A634.4.4.RB_McNerneyLeighAnn

My opinion on affirmative action is that it is an outdated system that instead of accomplishing what it truly was set out to accomplish it is instead creating more complications and challenges with aversive resolutions. In the news you cannot escape the debates on race, gender, religion, or national origin discrimination because we are a melting pot nation on which we welcome everyone to come and enjoy the privileges of being a free American citizen. We are the home of the free and land of the brave (supposedly) except most of us grew up with traditional habits that are continuingly reinforced by outdated reinforcements. On any given application whether it be an application for college or a job the question of race is asked. Why is race even a consideration on whether someone is qualified to perform the job? Another questions is male or female, why is this an issue aren’t we all supposedly equals?

We are not treated as equals because we have not learned how to treat people as equals, we have instead been taught to treat others differently according to the person’s race, religion, gender, national origin etc. These are not relevant issues when it comes down to performing the responsibilities, instead what it comes down to are the person’s qualifications, skills, ethics, values etc. I would make a wager to say that a university would much rather accept a student with ethics and values then one who lacks a moral compass because the ethical student would be less likely to cheat on an exam regardless of the color of their skin. This brings me to another issue who is to say that color can be black or white? We are a combination of colors and national origins this is not the 1800s.  We are in the Millennium of mixed races, cultures and this is the issue with affirmative action. I personally do not consider myself as white because the color of my skin is more of a beige, and I am a mutt culture so to say, meaning I am Irish, German, Norwegian, English and who knows what else. I cannot trace my roots to one single country. I am instead an American.

Recently in the news I found a story on a ‘white’ girl named Abigail Noel Fisher who filed a lawsuit challenging her rejection from acceptance at the University of Texas. She was not accepted into the University, although she felt she was qualified, because she was not in the top 10% at her high school. She was instead ranked in the 12% so this put her application in a holistic review pile in which many factors are considered in determining the acceptance, race being one of them. Abigail went on to graduate from another college, but the issue she had with the university was never resolved because she felt that other classmates with less qualified applications were being accepted and the only difference between her and them was the color of her skin.

At this time the Supreme Court has sent the suit to be reviewed by lower courts, but from what I have read I have my own opinion on whether or not she should win, and that would be a no. I don’t feel as though she should win because all that would do is reinforce the idea of race being the issue as to why the university did not accept her. I do agree she was overlooked probably because of her race; however that may not have been the only factor so it cannot be determined 100%. I am happy the issue was brought to light as I feel the affirmative action regulations needs to be eliminated completely.

Affirmative action was developed for all the wrong reasons, it was a way to “correct past discriminatory policies by ensuring groups are treated fairly” (Bell, 1995). I agree the way in which African Americans were treated was absolutely horrendous, however I do not know one living person today that treated them unfairly because that population is dying out. If none of us living have been the actual accusers why are we still paying the toll and reliving past mistakes? We obviously as a society have moved more towards an diverse population, we have a black president. This does not say all people have the same beliefs but as usual majority rules.

The true issues on discrimination do not involve just blacks its everyone Muslims, Indians, Mexicans, Gays, women etc. no one can escape the prejudices that have happened and continue to occur. If we are a nation paying our debts to African Americans then why is it fair they can have television networks specifically designed only for African Americans? BET Black Entertainment Television for example is appalling to me! If I as a white person wanted to start WET White Entertainment Television I would be targeted as a racist and it would be denied and I would face backlashes. Why is this fair? My issue is not a black and white thing it’s a everyone thing if we keep pointing out the differences in everyone instead of empowering the abilities, skills, education, accomplishments, openness, awareness, and every other desirable quality within a human being then we will always have the need for affirmative action.

Affirmative action does have good qualities in that it provides minorities with a chance to go above and beyond with additional opportunities not given to them in the hand of life they were dealt. It also creates diversity among colleges and work environments, which is a necessity today. Affirmative action does make it known that we are trying to make up for past mistakes by making sure to prevent them from reoccurring again in the future, but is this actually a negative? Affirmative action fails to give equal opportunity to all deserving students. For example if a black and Hispanic are qualified for the same position at work, but the Hispanic culture is a minority at a certain establishment does that mean a black person will be overlooked because they want the Hispanic culture to have equal numbers?  In this situation what should have been considered was the abilities of the individual not the color or culture backgrounds.

