real-world-ethics-blog

History to help guide your ethics

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:23:11 +0100

Last evening on my drive home I was listening to MPR. Reporter Dan Olson did a piece on a fomer St. Olaf professor who had recently passed away. The remembrance of Reidar Dittmann included the relating of his time in Buchenwald as a prisoner of the Nazis. Dittmann had been a part of the Norwegian resistance. He noted that on the gate leading into Buchenwald was the motto: Right or wrong, my country. Profound when you think of the activities occuring in Buchenwald. Later in the piece, an interview with Dittmann revealed that the origins of the phrase were actually American:

"He explained that it was originally uttered by an American naval officer, Stephen Decatur, in the early 1800s. He lifted his glass to his fellow soldiers and he said, 'My country, may she always be right. But right or wrong, my country,' thereby issuing forth one of the most immoral statements ever made, one that we've struggled with in America ever after, where we put patriotism ahead of our own moral responsibility, said Dittmann."

The phrase may have been first uttered by an American, but this issue is hardly unique to America. It is also not just about patriotism and personal moral responsibility. It is about the difficulty in deconflicting personal values. If you list out your values, there may be a reference to family or maybe even country or maybe a religious affiliation. The loyalty or love you feel for a group or person can not only make doing the right thing difficult and painful, it can make the right thing sumpremely hard to define. Patriotism, love and loyalty to family members or friends, even loyalty to an employer...these are all situations

The immorality that Dittmann refers to in my mind is that the black and white statement "Right or wrong, my country" removes the responsibility of thinking critically about

Read the whole article here:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/01/05/reidar-dittmann-obit/

Leaders are always Student Leaders

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:53:20 +0100

The Minnesota Student Leadership Seminar has its name because it is focused on high school students, but in truth the word student can be applied to leaders of any age whether in school or not.

Leaders must always evaluate how they are doing. Are they effective? Are they doing right by their followers?

On the website StudentLinc, there is a fantastic training matrix that can be used by leaders in all positions at every age. This site "was created to specifically address the issues and the circumstances faced by student leaders - those young people who are engaged in the leadership laboratory within their school, youth group, civic organization, etc"  but students should realize that these principles won't change as they move to different positions and responsibilities. Principles of leadership just as values don't change based on circumstance.

The StudentLinc identifies 5 leadership characteristics and 6 leadership stages and puts them together in a matrix showing how the characteristics are applied at each of the different stages.   You'll find the matrix in the middle of this page.

While it doesn't spell out what character is, evaluating your character and making adjustments based on your evaluation is step 1.

What is great about this matrix is that it shows how leadership is a never ending evaluation. When you are an adult and you first get hired...if you are assigned a new responsibility or initiative...when you get promoted....if you move to a different organization...these are all times to bring out the matrix and ask yourself "am I the leader that I can be and my people and organization deserve?"

And now while you are still in school -- Are you a leader in your interactions with friends? on your sports teams and other extracurriculars? in the classroom? at home? This matrix applies just as well to these situations as student goverment.

Being a student doesn't mean that things don't count, that it is somehow different from "reality' It means that you have the opportunity to act, assess, and change. Leaders always have that opportunity and the good leaders will take it.

Powerful people are better liars?

Tue, 08 Jun 2010 05:20:21 +0100

In the May 2010 Harvard Business Review Magazine, researcher Dana Carney was called upon to explain her finding that "A sense of power buffers individuals from the stress of lying and increases their ability to deceive others."

Carney's description of her research and her findings is by her own account "troubling."

We measured subjects on five variables that indicate lying—involuntary shoulder shrugs, accelerated speech, the level of the stress hormone cortisol in their saliva, cognitive impairment, and emotional distress. Only the low-power liars could be “seen” as lying; the readings for the liars with power were essentially the same as those for truth tellers on all five variables. People with power lied more easily and effectively, which is troubling. Just as kids don’t touch a stove once they learn it burns them, people don’t like to lie because it hurts them emotionally and physiologically. These data suggest that powerful individuals—CEOs, portfolio managers, politicians, elite athletes—don’t get burned when they touch the figurative stove. They seem to be more physiologically “prepared” to lie, which could lead to their lying more often.."
http://hbr.org/2010/05/defend-your-research-powerful-people-are-better-liars/ar/1

Carney's analogy of getting burned by a stove is a good one. The stove is an external influence and can effectively modify behavior. For those in power, there is no external force. The force for keeping behavior in check must be internal. In the interest of preservation of the power equation, those who are in power may reject personal accountability and turn off that internal behavior check. The powerless are accountable to external forces. The powerful are accountable to themselves. If they abdicate their personal accountability driven by the self-interested motivation of preserving power, they are accountable to nothing.

