A634.9.4.RB - A Reflection of Our Learning

Reflect on the three key lessons you take away from the course. Reflect on your perceived value of this course.   

In the time of this course, I have learned that much of what my fellow classmates believe is in line with the material and what I believed as a leader with limited privilege. I believe the Ethics course was perfectly placed at the end of the coursework; if I were to start off the program with the hopeless sentiments of an inherent underclass that education cannot save, I do not believe I would have had such a inspirational yet dissatisfied point of view about leadership development. Nevertheless, I see much value in the course - I have learned to be suspicious of the actions of others while balancing the hopeful maverick aims of the preceding coursework. The three things I take away from this course are:

• What counts as ethical is in the eye of the beholder (and the beholder judges their actions far less critically than they do the actions of others) (LaFollette, 2007).
• Situational ethics and rule-based ethics have their reasoning, but since all people do not live by the same morals (based usually on religion), there really is no such thing as rule-based ethics on a macro levels.
• We can all stand to be better people and think more about how our actions impact others.

These resulted from the conversations with classmates moreso that the literature itself. Reading some of the opinions of fellow students left me with concerns about the critical thinking we have been so pressed to evaluate and reevaluate during the program. I consider MSLD 634 to be rather late inthe process. As I stated in some of my statements of purpose for my PhD applications:

Nothing could be more detrimental to the reputation of an institution of higher learning than giving a degree to someone who has refused to resolve some of their ignorance. I want the college experience to grow young adults into people who question what they read in the classroom and what they hear outside of the lecture hall. I want students to read, listen and converse with all people, considering all information but rationalizing the impact of such views. I want them to fight for people when they are unrepresented, as passionately as when they are standing next to them. Self-awareness, citizenship and understanding should be mastered skills of every graduate. I have dedicated my life to achieving this goal.

Though I meant this for traditionally-aged undergraduate, I do not believe every student is getting this from the program; perhaps it is too late in their learning for them to consider change. There have been more than a few examples which support my concern. Our A634.4.2.DQ - Racism and Religion focused a lot of power and privilege, particularly Affirmative Action. A lot of my fellow students felt that Affirmative Action was a reactionary yet racist law that hurt students and workers of the racial, religious and gender majority. I could not help but realize that most of my classmates are of the ascribed statuses that benefited and benefit from racial, religious and gender inequality. The overall sentiment was that, racial, religious and gender minorities need to get over the past. As one of the students notes:

I do not deny past wrongdoings against minorities and that people have been deprived of many things because of their race. However, I and many others did not take part in those wrongdoings.

The grandfathering of privilege is still ignored en mass by people who feel they have enough of a fight to the top (success) between one another is hard enough, without giving historically marginalized groups access to the battling cage. Kramer notes in the story of fictional crash-and-burn executive Marjorie Peel, “all were adept at propelling themselves to the top, willing to take risks and break rules” (Kramer, 2003). From the standpoint of justice for wrong, it does not seem that ignoring injustice is in line with any ethical perspective (though one could be made for utilitarian ethics which I will end this piece with). It is as if the racial, religious and gender preferred have said, "You've already lost. Accept your place and fight within your caste." It reminds me of the George R.R. Martin quote — ''A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep." There is no time to feel individually obligated to help others when that could slow them down from stepping on others.

In week seven, our blog post discussed how people apply the practice of ethics to themselves and others. I was surprised to find that one of the speakers in the material was a formally trained ethicist who did speaking engagements with large companies, and the second speaker was a criminal who also did speaking engagements. Both have books and both are paid to discuss how to evaluate actions based on deontological and consequentialist thought. As I noted in A634.7.4.RB - Ethics and Behaviors, why would anyone pay a felon to talk about ethics? As much as I believe there is a sliver of hope in the criminal justice system in which some actually leave revitalized, it seems that the ex-felon has merely found a new way to exploit people. Though he discusses the way others evaluate their actions as ethical and unethical, he paradoxically does not see himself as a exploiter. As I survey other postings for A634.7.4.RB - Ethics and Behaviors (which are readily available with a Google search) I do not see many past students expressing concern with Gallagher's past either. Another assignment, detailing the career of MIT's Marilee Jones, shows how easily some can get away with unethical actions. Jones notes in her book “Less Stress, More Success: A New Approach to Guiding Your Teen Through College Admissions and Beyond,”

