A634.4.4.RB_RuggerioSteven

The Ethical Sides of Affirmative Action

At just over 50 years old, the debate surrounding Affirmative Action (AA) is heating up yet again.  Those favoring and those opposing AA are gearing up for another round of discourse to discuss whether AA promotes racism or provides opportunities for minorities.  The question for this blog is not to determine its effectiveness but rather its ethicality. 

Ethics is often separated into two distinct theories: consequentialism and the deontology. According to LaFallotte (2007), “consequentialism claims that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (p. 23).  In short, “the ends justify the means.”  The other theory, deontology, purports there are strict rules upon which to follow and that “we can be confident that we know how we should act and how to morally evaluate ours and others’ actions” (p. 24). 

Taking these theories and applying them to AA would lead us to assume:

Under consequentialism, AA is beneficial because it provides more jobs to minorities regardless of what society thinks, assumes, or believes.  For example, blacks were discriminated against and have suffered at the hands of white authority.  AA gives them more jobs; therefore, it is ethical. 

Under deontology, AA is harmful because, as a nation, we are trying to promote equality.  AA, by definition, focuses on race and makes decisions on the basis of the skin color.  It is often referred to as “positive discrimination” and/or “reverse discrimination.”  In other words, we are still judging people by skin color and therefore the program is unethical.

The America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2013) said, “Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation's historic discrimination against people of color and women, and for leveling what has long been an uneven playing field.  A centuries-long legacy of racism and sexism has not been eradicated despite the gains made during the civil rights era.  Avenues of opportunity for those previously excluded remain far too narrow.  We need affirmative action now more than ever.”

On the other side of the aisle, and as recent as yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas addressed current AA programs at a university by saying, “"The University’s professed good intentions cannot excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such intentions justified the now-denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists."  Thomas further said the [Affirmative Action] policy hurts those black and Hispanic students who are admitted more than those who are not. "Although cloaked in good intentions, the University’s racial tinkering harms the very people it claims to be helping” (Johnson, 2013).

LaFollete (2007) discusses arguments for and against affirmative action.  Three of the most common arguments against affirmative action are: it promotes reverse discrimination, it penalizes those who have done no wrong, and as Justice Thomas mentioned above, it stigmatizes blacks.  Also, as mentioned above, the first point against AA is that it focuses on the issue of race (p. 87-94).  In short, “two wrongs don’t make a right” (p. 88).  Those opposed to AA believe time heals all wounds and that whites today should not be penalized for sins of distant lineage.  Lastly, and oft mentioned is that AA stigmatizes blacks.  Many of those who reject AA programs believe that where AA policies are practiced, even the most qualified minority will be considered an AA hire rather than one who earned the position through hard work and effort.

LaFollete (2012) also provides justification for affirmative action.  The primary three reason supporting AA are that racism still exist and without policies such as affirmative action, less minorities would have jobs.  AA is needed because it provides equality of opportunity.  By implementing AA, society exposes blatant racism and eliminates its ability to operate unfettered. And lastly, AA programs force employers and school officials to think more fairly about their hiring practices.

Along those lines, in 2003 the NFL established The Rooney Rule after Pittsburgh Steelers’ owner Dan Rooney.  As chairman of the NFLs diversity committee, Mr. Rooney established the rule to require NFL teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching positions and senior football operation jobs.  Currently, the Steelers head coach, Mike Tomlin, is an African American.  While the rule does not guarantee minority coaches will be hired, there are currently three black NFL head coaches. 

It is obvious that Hugh LaFollette is a proponent of affirmative action.  Personally, I see both sides of the issue.  I do believe there are measures we must take as a society to provide more high-level positions for minorities but I do not believe affirmative action is the primary means with which our society should pursue it.  I think it can still be an effective programs but not one that operates in isolation.  I think there are other programs our nation should continue pursuing; such as, education, awareness training, providing opportunities such as the Rooney Rule, and continuing to promote regular diversity training.

Removing qualified candidates from contention merely for their skin color seems unethical regardless of the reasoning.  While racism still exists today it is not as pervasive as it once was and our children are learning more and more to appreciate diversity.  Again, I understand the premise behind affirmative action but I get concerned that as leaders, we are continuing the racial divide and training our children to see individual differences in an unhealthy manner.