As a woman I fall within a minority and I also have been proclaimed a victim of past discriminations so the affirmative action is supposed to be beneficial to me; however it hasn’t changed anything. Just within this Module we learned about woman being paid less, having less opportunities and receiving more backlash for our different ways in which we lead. I am sure that without affirmative action we would not be where we are today, but it needs to be reevaluated now. Affirmative action can be viewed as more of a crutch for some people to have in order to obtain a job position or get accepted into a desired university. It has not decreased stereotypes but increased them. People use it against others to make them feel inadequate and it also insults minorities proclaiming it’s the only way in which they could successfully obtain the job or college position. It has created a reverse discrimination “whites are being penalized at the expense of some of the affirmative action programs” (Bell, 1995). 

We as Americans need to eliminate our narrow-minded views and habits of filtering out people based on things they cannot control. We need to eliminate applications asking about race, gender, national original, culture or anything else that is irrelevant and begin empowering all human races to go above and beyond what is expected. We are only different on the out surfaces we are all made up of the same ingredients on the inside. Its time we start measuring someone by their abilities and not their color.

References

Bell, A. (1995, Feb 17). Lawmaker seeks to end affirmative action programs. The Patriot. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/273208934?accountid=27203

www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/us/affirmative-action-profile

A634.3.5.RB_McNerneyLeighAnn

After reading the article The Harder They Fall by Roderick M. Kramer I was not surprised in many of the pitfalls of these once successful leaders that fell from grace. In the article Kramers begins by stating that “in the 1990s, our society seemed to have a fetish for aggressive chiefs like Enron’s Kenneth Lay, Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski, and WorldCom’s Bernard Ebbers” what this shows is the errors of our ways from the very beginning. At the time we were enabling these ruthless tactics by empowering negative behaviors and encouraging the winner-takes-all mindsets as what to strive for to become a master of the universe. Somewhere along the way it was deemed ethical and acceptable for Americans to be bullied into cooperating with these leaders because they seem to have it all. These leaders were examples/role models for future leaders attending business schools all over the world. Ivy League professors were asking these students to mimic this behavior, which continued to reinforce the negative behavior, which in return only fed it.

Somewhere along the way rule breaking became the norm and it appears it is still the norm as throughout the article present day leaders find the rule followers as weak. In the article Kramer identifies that “many players in winner-take-all markets believe that getting ahead means doing things differently from ordinary people-for instance, finding a back door to success that others have not been smart enough to spot”. The idea alone that someone is not smart enough implies following the rules and paying one’s dues to society by working their way to the top means they are insufficient and less equip to lead once they reach the top. I disagree with this because I believe the leaders working from the bottom to the top usually have better relations and an understanding of what all employees within the organization are going through and this understanding develops a more trusting relationship for them to have going forward. No one is happier when the nice guy finishes last because he is the one everyone helped along the way to obtain the winner spot. Although this isn’t always true in every situation I believe the personal skills developed through experiences in many difficult situations help make a better-rounded individual, which help better develop them into the leader they will become.

I have come to the conclusion in life that sometimes ethics are overlooked because someone might value what another person’s opinion is over their well-being so they will shy away from doing the right thing in order to remain in good standings with the other person. Doing the right thing all the time is impossible for many people because they fail to weigh out the consequences correctly and priorities are configured depending upon the person’s wants, needs and so on. If someone has a priority to become successful businesswoman then any situation that could delay him or her from reaching a level of success will be deemed less important or a rule could be broken so that they can succeed.  In the article Kramers tells the story of a mother who willingly gave her child up to the father in order to become a successful businesswoman. These life sacrifices in what he calls “winners-take-all” people are taking a toll on their consciousness as well as when they reflect back on what they sacrificed to get where they are. In the article he states, “ Winner-take-all markets creates players who suffer from a winner-wants-all mindset. These winners elite performers expect everything – but often end up with nothing”. This couldn’t be more accurate. In any movie I have seen where there is a successful businessman who sacrifices a family or the girl he loved to become successful usually ends up alone and lonely; thus the moral of the story is the sacrifices made were not worth it in the end.