"Holding integrity is sometimes very hard to do because the temptation may be to cheat or cut corners,” it says. “But just remember that ‘what goes around comes around,’ meaning that life has a funny way of giving back what you put out.”

She was found out after nearly 30 years to be a fraud, falsifying three institutional educations, but edging up to the role of Dean at one of the country's best colleges. Apparently it does pay to be a criminal. Perhaps to some, Jones was simply tactful, learning enough through experience to fake her way into a high level, almost-Ivy pay band. Jones said, two years after the scandal, she runs an admissions consulting service with parents who sometimes pay about $500 for a three-hour session. She reports she had also been approached by institutions interested in hiring her as an admissions dean (2009). There are no reports of Jones having to pay back any of the salary she was paid. Where is the justice? As ironic and contrary it seems, I wonder if other students believe that an ex-con makes for a equal partnering with a bioethicist? Would Gallagher be so intelligently insightful to viewers if he'd been a drug dealer?

There were a lot of things I read within our discussion question conversations that concerned me. For instance, in forum A634.2.2.DQ - Ethics: Their Definition and Mine, a student (serving in the Air Force) wrote:

While I could never support Hitler and his ambitions, I most certainly can empathize with him. Taking on a utilitarian point of view, one could argue that Hitler was trying to perfect the human race and weed out the weak. 

The idea that anyone can manage to say that they empathized with Hitler is completely troublesome and a sign of a not-so-dying sentiment of situational ethics gone terribly wrong. A person who has sworn to serve all of the "weak" civilians (in 2012, only about 13% of U.S. adults overall are veterans) believes that the aims of an international terrorist were admirable. Hitler's goal of "weeding out the weak" was not based on an illness within a population or a psychological deficit that would have caused generations of people who could not care for themselves. His definition of weak was a people following a religion that was different than his own. I wonder what this solider would have said if another student were to respond believing the same about a Muammar Gaddafi, Idi Amin Dada or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (leaders who terrorize/d their own people more than becoming an international threat).

If students can relate a genocidal dictator to some great cause, excuse laws pressing for citizen equality as "reverse racism" and accept the experience of a thief who looks like them as viable ethics education, it is no wonder why we suffer from the epidemic of Islamophobia and xenophobia towards our Muslim and Hispanic citizens; how those who claim to be blind of color and creed can see it vividly when it seems to disenfranchise them; and it is not a slippery slope assumption that one would believe in the pseudoscience of race superiority that has and still supports the degradation of racial minorities. It is this flippant mindset that allows for privileged groups to code switch between situational and rule-based ethics, defending their variance as the practice of utilitarian ethics - the course of action that produces benefits for the majority regardless if it is produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion - and ignoring the plight of the disadvantaged (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2014).

References

Kramer, Roderick M. (2003). Harvard Business Review.
The Harder They Fall. Accessed at https://hbr.org/2003/10/the-harder-they-fall
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub. 
Lewin, Tamar (2009). Dean Resurfaces, Leaving Scandal Behind. New York Times. From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/education/08jones.html
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (2014). Calculating Consequences:The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. Santa Clara University. From https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/
Newport, Frank. (2012). In U.S., 24% of Men, 2% of Women Are Veterans. Gallup. From http://www.gallup.com/poll/158729/men-women-veterans.aspx
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. (2015, August 18). What is Ethics? From https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/

A634.8.3.RB - Gun Control: What is the Answer?