The ACLU said, “According to 1998 U.S. Department of Labor statistics, blacks are almost twice as likely as whites to be unemployed. The unemployment rate is also higher for Latinos than for whites. Blacks and Latinos generally earn far less than whites. In 2000, the median weekly earning for blacks was $459; for Latinos, it was $395. In that period, average income for whites was $590. Workers of color are still concentrated in the less well-paying, unskilled sector.”

This is a serious national issue that needs to be addressed at the executive level.  Executives and CEOs should be having regular discussions about racial diversity.  Along with certain affirmative action policies, Human Resource personnel must advertise and welcome the opportunities to minorities.  This can be done by advertising jobs in areas that otherwise might not get a chance to see the opening.

The goal is inclusion.  Morality promotes equal opportunity.  Ethics promises integrity and character—especially in the workplace and hiring practices.  Whether companies rely solely on affirmative action or other measures to promote diversity and equality, the first place we all must start is within ourselves.  Our speech and behaviors should line up with the moral standards undergirding equal rights.  Regardless of your ethical affiliation, when it comes to equality, the right thing is always looking past skin color and into the character of the person.  To quote Dr. King, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Steve

References:

American Civil Liberties Union. (2013). Affirmative Action. Retrieved from

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/affirmative-action

Johnson, L. (2013). Clarence Thomas compares affirmative action to slavery and segregation in

opinion. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_3491433.html

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

A634.3.5.RB_RuggerioSteven

Avoiding the Fall

In his book How the Mighty Fall, bestselling author Jim Collins (2009) said, “When the rhetoric of success (“We’re successful because we do these specific things”) replaces penetrating understanding and insight (“We’re successful because we understand why we do these specific things and under what conditions they would no longer work”), decline will very likely follow” (p. 21).  Power and success is intoxicating.  It’s an elixir that causes hidden insecurities to fade, childhood fears and inadequacies to evaporate, and uncertain futures to be casts with great clarity.  The view from the top of the mountain can be freeing; however, it can also be fleeting. 

In his book Beyond Talent, John Maxwell (2011) said, “Many people with talent make it into the limelight, but the ones who have neglected to develop strong character rarely stay there long.  Absence of strong character eventually topples talent.  Why?  Because people cannot climb beyond the limitations of their character” (p. 191). 

Roderick Kramer expresses the two examples above in his Harvard Business Review article entitled The Harder They Fall.  Kramer (2003) identifies the fall from grace as “the genius-to-folly syndrome—a swift and steady rise by a brilliant, hard-driving, politically adept individual followed by surprising stints of miscalculations or recklessness” (p. 60).  Whether it is referred to as folly, arrogant neglect, an ego trip, or unadulterated pride, the ending is similar:  a fall.

America is a society that rewards individualism.  They praise the innovator, risk-taker, and above all else, the success maker.  Unfortunately, what the mass of society fails to find or may choose to ignore, are the innumerable decisions behind the scenes that provided opportunistic meetings, chance encounters, and lucky breaks.  Sure, many successful people have achieved great accomplishments through hard work and perseverance.  But many have obtained success on the backs of ethical employees, hopeful investors, and even their own families.  

From the economic collapse of 2008 to the media-saturated stories of fallen leaders comes a desperation revelation:  As leaders, it is our responsibility to identify, advertise, and promote the successful accomplishments achieved through ethical means. 

Kramer (2003) discussed the success of David Geffen and Reginald Lewis.  He discussed how they “broke the rules” and were rewarded for it.  What we don’t see are the hundreds and thousands of people who tried to succeed by breaking the rules and were eliminated from contention.  What one boss sees as ingenuity and desire another sees as unethical and underhandedness.

Society loves the star and they don’t care how they got there.  Living under the theory of the “end justifies the means” can be cancerous to traditional hard work, morality, and ethics.  Falsifying academic credentials, lying in interviews, and slandering another for personal gain may open a door of opportunity.  However, the reaping eventually comes due and truth is exposed.  As Maxwell (2011) said, “If you want to know how long it will take to get to the top, consult a calendar.  If you want to know how long it can take to fall to the bottom, try a stopwatch.  Character determines which will happen” (p. 204).

