A634.2.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A634.2.4.RB – Theories of Ethics

            Consequentialists claim as cited by LaFollette (2007) “that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (p. 366). When making a moral decision, we must choose the best overall consequences in the greatest interest of all parties involved. Deontology states that we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or right, and these rules or rights are at least partly independent of consequences. To garner a better understanding of these two theories lets further look at how they are different according to LaFollette (2007);

The consequentialist thinks the rules are derivative. They are defensible only if following them will bring the best consequence. Deontologists claim that out 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. (p. 381).

            “Deontologists contend there are strict moral limits on what we can do to others. Consequentialists do not contend there are strict moral limits of what we can do to others” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 389). Last week we were given a classical ethical dilemma – The Train Dilemma. In this scenario, a train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. If the switch were thrown, it would put the train on a sidetrack where one child is standing. A consequentialist would look at the best outcome, the death of five children versus the death of one and would pull the switch. For a deontologist, pulling the switch is against the rules therefore all five children will die.

            If humans were unfeeling beings and lacked the ability to think, then deontology would be the theory of choice. Decision-making can be made easily, without thought because they are ground in the rules of what is right and what is wrong. There would be no room for what-if; the decision-making would be equitable and consistent for all. However, we are thinking and feeling human beings. We allow our moral compass to guide us in our decision-making. This also makes our decision making more difficult because we must consider the consequences and the variables surrounding the outcomes. We must also accept the fact that we can and will unintentionally make wrong decisions even though our moral reasoning is correct. Taking into consideration both theories, I would throw the switch.

References

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

A632.7.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A632.7.4.RB – Collaborative Decision Making

            In today’s business world, even the most productive groups of individuals’ experiences some type of conflict. Very seldom will you find collaboration without some degree of conflict; which is not necessarily a bad thing. There are times when leaders will make major decisions without assistance, but as a whole, this is rare. Leaders have to take into consideration how their decisions affect the stakeholders around them. However, when they do make decisions based only on their perspective, there is a propensity of having a myopic vision of the situation. When we have such a myopic view, we tend to do what is best for us, ignoring those around us.  

            As simple as this may sound, we must also keep in perspective that some problems are too complex for an individual to handle alone. A smart person will use collaboration as an opportunity to gain more insight on the conflict. Leaders need to understand the advantages of using collaboration. When individuals are seeking out collaboration, they understand that there is an increase in overall skills, knowledge, and information gained will strengthen and bring credibility to their role as a decision maker. The textbook provided an interesting statement of how we must look for a vessel that is large enough to hold and satisfy all the concerns that each person has in a conflict situation. However, as I have mentioned before, many times we must take the utilitarian approach when looking for a resolution.

            Personally, I feel the very nature of collaboration invites a clash of personality types, conceptual thinking processes, ethical differences, and disagreements on how to define what is the ultimate objective and how to achieve it. Collaboration when used correctly moves stakeholders away from the old traditional way of thinking; thereby, redefining decision-making power as control or domination towards a definition that invited shared authority. Leaders no longer operate in a vacuum; collaboration helps eliminate difficult barriers, increases opportunities for success, enriches the change process, and creates a shared vision for resolution. The bottom line is positive collaborative decision-making impacts many members of any organization; providing a unified guidance in a desired direction. Last but not least, by getting other stakeholders involved, it can help identify questions or concerns that may have been overlooked.

            The last time I had to make the decision to change jobs was one where various stakeholders played a key role in the decision. I was in a position where I was not happy and I got an offer to take a different position. Before I made up my mind, I consulted with my husband, parents, and several close friends and co-workers for insight. I considered the group stakeholders because ultimately my actions would either directly or indirectly impact them. When the new position was offered to me (although it wasn’t exactly where I wanted to be) I knew it would be better than where I was so I really just wanted to get insight from others to help me make a good decision. The position was offered then I discussed it with the various stakeholders. Next I analyzed the input I’d been given, considered what alternatives might exist, and thought about what I wanted to achieve by coming to the decision. After a great deal of reflection, I came to the decision to accept the job. As the Wharton text points out “once the values and probabilities are known, an answer is relatively straightforward” (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005, p. 504). 