In Chapter 12, LaFollette (2007) discusses gun control. Do citizens have a right to bear arms? Answer the question in your reflection blog. State your opinion and follow up your position with supporting documentation. Next, present the opposing side to your stance. Use external sources to enhance your claims.

According to the Second Amendment, Americans have the right to bear arms. It is stated as such:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, the right to bear arms was used for citizens to protect themselves against foreign invaders, of which were (for the most part) folks from England who were trying to keep America under their control. However, we did not have the issue of gun violence that exist today in the 1700s. Gun violence takes lives of more than 30,000 Americans through homicide, suicide, and accidents (Grinberg, 2016). Some of these accidents occurred by children and teenagers. Because the second amendment was not written for the sake of children and teenagers bearing arms who were not involved in war, it is silly to act as if it was meant for all people to utilize guns in all situations. Guns should not be used by those who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, those who have severe mental instability or those who are planning to use this right to disturb and disrupt the lives of innocent people. National Crime Victimization Survey date notes that more than 9 times as many people are victimized by guns than protected by them (Defilippis & Hughes, 2015). When guns are used to intimidate and control people, they can make the rest of the rights citizens have very difficult to exercise.

There are implications for carrying weapons that are best use for Warfare. Why would US citizen need access to a weapon specifically designed for Warfare? Even as a soldier or a veteran, it is not beneficial for a military person to Star War items in their homes. What is the likelihood of a War happening on American soil? The last war that was fought on American soil occurred 200 years ago (though some may use the Aleutian Islands Campaign of WWII to counter this, Alaska was not a state at the time of this battle) (Perras, 2003). However, I understand the argument for guns in homes, even military-grade guns. If someone who is trying to kill a mass population can obtain these weapons illegally, we would fare better if soldiers and Veterans who are trained to use military-grade weaponry to have them close by and be able to fight with the same types of weapons that someone doing wrong may have.

This is also a argument that has occurred on my campus every few months. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University is a veterans-serving Institution, and my campus is comprised of about 10% veterans students. In addition, ROTC and Air Force ROTC are very popular on this campus. The argument for these populations is that, if there are students who are planning to serve in the military and have served in the military, who are trained or being trained to protect and serve the country, why would the school not wish to have additional members of the community who are available to defend students in the case of a outside or inside offender? I believe this is a good defense, but it is also difficult to regulate period if our ROTC students are undergraduate student to live on campus, it means they will be living with at least one additional person in a room or a maximum of 5 individuals within a suite. There has yet to be a single study examining the question that does not show that criminal uses far outweigh defensive uses, and the Kleck-Gertz survey (which occurred in my residential state, Arizona) results predicted 8 defensive killings or injuries and 19 firings over the same time frame. This means when guns are used, they are being used to threaten or are shot accidentally (Defilippis & Hughes, 2015). In the most lackadaisical of conditions, this means that one person may be trained to utilize a weapon, but five others may not. LaFollette (2007) states, “I propose we make handgun owners (and perhaps all gun owners) strictly liable for harm caused by the use of their guns.” I agree, but how are universities impacted by students in their care? If an argument or disturbance occurred, how could the university assure that no one else utilize the gun?

In addition, students who do not have access to weapons may feel intimidated by those who do. Though we investigate every threat of harm to students, allowing guns on campus would make that threat of harm even more possible in reality. In suicidal ideation situations, we evaluate a student's threat to self by plan and access. If someone says they do not have a plan or the access to that means of death, we rate it lower threat than those who do. Why would we allow people to carry access to hurting themselves or others? This is also our reasoning for banning knives longer than 3 inches as well (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Prescott, 2016). I would personally be intimidated by a student who is going through the conduct process and walks into discuss consequences while holstering a gun. I would not feel comfortable talking to them in a group or by myself. I also believe it makes it easier for people who are within a contentious situation to resort to violence instead of talking things out and solving issues peacefully. 