Isn't it interesting that it is a sense of power that "buffers individuals from the stress of lying and increases their ability to deceive others" and not a sense of Leadership.

What do you value beyond yourself? What are the values that you hold dear no matter what the situation and no matter how the outcome will affect you personally? These are questions that a leader of character challenges him/herself with each day. They may be in positions of extreme power and influence over others, but because leaders of character have identified and revisit the values that are larger than their own self-interest, they will remain accountable.

An Athlete of Character

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:25:06 +0100

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to be an assistant coach for a high school girl's swimming team.  The talent on the team was impressive.  Many swimmers had a chance at going to the State tournament...and they knew it.

There were three seniors on the team. All three were elected as the captains of the team. All three were among the top swimmers on a team that had not one stand-out, but many.

As we got to the midpoint of the season and the swimmers had several blow-out meets under their belts, their confidence began to manifest itself during practice in a not so positive way. Girls began to show up late for practice. During timed sets, sidebar conversations would cause swimmers to miss their splits and delay their whole lane. When the head coach was giving instruction, girls would giggle and horse around.

The coach would yell, and the behavior would subside until the next practice when it would start all over again.

Instead of embracing their roles as the leaders of the team, the captains were complicit in this behavior. They themselves were late to practice. They too would horse around and talk when the coach was giving instruction. As team members their behavior showed a lack of respect and personal responsibility. But as captains, their behavior showed a fundamental lack of leadership.  What were they missing?  Their competence as swimmers was undeniable. In terms of swimming abilities they led the team, but although they were captains in name, they were not leaders of that team.

In 2007, West Point began awarding the Coach K Teaching Character Through Sports Award to cadet athletes and coaches. The award's namesake is Coach Mike Krzyzewski, West Point class of 1969 and Duke University head basketball coach. Click on this link to read the qualities that an athlete recipient of the Coach K award must display. There are qualities of Respect, Integrity, Sportsmanship, Responsibility, and Servant Leadership. Which qualities did these girls lack? Coach K Award Description

Brian Davis - Real World Example of Ethics in Action!

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:58:44 +0100

I was watching the last part of a golf tournament Sunday afternoon - the Heritage at Hilton Head Island and saw an example of ethics that really heartened me!

Two golfers, Jim Furyk and Brian Davis tied for the match and had to go into sudden death. In the first hole Davis (who has never won a PGA tourney) hit his second shot out of bounds to a very bad lie. He chose to play his third shot from there after much deliberation. (He could have dropped the ball somewhere else and taken a 1 stroke penalty.)

The ball was on the sand of a beach at the edge of a marsh surrounded by all sorts of reeds, weeds, etc. The shot was like a really, really hard bunker shot out of really hard sand.

Davis hit the shot and from the camera view behind him it was a pretty good shot, a little long, but on the green. As soon as he hit the shot, Davis went to the umpire. Turns out that as he drew his club back, he had bumped a small piece of a dried reed near his ball. No one had noticed and it was not noticeable on the camera view.

After much discussion and some slo-mo video reviews, yes, the reed had moved requiring a 2 stroke penalty and Davis lost the championship, taking 2nd place in the tourney.

Davis is reported as saying "I know I did it, and I couldn't live with myself if I didn't (call the penalty)."

Meaning Well is Not the Same as Doing Well

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:25:53 +0100

How many times have you said to yourself "I meant to..."

"I meant to.... tell that person how much they are valued and appreciated......I meant to....return that $5 that I borrowed from a friend two months ago....I meant to....pitch in and help with the big project...I meant to ...

