the norms and the culture, the very soul of the organization. Nothing is sacred, and there are few, if any, guidelines” (p. 399). This week, we reviewed two interesting videos that involved two very different types of organizations that required such drastic changes.

The first video involves Jim McIngvale and his Gallery furniture store, which has been in business for over thirty year. In 2008, during the economic downturn, the significant decrease of new homes built in the Houston area went down from 60,000 to 15,000, severely limiting his core clients. Furthermore, the following year the furniture store burnt down, adding another hardship. Needless to say, in order for the business to survive, major changes needed to occur. With an established business, Jim’s organization would fall into the Strong Culture in the Relative Strength of Corporate Culture as noted in Brown’s (2011) Figure 15.4 and in quadrant 1 (Manage the Change) in the Strategy-Culture Matrix, Figure 15.4.

Understanding that the business practices were outdated, Jim implemented training initiatives that involved increasing technological literacy so that employees could better engage customers by following up via emails; thus, increasing sales. The practice of “prospecting” was reinforced with coaching and constant feedback. Furthermore, Jim established a recognition program (ringing the bell), to include incentive pay, for achieving desired behavior(s).

The second video was of Retired General Stanley McChrystal’s experience of transforming how military organizations performed before and after the 9/11 attack. Most importantly, McChrystal highlighted the necessary transformational leadership within himself in order to meet the requirements of a dynamic environment. Ideally, many military leaders prefer to lead their organizations by being able to communicate and interact face-to-face. This typically builds trust and ensure clear communication and intent. However, as a result of the 9/11 attacks, McChrystal found himself and his organization spread throughout the globe and mainly relied on technology such as video conferencing, phone, and emails to communicate with his unit leaders. McChrystal (2011) stated, “ I've got to use everything I can, not just for communication, but for leadership.”

Another important point that McChrystal makes is how one of his commander officer built him back up and breathed life back in him after a humiliating and fail operation while that the National Training Center.

They put a big screen up, and they take you through everything: "and then you didn't do this, and you didn't do this, etc." I walked out feeling as low as a snake's belly in a wagon rut. And I saw my battalion commander, because I had let him down. And I went up to apologize to him, and he said, "Stanley, I thought you did great." And in one sentence, he lifted me, put me back on my feet, and taught me that leaders can let you fail and yet not let you be a failure.

Another import aspect that added to the complexity was the generational difference of those he was leading. “Probably the biggest change was understanding that the generational difference, the ages, had changed so much.” McChrystal continues, “And it reminded me that we're operating a force that must have shared purpose and shared consciousness, and yet he has different experiences, in many cases a different vocabulary, a completely different skill set in terms of digital media than I do and many of the other senior leaders.”

Organizational transformation posses many challenges that add complexity to an already dynamic situation. Leaders must constantly assess not only the situation, but their own capabilities as well. Both of the above example clear indicates that transformative leadership a constant process of learning and influencing others with creative solutions. In order to lead effectively in today’s fluid environment, leaders cannot rely on traditional methods or solutions for complex challenges.

References

Brown, D. (2011). Experiential Approach to Organization Development. Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

McChrystal, S. (March 2011). Listen, Lean… then Lead. Ted. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal/transcript?language=en#t-632000. 

INSEAD Reflection

A635.7.3

• What do you see as some of the major benefits and drawbacks of self-managed teams?
• Would you like to work within such a team?
• What competencies would you need to develop to be an effective external manager of a self-managed work team?

Self Managed Teams (SMT), according to Ethan Berstein, John Bunch, Niko Canner, and Michael Lee (2016) is a group of employees where, “Members share accountability for the work, authority over how goals are met, discretion over resource use, and ownership of information and knowledge related to the work.” These teams typically consist of experienced and highly technical members that can perform a wide range of tasks that were reserved for specialty departments and supervisors in a traditional organizational structure. Brown (2011) notes:

Work teams are assigned a wide range of tasks, including setting work schedules, budgeting, making job assignments, developing performance goals, hiring and selecting team members, assessing job performance of fellow members, purchasing equipment, and controlling quality.