For these reasons I believe it is fair to limit people's rights to bear arms to handguns and hunting rifles, yet assure that even those people have a thorough training and mental evaluation every one or two years. Why so often? Because the amount of  usability ranges from someone only using a gun for self-defense to using it everyday within a occupation, it makes sense that a shift in mindset could occur after a traumatic event like a home invasion or shooting an innocent person. People with serious mental illness are three times more likely than those who are not mentally ill to commit violent acts again themselves or others (Grinberg, 2016). This is not to say all people dealing with mental illness will hurt people, but we all go through so many things within a year that could change our mental stability. It seems as if someone were to go through an evaluation every year, we would be able to track the changes in psychological innateness enough to do further research on what motivation is in homicides and suicides by firearm and get people the help they need so they can rationalize non-violent options before using their guns. This would greatly benefit us and how we implement gun laws.

References

Defilippis, E. & Hughes, D. (2015). The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership. From http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262_Page2.html#.Vvm1vnotslc
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Prescott. (2016). 2015-2016 Student Handbook. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Prescott. From
http://prescott.erau.edu/Assets/prescott/forms/prescott-student-handbook.pdf
Grinberg, Emanuella. (2016). Gun violence not a mental health issue, experts say, pointing to 'anger,' suicides. From http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/health/gun-violence-mental-health-issue/
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Perras, G. R. (2003). Stepping Stones to Nowhere, The Aleutian Islands, Alaska, and American Military Strategy, 1867–1945. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

A634.7.4.RB - Ethics and Behaviors

Watch the two videos from business ethics speakers and discuss how your organization portrays its values. Share any examples where behaviors were portrayed positively by your leaders or an instance where someone was unethical in your work environment.

Dr. Bruce Weinstein and Chuck Gallagher discuss their perspectives on ethics from unique perspectives. Dr. Weinstein lives up to his moniker as "The Ethics Guy"; he received a B.A. in philosophy from Swarthmore College, a Ph.D. in philosophy with a concentration in bioethics from Georgetown University, and a National Fellowship from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

Practicing good ethical behavior sounds like a way of life that is in line with normalcy; that morality may be expected from a deontological point of view, but most people suppose that their actions are not as unethical in practice as they are in theory (LaFollette, 2007). Therefore, speaker Chuck Gallagher notes that we are situational ethicists; we know it is wrong to steal but see nothing wrong with trying a few berries while walking through the market or ordering a few extra boxes of pencils at work to supplement our kids' schoolbag. We rationalize wrongdoing based on our effort and our perception of who it hurts. Where is the line in such behavior? When do we go from being the typical "ethical" person who commits little white crimes to the big leagues?

Gallagher explains it as a slippery slope in which the wrongdoer begins to believe their lies about the act being wrong. In his MarketWatch interview, he states:

If you can convince yourself that what you’re doing is somehow OK, then you can sleep at night. You get so caught up in your own delusion that the delusion starts to be real.

How would Gallagher know? He is an ex-felon, who was a certified public accountant at a firm in North Carolina. Gallagher created a Ponzi scheme in the 1980s that landed him in federal prison (Fottrell, 2014). Now he travels about, discussing business ethics with high-end companies who know that his discussion of his experience could quell a employee from going down the same road. In his talk, he discusses a TV store who tries to sell his parents a very expensive TV that did far more than the 80something customers needed, for twice the amount of money the TV they needed cost.

Gallagher (2013) discusses in his presentation evaluating the action, not the person. Was the act of selling the more expensive TV good for the customer or good for the seller? Was it good for the employee, or for the company? It is presumed that the seller gets a commission for what they sell, which makes it desirable for the seller to try and sell the highest priced items. Is a consumer supposed to understand this in asking for a store representative's help? In the case of these customers, they were older and clearly did not understand some of the lingo the agent was using with them (for example, he talks about gaming systems and online streaming use). Though it should not be assumed that the aged customers are completely unfamiliar with new technology, their responses ("my games are in the cupboard"; Hulu is misinterpreted as a hula hoop) note that they would find the expensive television fairly complicated. Not only does the seller wish to extort as much money out of the unsuspecting couple as possible, he completely disregards that the television will present additional challenges to the could when they get it home. This sale would be good for the employee getting a commission, and good for the company selling it, but horrific for the customer. Perhaps the couple would complain about the sale afterwards, but as most customer experiences surveys are online, this disappointment may never get to the ears of those who need to change their selling practices.