"We tend to judge ourselves by our intentions and judge others by their behaviour. This belief means that we are often blind to our behaviours, dismissing its impact on others as a mere misunderstanding. After all, we understand our intentions and they are for good! However, those who observe our behaviours have no such insight." - George Ambler The Practice of Leadership

We think of character as something internal - something wholly within a person - but the impact of a person's character is external. Above all, your actions determine the kind of person you are and the kind of leader you are.

Meaning to means you didn't.

Commercialized Values

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:44:50 +0100

I recently saw a commercial that showed a basketball player in the championship game give up possession of the ball by calling attention to the fact that he was the last to touch the ball before it went out of bounds. The ref didn't see it and was giving possession to the player's team, but this boy told his coach that he touched the ball last. Much to the frustration of the rest of his teammates, he insisted until the the call was reversed. The coach backed him up.

My immediate reaction was "This is great! With all the value-compromising images we see on TV, how refreshing to see a commercial that promotes choosing the harder right over the easier wrong."

I went in search of the commercial to post on this blog and discovered a lot of people on the web don't share my opinion.

The individual who posted the commercial to You Tube characterized the commercial thus:

A Preposterous commercial, which aired in the winter of 2009-2010. It portrays an alternative universe where referees will undermine their authority and defer judgment to a player as long as that player is acting in an illogical and self-destructive manner, which is something they are expected to do.

It also created quite the response on the Inside Hoops Message board:

It's a difference between good sportsmanship and being an idiot. It's the championship game!

And on the MetaFilter Community Board there was a huge back and forth between some who find these types of commercials as pushy and subversive and those who think as I do that they are refreshing:

It's not that the values expressed are bad, but historically, appealing to simple pushy virtues has been very much a feature of Fascism.

Virtues are things that most of us usually don't have enough of, but should have more of, and one way to teach people to be more virtuous than they are is show them images of people whose virtue is inspiring.

So what about you? What is your reaction to this commercial?

Faking Perfection

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:10:47 +0100

On the Responsibility Project blog, Kathy McManus introduces an intriguing question on whether the wave of air-brushed, photoshopped, lip-synched, perfect performances of Kelly Clarkson, Jennifer Hudson, and Yo Yo Ma are a new form of responsibility.

The editor of the magazine that featured a photoshopped Kelly Clarkson on the cover insisted that a magazine cover needs to be perfect and reflect "the essence of you at your best." The producer of Jennifer Hudson's lip-synched performance of the Star Spangled Banner during The Super Bowl said "It's the right way to do it." "...the slightest glitch would devastate the performance." And the pre-recorded performance of Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman during President Obama's inauguration was justified by the performers because "This occasion's got to be perfect."

In essence they are saying that these performers have a responsibility to be perfect. It is imperative that they not make a mistake and therefore must fake their performance.

Is perfection a responsibility? Is perfection something to admire? How about faked perfection? Do any situations warrant tricks to keep up appearances?

Minnesota's Future...

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:11:48 +0100

This video created by The Center For Academic Excellence who are also responsible for the Minnesota Schools of Character (MNSOC) awards program.

Well worth your time, consideration, and action.

Be a Tiger?

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:04:30 +0100

What is the most important thing about the recent revelations of Tiger Woods and his infidelities?

It is how we respond to them.

ProEthics points out In their blog Ethics Alarms, that there is a big danger letting Tiger Woods off the hook too easily. (see the entire post here: http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/12/06/tiger-woods-ethics-part-ii-yes-it-matters/

If society wants to be civilized and to provide a stable structure for children to grow and thrive, it must not accept Woods-style misconduct with a giggle and a “boys will be boys.” Or “superstars will be superstars.”

The blog also dismisses the faulty argument that "everyone does it" by pointing out the often forgotten fact that Everyone DOESN'T do it.

Sure, it can be difficult avoiding temptation. Doing the right thing is often difficult; if it were easy, we wouldn’t admire the ethical people among us. Doing the right thing is also important. It matters in the context of creating and maintaining a good and functional society. When someone as prominent and popular as Tiger Woods violates such vital societal values, we cannot just shrug it away. It matters.

Why do some people want to shrug this away?

Is it because by holding Tiger Woods to a lower standard, they can hold themselves to a similarly low standard?