In my life I was in a relationship with a winner-want-all individual. He was starting his own business and throughout our 10-year relationship I was always told I was second to his success. I assumed what he meant was I had to take a back seat while he worked to start his business and wants he was successful he would be able to get back to how we were originally. He started the business right after graduating high school in 2002 and from 2002 until 2008 he treated me like I was invisible. He expected me to go with him to all of his events and wait patiently alone while he networked, which I did willingly. He was against me going to school and any other ideas I had for myself because he was starting to make a lot of money with no college education, so this meant that all degrees were useless.

After 5 long years of being stood up, walked on, talked to like an idiot, and treated with little appreciation for my dedication to being a supportive fiancé, working a fulltime job, attend and graduate college and support all of his endeavors I finally decided it was time for me to go on without him. When I broke off our engagement he was shocked which almost made me laugh out loud. He begged for my forgiveness and began buying me some of the lavish gifts he had been buying for himself, but nothing could fill the lack of respect, love and support I needed and wanted. Looking back I realized how I was caught up in the lifestyle of success and how the lavish lifestyle (at the time considered necessities) was only buying me time to delay the inevitable.

No one wants to be belittled and disrespected even if someone is buying them lavish gifts and treating them with a taste of the wanted life. People want to feel empowered, supported, respected, trust, loyalty and be considered in the overall plan of whatever the relationship is involved in whether it be a spouse or coworker and this is what I feel these leaders that failed lacked. They became accustomed to the lavish life and the sense of entitlement became overwhelming. Suddenly it was expected for people to go the extra mile and was no loner appreciated. People turned on these leaders because in this they found justification.

References

Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

A634.2.4.RB_McNerneyLeighAnn

Consequentialism and Deontology are two very confusing styles of reasoning in my opinion because “one focuses on the consequences of our actions and the other focuses on the rules or principles we should follow independently of consequences” (LaFollette (2007). I have a hard time wrapping my mind around each independently because I feel every scenario is different therefore when making a decision of reason how can you decide to be one or the other? It must be a combination of the two as well as the individual’s free will in which they decide based on what makes them happy. It is impossible to say everyone has the same motives and finds happiness in the same things. There are some similarities though in that people are happy when they have food to eat, a shelter to cover their heads and are able to satisfy a human’s basic needs to be alive.

Everyone in the world has these similar interests that gratify them, however it’s when you divulge on the individual’s character and morals then it can be assumed that we across the globe are 100% different. In the news a couple months ago I heard about a Muslim woman who was raped by a neighbor and her father wanted to have her killed. In my culture in the United States this act is morally corrupt and the assaulter as well as the father would be tried in a federal court for their wrong doings. In their country however it was acceptable. The point of this story is that morally we all have very different values and define happiness in many different ways. Ted Bundy found pleasure raping and murdering woman, but I find happiness in being compassionate and helping others. Our happiness is on opposite sides of a spectrum. He is sick and I am a good person. Who defines this? Me. The difference is our definition of happiness and what makes us happy, and further we should think about how we developed into thinking that these actions make us happy. So in essence consequences and rules or principles will be individually defined.

Judging what is right and what is wrong is clearly easy because the human population agrees they personally do not want to be killed for another person to find happiness so we as a population can see Ted Bundy’s behavior as wrong.

Looking at the two theories I can see how each of them play a role in the world we live in today. LaFollette defines consequentialism as “we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (p23). So the overall purpose of acting consequentialist is to select the best overall consequences and this is how one would reason out the best decisions to make. This theory suggests one must specify the following (a) which consequences are morally relevant, (b) how much weight we should give them and (c) how, precisely, we should use them in moral reasoning. (LaFollette (2007). We must decide which of the consequences that could happened matter to us, then we can determine how much weight each of the consequences have in the overall decision and then we can decide how to decide. Moreover, “the theory of moral evaluation according to which the moral quality of any action, intention, motive, character trait, or policy depends solely on its consequences” (Mason, S. A. (2012).