A significant advantage of the SMT is the versatility and capabilities the team provides. The team’s specialty is not nested in one area or field, it has the ability to employ their expertise in various environments and situations. Another advantage of the SMT is that the team is accountable to each other and provides greater ownership with what they do and how they do it. In such teams, roles and responsibilities can and do rotate among its members, which creates a rich developmental (learning environment) and empowering experience. “In self-managed organizations, leadership is distributed among roles, not individuals (people usually hold multiple roles, on various teams). Leadership responsibilities continually shift as the work changes and as teams create and define new roles” (Berstein et al., 2016). Lastly, an important advantage in today’s dynamic environment is have the ability to be agile. SMT are designed to reduce “red tape” that is well known in large organizations.  “Self-management aims to reduce the red tape and endless sign-offs usually needed to make decisions in bureaucracies” Berstein etal., 2016).

Some of the disadvantages is of cohesive groups like SMT is falling into the trap of what Brown (2011) labels as groupthinking, which “refers to “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (p. 268). Another disadvantage would be not having a designated leader of the team to hold others accountable and make decision that prevent the team from moving forward. This reminds me of a saying in the military, “If everyone is in charge, no one is in charge.”

I believe that working in a SMT would be a valuable experience. I enjoy having the ability to have great control of work flow, priorities, and measures of effectiveness. Moreover, a key factor in this environment is being partnered with equally driven, mature, and capable team members with various skills. Thus, I would look forward to not only contributing, but learning new skills from other team members.

Being an external leader/manager of a SMT, I believe greater patience would something I would have to actively manage because I tend to be more of a hands-on leader. I believe it is important to empower others to perform their duties and grow. Thus, exercising patience and focus on shaping the conditions and building their capabilities would be the priority. According to Paul Tesluk (2008), “When self managing teams leaders need to intervene is when teams are experiencing novel events. A disruption in work flow or some kind of emergency that they hadn’t anticipated. That’s where external leaders need to step-in, to help the team make sense of the situation… We like to call it the authority balance beam” (6:05).

References

Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N., & Lee, M. (2016). Beyond the Holacracy Hype. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/07/beyond-the-holacracy-hype.

Brown, D. Experiential Approach to Organization Development. Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Tesluk, P. (2008). Self-managing teams: Debunking the leadership paradox. INSEAD. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM. 

EcoSeagate

A635.6.3.RB

1. Do you see value in the EcoSeagate team development process?
2. Why would something like this be necessary in a high-performing organization?
3. Could your organization benefit from a similar activity?

After reading about Seagate Technology’s team development outdoor lab, I was very interested in learning more about the event to in order to see what type of activities the participants completed as well as the scale of such an outdoor lab that involves 200 employees at the expense of $2 million. Bill Watkins, the CEO, began this outdoor lab in an effort to develop and build team work within the company. He accomplishes this with holding this team development in New Zealand in some of the most beautiful and austere terrain where teams of five must work together to negotiate challenging tasks. According to Brown (2011),

The outdoor setting is very different from the normal work environment; the learning exercises are so varied, and so typically foreign to the background of most participants, that no one has a distinct advantage. Thus the outdoor lab puts participants on an equal footing. This seems to encourage discussion of leadership styles, teamwork, and interpersonal relationships.

Having served in the military, I can attest that such team building events in challenging environments are highly effective in revealing one’s true make-up (characteristics) and forcing the team to work through constant conflict/friction on many levels. In fact, from day one when entering the service, indoctrination begins with breaking down the concept of “self” and identity is built back up with a concept of “team member.” This point is highlighted by Mr. Watkins when he notes, “I learned a lesson a long time ago in the Army. Nobody really wants to die for their god. No one wants to die for their country. Absolutely no one wants to die for money. But people put their lives on the line for the respect of their platoon mates” (Brown, 2011, p. 274). Indeed, the team work and relationships forged in the crucible of adversity is well known used in the military as a training foundation and replicated (relative) by many corporations/businesses for this reason.