Before this blog sounds like the rants of a jealous no name, I’ll be clear in pointing out that many, many people are rightfully successful.  In fact, in his research, Kramer (2003) identified five behaviors of said successful leaders that help them maintain their success:

1. Keep your life simple. If high-flying leaders hope to stay on top, they would do well to nurture their humility.
2. Hang a lantern on your foibles.  In other words, expose your weaknesses and failures. It shows great strength and maturity.
3. Float trial balloons.  In short, “conduct regular reviews of your assumptions.”  Unchecked assumptions can lead to paranoia and divisive decisions.
4. Sweat the small stuff.  Don’t overlook minor infractions especially those of an ethical nature.
5. Reflect more, not less.  Henri Frederic Amiel said, “The man who has no inner life is the slave of his surroundings” (Maxwell, 2011, p. 200).  Reflection develops the inner life.

Leadership experts James Kouzes and Barry Posner (2007) said, “In almost every survey we’ve conducted, honesty has been selected more often than any other leadership characteristic; overall, it emerges as the single most important factor in the leader-constituent relationship” (p. 32). 

Success is difficult and it requires great dedication and perseverance.  Honorable success is even harder.  While it requires just as much dedication and perseverance it also requires forthrightness, integrity, and an authentic heart that survives long after a stellar career.  Author and pastor J.R. Miller wrote, “The only thing that walks back from the tomb with the mourners and refuses to be buried is the character of a man.  This is true.  What a man is survives him.  It can never be buried” (Maxwell, 2011, p. 204).

It is Father’s Day morning and my wife left me a card.  Inside she wrote, “You truly are the best father and grandfather I have ever known.  So grateful you are the father of my children.  You will leave quite a legacy.

A legacy.  An imprint in the lives of others that lasts long after I’m gone. 

No amount of fame can compete with that.

Steve

References

Collins, J. (2009). How the mighty fall. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Kouzes, J., Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kramer, R.M. (2003). The harder they fall, Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66

Maxwell, J. (2011). Beyond talent. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

  

A634.2.4.RB_RuggerioSteven

Balancing Ethical Theories: Discussing Consequentialism and Deontology

Labels are constricting.  Whether at work, church, family gatherings, or relaxing at home with my family, labeling myself as either a Republican or a Democrat, a northerner or a southerner, or one who likes American cars or foreign cars seems to fence me in.  I like to think of myself as an independent thinker who approaches issues while embracing the best of both worlds.  In similar fashion, studying the two primary approaches to ethical decision making—consequentialism and deontology—have exposed me to both the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each.  Like my political, geographical, and automotive affiliation, I find myself operating in both wheelhouses.

When moral theorizing, individuals either lean toward a consequentialist view that focuses primarily on the consequences of our actions or a deontological view that focuses on adhering to rules and principles independent of consequences.   These views have shaped much of the world of ethics today.  In The Practice of Ethics, LaFollette (2007) defines the two as, “Consequentialism states we should choose the available actions 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” (p. 23).

As leaders, understanding these theories is critical to one’s convictions, perspectives, and leadership influence.  Gary Yukl (2010) said, “Higher levels of management have a greater number and variety of activities to be coordinated, the complexity of relationships that need to be understood and managed is greater, and the problems that need to be solved are more unique and ill-defined” (p. 216).  Ethical issues permeate every facet of an organization.  To develop one’s leadership style, it is important to examine whether one makes decisions based on potential consequences or whether they follow a strict rule-based philosophy.  Knowing one’s perspective toward an ethical dilemma can improve how organizational decisions are made.

Leaders operating at a higher level of development are usually regarded as more ethical than those at a lower level of development.  Those with a strong moral self-identity are normally motivated to act in ways that are consistent with ethical values and beliefs (Yukl, 2010).  In order to make the best decision possible when confronted with an ethical dilemma, leaders should have a basic understanding of the two theories.  The following explanations are found in LaFollette’s textbook, The Practice of Ethics.