Weinstein discusses how leaders balance convenience with harm. He says that we, at times, have no choice but to hurt people. When considering convenience, one must evaluate whether the means is better for themselves or for the person who is going to get hurt. He notes, "sometimes it is ethically required to hurt people. The ethically intelligent solution is to minimize harm that is unavoidable."
Dr. Weinstein believes there are three ways in which we do less harm:

• Keep private things private. Breaches of confidentiality show disrespect for people.
• Tell the truth. Do not try to cover up mistakes or accidents, not matter how they may take it.
• Keep our promises. Do not wait until the last minute to cancel solidified plans.

Both speakers give situational questions regarding the workplace, which struck a chord with me about how to deal with employees who do not-so-ethical things. I agree with Dr. Weinstein in that if someone does something wrong, it should be addressed, no matter the relationship you have with them. For instance, I once had a supervisor who would ask me to do work that was assigned to them, but take my name off of the work and put theirs on. Even though I understood that they could assign it to me, they would complain about all of this work they had to do with others (and explain their over-consumption with their supervisor) about things they weren't actually doing ("I'd love to do X project, but I'm busy with A, B and C" but I was doing X and C). We were in good accord, but I also realized that they were still slacking on A and B projects. I felt that it was unfair to claim they did all of the work themselves, because I was then being assessed as unoccupied and getting assignments that were slowing me down from finishing their work. They would then berate me. When it became apparent I was doing some of their projects, they then intentionally messed my work up and said they were busy correcting my mistakes. The supervisor was dedicated to using unethical means to make themselves look competent when they clearly lacked time management, organization and leadership skills (particularly honesty and recognition). This example is very much like Gallagher's recollection of his criminal behavior. In his book, “Second Chances: Transforming Adversity Into Opportunity,”he discusses the definition of an unethical person as someone who is not inherently evil and genius. "They are making simple, stupid small choices," he says. "They end up getting caught in their own psychological drama." I believe this is what the case was with my supervisor. He did not want to be honest about having too much work and needing my help to get things done. But because he did not share his struggle, his supervisor did not know how overwhelmed he was and his supervisors also felt that I was doing nothing. I am not sure if my supervisor was unaware of how his silence impacted me, or if he simply did not care.

I disagree with one of Gallagher's statements in his talk. He says to the unethical person who is caught: "You have made a (terrible mistake), but you are not a mistake." I do believe they are a mistake. If one believes they need to lie and cheat people out of their money, recognition or value in a role, they were the wrong hire. It is not ethical to realize you are bad at your job and risk other employee's careers for your own. I felt that because my supervisor continued to try to place undue blame on me, he went from being a careless employee to a destructive one. He did not want to fess up to his supervisor and was willing to mop the floor with me.

What I found most interesting about Gallagher is that he was able to steal $254,000 from the firm’s clients over four years and served one year in prison; this in itself seems unethical. How is there a woman serving five years (originally sentenced to 12) for "stealing more than $15,000 in educational services" when she gave a false address so that her child could attend a better school, when this fellow stole a quarter of a million dollars to buy houses, automobiles, collectible items for himself  and served one (The Associated Press, 2012; Tepfer, 2012; Fottrell, 2014)? Mother Tanya McDowell sits in a state prison while Gallagher served his year in a minimum security federal camp. In describing his experience, Gallagher denies that he was in a comfortable, easygoing environment for white collar criminals. "My job was cleaning the urinals with a toothbrush for 12 cents an hour. It was the first year I was not required to file a federal income tax return, as I made $246 that year," he states. He now gets paid a typical fee is around $5,000 to talk about ethics. It amazes me that he is hired for such discussions, and that his entrepreneurship is not prohibited under a state Son of Sam law - any law designed to keep criminals from profiting from their crime. Gallagher lives in South Carolina, ARTICLE 5: Notoriety for Profit states:

(5) "Profit from a crime" includes any of the following:

(a) property obtained through or income generated from the commission of a crime for which the offender was convicted;

(b) property obtained or income generated from the sale, conversion, or exchange of proceeds of a crime for which the offender was convicted, including gain realized by the sale, conversion, or exchange; or

(c) property which the offender obtained or income generated as a result of having committed the crime for which the offender was convicted, including assets obtained through the unique knowledge obtained during the commission of or in preparation for the commission of the crime, as well as any property obtained by or income generated from the sale, conversion, or exchange of that property and any gain realized by that sale, conversion, or exchange.

It would seem that Gallagher's speaking engagements on MarketWatch and his ability to profit as a self-proclaimed International Business Ethics speaker would qualify as a violation of Article 5.

References

The Associated Press. (2012). Mother who stole son's education gets 12 years in prison. WFSB 3 - NORWALK, CT. From http://www.wfsb.com/story/16988714/tonya-mcdowell-to-plead-guilty#ixzz44EifXR4p
Fottrell, Quentin. (2014). Chuck Gallagher: Accountant, Ponzi schemer. MarketWatch.
Gallagher, Chuck. (2013). Business Ethics Keynote Speaker - Chuck Gallagher - shares Straight Talk about Ethics! YouTube. From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE
South Carolina Legislative Services Agency. (2000). South Carolina Code of Laws. Title 17 - Criminal Procedures : CHAPTER 25: Judgment and Execution. From http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t17c025.php
Tepfer, Daniel. (2012). Tanya McDowell sentenced to 5 years in prison. From
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Tanya-McDowell-sentenced-to-5-years-in-prison-3437974.php Weinstein, Bruce. (2011). ATP 2011 Opening Keynote Speaker - Bruce Weinstein. From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPFOGeeCeio#t=191

A634.6.3.RB - What are Virtues?

Benjamin Franklin's self-improvement program included 13 virtues that he felt were important guides for living along with principles for each that would, in his opinion, define a person of good character. He developed a scorecard for evaluating how well he measured up to his own ideals. Throughout his life, Franklin tried to live by these virtues though not always successfully.

Review Ben's 13 Virtues and take the Virtue Quiz to find out how you measure up against Franklin's virtues.

Select three of Franklin's virtues and reflect upon them in your blog. Ask yourself, how can I include them in my daily life?

I enjoyed doing this test because I read Ben's 13 Virtuesm(1726) more than a year ago and decided that I was going to focus on them for this past year. One of the virtues I focus the most on was silence. I realize that communication is a strength of mind, but it can also be a weakness. Sometimes I share too much. I also trust too much, and these two attributes combine to leave me very soft in the way of people who do not want the best for me. One of the things I dislike about the MSLD program is that I felt that some of the coursework tried to maintain that a new era of the workplace was coming. It was as if the 21st century was made to be the place of work environments where people word collaborative, caring, and sought to benefit and serve the common good as a goal. 