I believe that any event that has a purpose to improve team work and/or team development is very necessary; especially in high performance teams. However, achieving the scale that Seagate was able to accomplish is extraordinary and not practical for many organizations or businesses. Nevertheless, team development can occur in many settings or venues (scalable). What is important is ensuring that the event(s) are well planned, resourced, tied into the organization’s values, and support a much large organizational effort (culture). For example, in the video clip, Robert Cooper states that “trust doesn’t mean you’re in an agreement, it comes with a mutual respect.” If the organization values diversity and different perspectives, trust and mutual respect is essential to managing conflict appropriately while creating an environment for healthy dialog.

Although I do not presently belong to an organization, as I alluded to above, any organization/team could positively benefit from team development when given the proper weight of effort and resources. Such exercises force everyone to stretch beyond their comfort zones and be able to deal with conflict head-on in a productive manner. Furthermore, with creative conditions, innovation has the potential to emerge as team members begin to reinforce each other’s weaknesses and support other to achieve the team’s goals/objectives.

References

Brown, D. (2011). Experiential Approach to Organization Development. Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Chao, M. (April 25, 2008). Eco Seagate 2008 1/3. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCOfOFMiLtE. 

Video Debrief of Team MA

A635.5.3.RB

After watching the video above, write a well-written reflection blog, discuss how your characteristics would have fit with the makeup and culture of the NeXT startup team. Your reflection should be very specific to the environment that you witness in the video. Make sure that you use your MA results as the basis for your discussion.

This week’s video provided valuable insight to some of Steve Job’s strategic thinking and leadership methods. The video is centered around Steve Job’s efforts to lunch a new start-up NeXT, after leaving Apple. In doing so, eleven personnel decided to leave Apple as well and follow Job’s in his pursuit of creating another high-tech company. During the NeXT’s first retreat, the team mainly collaborated about the company logo, discussed the expected timeline for distribution, and the actual product needed to get NeXT off the ground. However, during the company’s second retreat, the team began to really focus more on problem solving and many of the limitations that are associated with start-ups such as establishing processes, marketing, making deadlines, and shrinking resources (capital).

As I observed Job’s employ his leadership methods during the first and second retreats, it was clear to me that he is a visionary with extreme passion. He is true to his purpose and expects those around him (team) to contribute to the whole with the same purpose as he demonstrates. At certain points during the team’s brain storming session, Job’s behavior (leadership) could have been interpreted as overbearing or controlling. Furthermore, as his team members began to discuss limitations or challenges, Job’s always reminded everyone of the larger picture (vision) in order to provide perspective.

As I watch the team’s interaction with each other (to include Job’s) and how they brainstormed, I began to imagine how or where I would fit in during this process and environment. One of the main considerations was the attributes and characteristics feedback I received as a result of a Management Assessment (MA) profile I took part in with NextStep Research. The feedback validated what I am well aware of, that I am on the opposite spectrum of operating in a start-up team (small organization). My profile results indicated that I am better suited for a large rapid growth company. Moreover, while the NeXT company was in the beginning states of creating a company with its own culture, processes, and directions; my profile revealed that I prefer to work within an existing framework where I have the need to improve systems, processes, and functions of the department/organization.

Another aspect that may have been a point of friction for me is being in a position where Job’s overwhelming need to be in the “weeds” about certain details. I believe that leaders, for the most part, want to know and understand how some things get done. However, as a leader, I believe one of their most important duties is to find the right people to put in the right places to work out and become subject matter experts (SMEs) in their respective field/duties. Thus, I could understand such behavior initially, especially since the company is a start-up and the situation may need a more hands-on approach. However, if this behavior was indicative of normal behavior or an indication of what was to come, I would have significant reservations about remaining with the company.