First, let’s look at consequentialism.  These folks believe that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences.  This motivation is common throughout all aspects of leadership.  Whether creating a business plan, a church program, or devising a parenting strategy, leaders consider the end result when formulating possible decisions.  The consequentialist approach directs leaders to choose paths with the best overall consequences for all interested parties.

When determining which consequences are most important, the consequentialist must consider three questions.  First, which consequences are morally relevant?  In other words, there are often innumerable consequences surrounding a decision; some are trivial whereas others are significant.  Leaders must consider only those consequences relevant to the outcome and the people involved.  Secondly, how much weight should each consequence be given?  The weight is the product of the nature of the interests it affect, the number of interests affected, and their respective probabilities.  And thirdly, how should they use these considerations when deliberating?  For each action, the leader must decide which alternative has the best overall consequence. 

Another aspect of consequentialism is utilitarianism.  In this theory, the sole consequence that is sought is happiness.  These folks make decisions based on what will provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.  LaFollete (2007) said, “The tendency to see consequences narrowly, especially when our interest is at stake, are a factor any clear thinking consequentialist must acknowledge and seek to counter” (p. 27).

Along with LaFollete’s explanation of the theory of consequentialism, Yukl (2010) highlighted, “Judgments about the ethics of a particular decision or action usually take into account the purpose (ends), the extent to which behavior is consistent with moral standards (means), and the consequences for self and others (outcomes).  These three criteria are usually considered in relation to each other, and a common issue is the extent to which the ends justify the means” (p. 409).

The second theory of ethical decision making is known as deontology.  This is the theory that focuses primarily on following rules.  Growing up, we were regularly taught what to do and what not to do.  In fact, most of our developmental stages of life were filled with “do’s and don’t” and that is what we remembered—especially when it was reinforced with pain!

Though “rule-following” resonates with all of us, it can cause problems as well.  Focusing solely on the rules without taking the consequences into consideration can cause additional problems down the road.  The deontologist must learn to give consequences the appropriate moral weight when considering what path to choose or what decision to make.

One of the key points of the deontologist is that “morality is a set of moral rules, some of which are weightier than others” (p. 31).  The goal is to know which are weightier and by how much.  In these situations, leaders must have core principles prioritized within their thought process.  For example, “Domestic animals are very important and should be cared for exceptionally well.  However, they are not as important as humans.”  While that sounds elementary, there are many people who consider their pets equal to people.  True, your pets are important, however they should not be held in higher esteem than a human life.  Yet, many people in our society would rebuff this claim with great intensity.  Case in point: Wealthy people investing thousands of dollars in dog houses, dog food, and even doggy diamonds.  All the while, homeless people shuffle outside their gated community.

One of the key voices of the deontological theory is Immanuel Kant.  He stresses the important of the “good will” in which he refers to as “doing one’s duty because it is one’s duty.”  Kant is famous for his categorical imperative as well.  In this he believes the weight of what we do lies on the antecedent “if.”  In other words, certain imperatives are binding only on those who want to achieve the goal specified in the phrase.

Like ethics, there are numerous theories on leadership.  One of the most prominent is known as situational leadership.  Meaning, the best style of leadership is what the situation calls for.  In many ways, this is true of the consequentialist and deontological theories of ethics as well.  Simply focusing on producing the best consequences causes decision makers to miss the relevant factors of the moment.  Not every decision can be made to produce a “sunny” consequence.  Also, blindly following a set of rules can be misguided as well.  Evaluating the situation in light of an individual’s core values and principles is the most effective way to deal with ethical dilemmas.  Moreover, the most opportune time to develop one’s values is not “in the moment” of an ethical decision; but rather, beforehand when there is time to discuss and identify why you believe what you believe.  Ethical dilemmas should never dictate what you believe. Rather, they should confirm what you’ve already professed to believe. 

Balancing the tension between rules and consequences is an art leaders must learn.  Lastly, John Maxwell (2003) said, “Decisions, not conditions, determine your ethics” (p. 47).  He explained, “People of poor character tend to blame their choices on circumstances.  Ethical people make good choices regardless of circumstances.  If they make enough good choices, they begin to create better conditions for themselves” (p. 47).

Steve

References:

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

Maxwell, J. (2003). Ethics 101. New York, NY: Center Street.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.