            Reflecting back on the decision I made, I know I involved the right people in the process. It was a good decision and one where I am sure I did the right thing. I cannot think of anyone else I did not include in the process that might have assisted in making the decision. Lessons learned that would aid in future decisions are: 1. Including other perspectives gives us a greater chance to see things more clearly which helps make better decisions; 2. Collaborating with others fosters trust and builds better relationships; and 3. Every decision we make helps us make better decisions in the future. In his book on resolution, Stewart Levine (2009), he hopes to teach us about “patience, inquiry, learning, and expanding our perspective” (p. 11). I now have a greater understanding of the role collaboration plays in the decision making process. My perspective has certainly been expanded by the information we have been exposed to throughout the semester. 

References

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into resolution. (2nd edition). Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler Publishers

A632.6.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A632.6.3.RB – The High Cost of Conflict

            While working as a paralegal, there was an instance where a business situation had a higher cost of conflict than I initially anticipated. The main experience I am alluding to occurred about three years ago. A co-worker of equal standing and I were assigned a joint project.  Instead of working together to meet the deadline, we each made our own assignments and objectives take priority.  We had different styles of going about things and already did not think the best of one another.  In the end, we were unable to put aside our differences.  The work never got done and our careers suffered, although briefly, as a result. 

            In retrospect (and to be completely honest, even at the time), I realize that our personal reservations should never have gotten in the way of the firm’s productivity.  If we could have put aside our differences and dedicated time each day that week towards the joint tasking, I am certain it would have been accomplished.  Unfortunately, we failed to adequately manage our personal conflict and differences. 

              It would be interesting to analyze this situation in the context of Stewart Levine's 10 Principles of New Thinking (2009).  The main principles I see applying in this context are those of numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8.  It is hard to admit, but we really did become "wasted resources."  We threw away the firm’s time and money that week by failing to work together when all that was asked of us was to create a partnership and get the job done.  Rather, we fostered conflict.  If we had become open with one another by discussing our differences and overcome them, then we might have been able to work through everything and foster long-term, sustainable collaboration.  Clearly, this did not occur.  We should have disclosed our information and feelings to work together for the greater good. 

            In retrospect, these considerations definitely would have made a difference.  Not only would we have managed to work with one another and get the job done, but we might also have fostered a healthy business relationship with synergistic energy.  The high cost of conflict on our reputation, output, and efficiency could have been dramatically reduced.  Overall, this exercise has taught me that overcoming conflict can lead to highly productive and mutually beneficial scenarios, especially within a context such as my own.  I hope to apply them better in the future. 

References

Levine, S. (2009 ). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into resolution. (2nd edition). Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler Publishers

A634.1.5.RB_DellElceCamila

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

            The train ethical dilemma does indeed puts your integrity and decision-making choices into question. Living in a world where doing the right or wrong thing can make a significant difference, makes it difficult to see the gray middle grounds on those decisions. When faced with difficult decision where none of the choices are attractive, I believe the best way to handle it is by using your critical perspective and then use your inner sense of the situation. What is critical thinking? Defined by Matthew Lipman, “Critical thinking is skillful, responsible thinking that is conductive to good judgment because it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Nosich, 2012, p. 2).

            After though rough consideration, when it comes to scenario one; if there was a train about hurtled down a track where five children were standing and with a switch I could choose whether to have the train hurtled over five or just one child. I would throw the switch to the one child standing on the train tracks while saving five other children’s lives. The reasoning behind this decision is to save as many kids as possible, the lesser the damage the better. It does not mean, that one child has no importance, but in the great skim of things, four more children get to go home and see their parents. Additionally, this would imply living with the remorse of not saving one child’s live instead of five.