Another important factor, as revealed by the MA profile, I have a low desire for personal risk. The start-up environment at first seemed intriguing to me because of its dynamic nature, however, at the end of the day and going back to working more effectively in a framework, dealing with the minute details from everything to logos, bank accounts, office space, etc. is far from interesting to me. Furthermore, having jumped off the Apple ship to begin the start-up endeavor would be well outside of my comfort zone.

The factors I believe that would have played to my strengths in the NeXT brainstorming (start-up) environment, according to the MA profile, is that I very aggressive with internal goals and that I am highly motivated by challenges and to excel. Furthermore, that I have a strong desire to solve problems and prefer operating in a fluid environment. With such characteristics, as I alluded to above, the start-up environment at first provides a formidable challenge suited to my strengths. While assessing the situation holistically, I believe that if or when my internal goals have sifted as a result of the mundane issues associated with a start-up; taking my time and effort away from my purpose, my desire to remain would wane. Thus, overall I believe that my attributes and characteristics would prevent me from flourishing in the NeXT (start-up) environment.

References

EverySteveJobsVideo. (2014). Entrepreneurs. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNeXlJW70KQ.

Management Assessment Profile. (2017). NextSteps Research. 

Build a Tower, Build a Team

A635.4.3.RB

·        Do you agree with Tom Wujec's analysis of why kindergartners perform better on the Spaghetti Challenge than MBA students?

·        Can you think of any other reasons why kids might perform better?

·        In your view, why do CEOs with an executive assistant perform better than a group of CEOs alone?

·        If you were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop, how could you relate the video to process intervention skills?

·        What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

Tom Wujec’s marshmallow exercise provides a valuable example of getting to the root of collaboration by identifying “hidden assumptions” (5:40). In other words, everyone works within certain boundaries and assumptions that when presented with a simple task with others, these boundaries and assumptions rise to the surface. Thus, Mr. Wujec’s analysis of why kindergartners perform better than MBA students made perfect sense in that children have not undergone the level of conditioning as the majority of adults which directly shape boundaries and hidden assumptions. Indeed, a child’s free spirit and creativity remain intact as they collaborate freely using prototypes (see, do learning), while through the course of life experience, culture, social environments, and education, adult MBA students have developed both boundaries and hidden assumptions. According to Tom Wujec (2010), “Business students are trained to find the single right plan and then they execute on it” (2:35).

Another important point Mr. Wujec notes is that groups of CEOs do well in general with this exercise, yet when there is an executive admin on the team, the group of CEOs perform much better. Mr. Wujec concludes that this because, “They have special skills of facilitation, they manage the process” (4:07). Wujec (2010) continues, “Any team who manages and pays close attention to work will significantly improve the team’s performance” (4:14). Having been in positions where I relied heavily on an assistant, I completely agree with Mr. Wujec’s observation that those with the ability to facilitate and understand processes, they provide a valuable resource to focus and guide progress exponentially.

If I were to lead a process intervention workshop, I believe using this video would be a great tool to discuss many of the points Mr. Wujec highlighted like:

· Barriers & assumptions: How they are formed and affect our ability to collaborate.

· Jockeying for position: As demonstrated in the video, kindergartners did not waste their time on this, instead they focused on collaboration, design, and learned from prototypes which provided instant feedback.

· Building trust: In a team environment, each member plays an important role. Support and encourage each other by embracing the process.

· Communication: Collaboration requires constant communications and feedback, progress is the key.

I believe this exercise has reinforced what I have learned from my background in social science and military service. That supporting each other and providing constructive communication and feedback is essential for a team to produce extraordinary results. That depending on the team, the environment, and constraints, we must adapt our approach to collaboration to ensure the team has the best opportunity to succeed.

References

Wujec, T. (2010). Build a tower, build a team. Ted2010. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower#t-242718.