In The Practice of Ethics, LaFollette goes further to distinguish two different strategies consequentialists utilize in reasoning and they are act utilitarian and rule utilitarian. Act utilitarian’s follow “rules of thumb” in which these people should decide, in each case, which alternatives will be more likely to promote greatest happiness in the greatest number. So using the rules of thumb will create some guidelines on what to do in similar less difficult scenarios, and in doing this you will maximize the greatest happiness. A rule utilitarian is similar in that one will make moral decisions on a case by case basis, but they will also “deny moral rules of thumb and instead contend that rules specify what we should do morally”. Although in some instances telling a white lie can have an impact on someone from dying in the scenario of a car crash, the rule utilitarian will disagree that the white lie although could save someone is morally corrupt.

LaFollette further goes into identifying utilitarianism in which he describes “ a conscientious utilitarian must be disinterested: she should not let personal interests distort her moral judgment. She must also be benevolent: she must care about others’ interests.” None of these seem plausible to me because no two people define happiness in the same ways. How can one truly be unbiased and not let personal interests distort their judgment? Every person on earth is seeking happiness of some kind so when we are making any decisions, regardless of their impacts, we are making them based off of our character, values, beliefs, basic needs, and so on. It is impossible to be unbiased because being biased is who we are and it is derived by our human interactions, religious beliefs, personal experiences and motives.

Deontology is defined “by the rules, partly independently of consequences”. In essence a consequentialist believes rules play no role in making moral decisions where a deontologist believe rules of what not to do play a major role in making moral decisions. This theory plays on the authoritative persuasions we each had growing up. Everyone is taught what is bad and what he or she should not do within their environment, and this is how deontologist develops what is morally acceptable. They decide in avoiding these negative behaviors they are acting morally. “In moral reasoning, the principle that decisions and actions are properly made according to fundamental moral principles. This position is typically contrasted with consequentialism, where decisions are based on the outcomes. To see the distinction consider what the truly moral action should be if a runaway train is about to kill five people walking on the tracks but you can throw a switch to send it to another spur where there is only one person who would be killed” (http://www.credoreference.com).  

In conclusion each of these theories can be applied to an individual deciding to act morally. Will they choose a consequentialist route or a deontologist route? Or will they simply act with free will? Free will is in every human being and it is the ability to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. It is inevitably a person’s choice to make a decision and how to make it. We want to satisfy our desires and happiness whatever that may be. We are all born with the same internal organs and a brain that is constructed to believe or disagree with certain beliefs. It is how we are shaped from birth and different factors that are involved; such as a mental disorder, that determine our free will. No one is going to be able to be one or the other they are simply going to be and decide to be based off of outside forces. If I were a healthy woman living in a stable home I would think cannibalism is a morally corrupt idea, and the thought alone would make me uncomfortable. However, put me on an island stranded and I may think in state of chaos and my human needs being affected it was okay to maybe eat another person because I am more focused on staying alive. 

References:

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

Mason, S. A. (2012). Consequentialism. Choice, 49(12), 2293-2293. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1032975655?accountid=27203

http://www.credoreference.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/entry/penguinpsyc/deontology

A634.1.6.RB_McNerneyLeighAnn

After reading the Podolny (2009) articles as well as many others including out textbook I feel that teaching ethics in business school is a mandatory requirement. Learning ethics needs to be a continuation of teachings throughout life throughout education as well as experiences in a professional environment. As a kid everyone begins to understand what is right and what is wrong because their parent advises them. Then as we mature and we continue on through elementary school, middle school and high school we are equip with enough ethical skills to go out into the real world known as college for most. Now why would anyone think it was okay for these critical life skills be terminated?