            On the second scenario, if I was standing next to an elderly man and with the switch I had to choose whether to save all five children from the train or push the man, I would without a doubt push him in front of the train. The reason I would chose the elderly man is because as it is implied, he is a man of age. He probably has lived a good life and experienced all kinds of adventures. As if we compare it to the five children, they are still kids full of life. Overall, it is harder to say goodbye to a child than an elderly man, as it is expected for a man of age to die but not when it comes to children. Not to say that emotions are not involved, but I feel more attached to the children’s parents’ emotions and feelings more than mine. As described by Hugh LaFollette, “some people are oblivious to moral questions: they just blindly pursue their own interests, never caring how their actions affect others” (2007, p. 88).

            Lastly, the third scenario suggests that with a switch I could either save the five children standing on the train track or save my own child. Now, this is a tricky question since emotions are involved. This decision is no longer rational and therefore, my decision-making is impaired. Nevertheless, I would chose to save my own kid as harsh as that may sound. There really is no best moral choice when it comes to this scenario as you are talking about children dying. “When we start thinking systematically about practical ethical issues, we begin to theorize morally. Too often we see moral theorizing as a quaint intellectual practice of bearded, pipe-smoking, briefcase-toting philosophers” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 102). However, no definition will help into making this kind of decision, as I am almost certain most parent would chose to save their own kid at dispense of five other kids.

References

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

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (4th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.

A632.5.5.RB_DellElceCamila

A632.5.5.RB – Protected Values in Decision Making

            Protected values are a part of most people’s decision-making processes. “People often draw a line in the sand to create values that are protected from trade-offs”. (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005).  I am no different when it comes to having protected values. I value life, religion, and family when it comes to drawing the line in the sand, and making a decision. Following a baseline of protected values has challenges and can cause a variety of changes in priorities depending on the situation. “The unbending nature of PVs creates challenges for policy makers seeking to evaluate the trade-offs among values”. (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005).  These values influence my decisions at all times, especially when it is a personal decision.

            My values are what they are, my values. I look at honoring my country, religion, and family with high regard. In most cases, I use these values to influence all of my personal decisions and some of my work related decisions. I emphasize work related decision because I must account for other people values in the decision-making process when it comes to company decisions.  For example, when I used to work at Dick’s Sporting Goods, I used to have a coworker who was a Muslim. Now, I am Catholic, but my coworker would request to have several breaks between working hours to do his prayers. Nevertheless, instead of saying no, I was able to find a way to help him and respect his religion. The idea would be to honor the individual’s beliefs and if work permits it, allow specific break periods to pray.

            Another value that I find some conflicts with is life. For example, in my protected value of life, I began questioning whether killing was acceptable in war, or the death penalty, or in precision strikes against terrorists. In my value of freedom, I began to question how far I am actually okay with “freedom” being given.  What about hate speech, or radical extremists, or the separation of church and state? And in equality I began to question my beliefs about discrimination based on gender.  What about women on the front lines? What about separating men and women’s sports? All of these questions made me aware of the fact that these values that I considered to be strong, protected values, may not be as strong as I thought. 

            The last protected value is my family. I live every day on earth for my family. This value seems to be gaining back strength in America compared to the past decades. We were founded on family and with so much separation and multiple family members working the simple family dinner tighter is disappearing. I think social media has helped to stay in contact with family members with pictures and activities. This is the new dinnertime.  I value family in my decision processes because most people can relate to having a family.

            Protect values have downsides also and can cause conflicts in the decision making process. “Values can be inconsistently expressed across context, which is why preferences do not always reflect deeply held values”. (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005).  It is imperative to remember and understand protecting values occur by recognizing conflicts of interest, zero tolerance policies, and whom the values will affect. Try not to force personal values on others who have their own values. The purpose is to make a sound decision that is recognized by others as being sound. People may not always be happy with the decision, but the decision should be fair.

References

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.