Through my coursework I have been taught how to lead this utopian workplace while learning the history of the archetype that was steadily drowning behind me with all of its follies. I was supposed to look to the past to avoid mistakes in the future, to be collaborative instead of overpowering, and to trust in my team rather than be suspicious of them and their actions. While I do believe I have become more knowledgeable about what a leader is and is not, it has only become clear to me the intentions behind being one of those poor leaders, and has shown how many people in leadership positions still believe there is a greater benefit to putting co-workers at odds then bringing them together. What does one do with such knowledge when they have no power to change it? Observe in silence. This is what I have done for months - listened intently without reacting. I believe I have seen the success of such actions but I must learn to balance it with an air of jovial spirit, because people do not like when you seem disturbed by them. I disagree with Franklin in his virtue of moderation (perhaps I am misconstruing his definition). Franklin notes, "Avoid extremes. Forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve."  I believe that sometimes resolve is within the extremes and being decisive, not just going with the flow. Though I believe agree-ability is a virtue, there is suspicion in moderation. It can be seen as apathy or worse, laziness. I attempt to balance this with limiting my speaking to when my opinion is requested.

The virtues that the test that I needed to work on her order and tranquility. While I am organized and all my things do have their place (I hate to look for physical things), I often overlap in activities and thoughts. I struggle to do one thing at a time, and my mind is always racing. Because of my over-thinking and continuous streams of thought, I am always stressed, anxious end attempting to find a way to avoid dysfunction. I just want peace, I find myself saying a lot.Then my problem-avoiding becomes a problem! The Dalai Lama discusses in Dalai Lama Renaissance, that inner peace is an act for the self, regardless of one's religion (Darvich, 2009). He says that when we practice compassion, we become happier people.If we look intrinsically for love and support, we will have less problems.

This is why I understand my need for tranquility. I can become very distressed about issues that others would see as minimal. This is because I do not believe anything that occurs happens in vacuum. I see every event as a domino impacting another event, and eventually culminating to a life-changing circumstance. When I see the dominoes falling in the wrong direction, I rush to change them, as if shifting dynamics will make for a more favorable outcome (Étienne, 2012). At times I hurt myself in the process. However, I am careful not to hurt others. I care about what others think of me - perhaps too much. I could stand to be more frugal with my time and to give less value to the perceptions or opinions of others. Within the workplace there are a lot of people who have titles without harnessing sincerity or justice; they do not care about hurting others or speaking productively, and they will hide beneficial information for the sake of making others feel unimportant or unable to make sound decisions. As this is a commonality, I must be tranquil in changing what I can, not bearing the weight of stress when I cannot, and changing where I am if I am perpetually unhappy.

References

Darvich, K. (2009). Dalai Lama Renaissance Documentary Film - Narrated by Harrison Ford (DVD Movie Dali Tibet China Llama). From http://dalailamafilm.com

Étienne, G. H. Y. S. (2012). The Butterfly Effect. CNRS-UMPA ENS, Lyon.

Franklin, B. (1726). Ben's 13 Virtues. PBS. From http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html

A634.5.4.RB - Is Marketing Evil?

After reading the article by El Sayed and El Ghazaly (n.d.), discuss your views on the following:

1. Do you feel ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers?
2. How can companies balance the need to win with being ethical?
3. Is it ethical to track your buying habits or web visits to target you for marketing purposes?
4. As a leader, how will you manage the ethical aspects of your marketing efforts?

Ethical guidelines and if they are followed by marketers is based on the organization itself; not all marketers are liars, but some are better at others at presenting their products without bloating the truth about their capacities. Ethical guidelines should lead the process of creating promotional materials, because this process is integral to getting and maintaining customers.  El Sayed and El Ghazaly (n/d) note that “marketers try their best to attract and keep satisfied, the customer”; if a customer does not believe they have received a product that fulfills their needs adequately for the price point, they will not continue to buy it. Depending on its lasting time, they may also complain about the product and demand compensation. If they are put at great inconvenience because of the product, they may go further and sue. Shoe company Skechers, for instance, ended up paying a $40 million settlement for four types of shoes they promoted as having the ability to tone the body and aid in weight loss. Therefore, it is wise for marketers to consider the consequences of making amazing commercials but utilizing the product in a way that presents itself to accomplish things it certainly cannot. Sometimes the marketing is not weak in product, but in implementation. For example, trip schedule website

Funny, or fatal marketing?