College is where young adults develop into adults that will one day replace our current executives and this is why ethics must be a requirement in college classes. In college students should begin to apply right and wrong to real world scenarios where people’s wellbeing is on the line and they have the power to decide what to do. These classes should start in freshman year to begin the learning process of how to make ethical decisions that pertain to a professional career. Not everyone knows how to think ethically from a professional point of view; however in teaching these skills in college people can start to develop the skills necessary to go on and become successful individuals.  

In the Podolny (2009) article the author states that “business schools are a apart of the problem and not the solution and the only way for them to improve is to reinvent themselves. He then goes on to suggest a multipronged approach: curriculum changes that emphasize the integration of several disciplines and link analytics with ethics; team teaching that ropes in professors from different fields to give students a holistic approach to business issues, a broader definition of scholarships that can embrace the research practices of less-quantitative academic fields; an end to using rankings to market the effectiveness of schools’ MBA programs; and a willingness to rescind the degrees of individuals who act unethically in the workplace”. I feel these are all exceptional ideas and they will most definitely enhance a more holistic approach, which is why I have quoted the extremely large suggestions; however I feel there is more to add.

First off I want to add every single school needs ethics regardless of the degree program. Everyone must make ethical decisions that will ultimately effect others no matter what career path they choose, so specifically targeting just B schools is not going to be enough to make this world a more ethical place. Starting today business schools need to recognize why they art considered part of the problem. Becoming aware of this flaw will prepare them to accept the critics’ and then identify specifics ways to improve. If the existing professors can acknowledge why ethics needs to be included in their curriculum they will have made the first step. If the professors are not on board the messages will not be internalized because people can tell when someone does not truly believe in a lesson they are teaching, which will lead to the same type of behavior.

The next step is to make more “emphasis on teaching ethics in courses already established as well as adding new courses specifically designed to teach ethics” (Archer, R. (2004). Having ethical dilemmas included in the overall curriculum should be as important as teaching an accountant how to be an accountant. There needs to some dilemmas presented asking questions such as what if you knew your customer was embezzling millions would you turn them in? Well what if the customer was your father, or what if the customer was the only customer you had and in turning them in you would be out of a job, would you still turn them in? Being presented with these types of issues will help them realize how ethics will be a part of their lives, and so sharpening their skills will be a much-needed requirement. By bringing “ethics to the surface you make people more aware” which will help them “instill the importance of ethics in students” (Archer, R. (2004). These types of classes need to be taught all throughout undergraduate and into the graduate programs so that students can continue to educate themselves. Much like you would train for a job you need to train yourself how to be a better employee, family member, student, mentor and coach in order to be a well rounded leader. “Perhaps the most significant thing about the resolution of ethical dilemmas, which can run contrary to the problem solving mind of an engineer, is there is no formula that will deliver the ‘correct’ answer” (Ethical Dilemmas. (2003).

Thinking long term many of the mentors, role models and influential leaders of today are not in college and not going back so the next step is to make it known these leaders are ethical. This will allow the followers become more in tune to these types of behaviors and follow suit, which will enable the leaders to continue being more ethical. The circle will continue until everyone is on board and making this world a more ethical place. Different ways to increase ethics in leaders of today would be as follows:

·      Develop the people already working in the business world

·      Provide personal training

·      Coach them to reach their full potential

·      Let go of responsibilities

·      Encourage trust

·      Universal perspectives

·      Diversity

·      Team center tasks

·      Enable student/employees to relate to others

·      Train the students/employees than have them use the skills on other students/employees

·      “Ideas are shared, debated, analyzed and conclusions are drawn”

·      Feedback

·      Bridge the gap

(Prasanna Raman Note:, T. P. (1997, Jun 24)

If we can begin to retrain our current leaders of today we will better equip our leaders of tomorrow. Change is needed and it is needed now, lets do this!

References

Ethical dilemmas. (2003). Canadian Consulting Engineer, 44(7), 0-8. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/208735459?accountid=27203

Archer, R. (2004). Business schools refocusing on teaching ethics. Westchester County Business Journal, 43(46), 43-43. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/200342408?accountid=27203

Prasanna Raman Note:, T. P. (1997, Jun 24). A holistic approach in leadership programmes. New Straits Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/269130100?accountid=27203

Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 62-67.