Kayak had a commercial in 2014 that showed a man on a chairlift using his computer while passing an elderly woman gasping for air. This ad garnered mixed feelings from people finding it hilarious, to viewers being disgusted at the allusion to elder abuse. Though the ad really had nothing to do with the product, the way they go about marketing can persuade or dissuade customers from real interaction.

Balancing the needs of the customer for a quality product with the need to make a profit is an understandably difficult undertaking. However, there are companies that have been profiting off of international poverty and lax workplace standards to churn out cheaper products for themselves which still sell at ridiculous prices in the states. Manufacturing in Bangladesh, Nike’s head of sustainable business begged the company to reconsider opening shop there. Only after seeing clear violations of fire codes (bolted doors and windows barring safe escape) did he conglomerate reconsider. This issues is not new for Nike; factory-worker abuse and deaths, forced overtime and the use of certain hazardous chemicals in Nike-owned facilities has been in the public eye for 20 years. However, effective marketing has allowed for Nike to The top 10 selling sneakers in the U.S. year to date are all made by Nike, according to SportsOneSource’s analyst Matt Powell. And despite it’s low-wage factory development in counties like Indonesia, China, and Vietnam, it led the average men’s sneaker price in the U.S. to rise to a record $72.15 a pair so far this year from $63.17 in 2010 (Cheng, 2014). However, the shoes cost about a tenth of that to make. Consider the Air Jordan 10s, which are listed on Amazon for $250 to $550 a pair. These shoes cost $16 to make (O’Keefe, 2014).

Who could turn down a collection of $100 shoes when the company follows you through the internet. Because of search engine optimization and tracking, companies essentially stalk users, promoting to interests based on the sites visited. However, there are ways to turn off this tracking in most web Why is Facebook allowing companies to sell things on the side of my friends list?

This is annoying.

applications. It can be stressful to watch the same ads come up over and over again for a site someone visited once and did not find something you wanted. It can also lead to stress due to a pressure to spend money. We are already promoted to in our home through television ads, ads on Netflix before watching a video and occasional popups.

In terms of the marketing I lead for the department, on Facebook and Twitter, I only use facts to discuss the happenings of our department. I try to show that our department is forward thinking in making sure upcoming events and deadlines are shared long before the dates arrive, usually a month ahead, then two weeks, a week, and a few days ahead. We also put up relevant articles about STEM current events and display pictures of our staff doing interesting things in and for the office and housing communities. For example, on March 14^th, Pi Day, one of our Resident Assistants made cookies shaped like pi. I make sure we switch up how we promote ourselves so we that things cannot be assumed by our viewers to be true. For instance, we may have cookies or sweets I the office every week, but that is not our function, so I do not promote it weekly. We enjoy showing the special things that happen which make our office unique, particularly when it relates to the university theme.

Overall I believe the focus of our time should be on procuring knowledge, not things; however, marketers are both social commentators and litmus tests for how we gauge the world and what motivates us to engage in business. At times it is clear that ads are pushing the limit for wow value, but most are simply a mirror into our reality.

References

El Sayed, H. and El Ghazaly, I. (n/d). “Is Marketing Evil? Marketing Viewed as a tool.” Retrieved from http://www.ethicsbasedmarketing.net/2.html

Stampler, L. (2012). The 15 Biggest Lies Ever Told By Major Advertisers. Business Insider Inc. From http://www.businessinsider.com/the-biggest-lies-ever-told-by-major-advertisers-2012-11?op=1

O’Keefe, T. (2014). The ‘real’ costs of that pair of sneakers. Asheville Citizen Times. From http://www.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/07/27/real-costs-pair-sneakers/13181055/

Cheng, Andria. (2014). After 34 years as a public company, Nike is still a growth stock. MarketWatch. From http://blogs.marketwatch.com/behindthestorefront/2014/09/26/after-34-years-as-a-public-company-nike-is-still-a-growth-stock/