MSLD 634 Module 2- Theories of Ethics

For this week’s module, LaFollette introduced us to two different categories of ethical theory that have different approaches on problem solving: consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism, as LaFollette (2007) defines is the way where ones choose the available action(s) with the best overall consequences, whereas deontology states that ones should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights (p. 22). The key difference is that consequentialism focuses more on results while deontology focuses on how to get to the results (Rudin, 2014).

Of the two categories, I consider myself more of a consequentialist since I personally believe that a thorough analysis (more details) is what makes decision-making more efficient. As LaFollette (2007) stated, consequentialists typically specify which consequences are morally relevant, how much “weight” or consideration we should give to those that count, and how precisely we should use them in moral reasoning (p. 23). An example I had was whether to determine if making regular phone calls (general information) to students was an ideal operation for my campus. If I chose to regularly call students, I know that students will be informed and will likely be happy to hear from us. However, considering the fact that most students are full-time employees, I worried that calling them about non-urgent information in the middle of work could be a distraction and may lead to negative consequences. With these and other thoughts in mind, I decided that calling regularly will likely not be the best choice for my campus, an instead decided to email the information to the students.

                As previously mentioned, deontology is the way where we act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights (LaFollette, 2007). A recent example of this is when I went over the Train Dilemma in last week’s blog post. One of the scenario asked whether I should push an elderly man to save five children on the tracks or not to push. At an instance, my immediate thought was to not push the elder because, I believe that all human life is sacred regardless of their gender, age, race, etc. While I make some decisions in this category, I personally worry if my moral beliefs do not align with what others think. In a hypothetical setting, if I chose not to sacrifice the elder despite sacrificing to save the young were considered a moral act for many, I’d likely face deep consequences for my action. With this in mind, I personally believe that deontology is a better approach when dealing with less complex situations (no large consequences).

References:

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

Rudin, S. (2014). Consequentialism, Deontology, Ethics, and Virtue. The Loop. Retrieved from http://www.theloopnewspaper.com/story/2014/03/29/local-news/consequentialism-deontology-ethics-and-virtue/416.html

MSLD 634 Module 1-The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

Whether it’s for personal or professional reasons, we make decisions every day. In most cases, we require little time to think over and determine the most effective choice(s). Decision-making however is not always easy: as not all choices can be good. For this week’s module, I had the opportunity to learn about the Train Dilemma. Developed by Phillippa Foot in 1967 and later adapted by Judith Thomson in 1985, the purpose of the experiment is to think through the consequences of an action and consider whether its moral value is determined solely by its outcome (D’Olimpio, 2016).

The Train Dilemma consist of a situation where a train is hurtling down a track where several children are standing. As a switchperson, we are involved in making a choice that involves unpleasant sacrifices. Below are three different situations of the Train Dilemma and how I will likely approach each situation:

Situation One:

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch?

In any crisis, our goal as humans is to save as many lives as possible. We see examples of this almost daily with local news stations: warning and helping citizen prepare for an upcoming hurricane to sending alerts of an active shooting. While making efforts is important, every case is different and we are sometimes unable to save every one. In this case, we see a train coming at full speed and only have a few seconds until the train hits someone. With the previous moral belief and hope that all children will make effort to escape, I’d likely turn the switch to the single child on the side railing since I’d lose one rather than five children if they were unable to escape on time.

Situation Two:

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson and standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train, it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

Unlike the last situation, we have an elderly man that’s currently at the scene, but not necessarily involved in the same danger the children are in (not on the tracks). If the scene has the exact set up as the last scenario, but with no one on the side rail, throwing the switch will be the most ideal choice. However based on the description of the scenario, this is likely not the case. Despite the fact that sacrificing an elder can save all the children, all human life is sacred regardless of their gender, age, race, etc. If I decided to sacrifice the elder despite this belief, people will likely view my actions as murder: which can pose lifetime complications than dealing with the fate of the children. As a result, I will not sacrifice the elder. Other reasons for this action include a belief that there may be a possibility of the elder failing to stop the train and the possibility of the elder making his own choice to sacrificing himself (the public will likely see this as an act of heroism rather than murder).

Situation Three:

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. However, this child is your own child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

               Despite believing that it’s important to save as many lives possible, this situation becomes excruciatingly difficult when you have a family member involved. As a result, the actions we make in such situations will likely be personal.  If all the children involved were far from reach (distance and time-wise), I’d honestly save my own child. However, still believing the importance of saving people, I’d likely throw the switch to ensure the five children will not get hurt, and try to save or sacrifice myself to save my child.

Although I listed the choices for each scenario, I’d honestly say that I can’t guarantee making ethical and efficient decisions despite knowing what I believe is right and wrong. The Train Dilemma reminded me of a mall stabbing incident that occurred earlier this year. Everything happened so fast- the moment I saw a large crowd of people running towards our direction, I didn’t know what was happening. Without realizing what was going on, I ran with the crowd despite being with my friend: who happened to be visiting the mall for the very first time that day. If I had the time and was in a more relax state, helping and escaping with my friend will be the more ideal choice. However, since fear shuts down the thinking process, I ended up making the less ethical choice (Dayton, n.d.).

References:

Dayton, T. (n.d.). Scared Stiff: The Biology of Fear. Tian Dayton Phd. Retrieved from http://www.tiandayton.com/scared-stiff-the-biology-of-fear

D’Olimpio, L. (2016). The trolley dilemma: would you kill one person to save five?. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-57111

MSLD 635 Module 8- Transformational Strategies

Throughout the leadership program, we’ve been constantly reminded how change is always constant. Because of this, organizations must stay proactive and adapt to any changes in order to survive (Obolensky, 2014). Leading and adapting to changes however is not always easy. One common reason why organizations fail to lead during change is because they approach change as a monolithic process (Anthony & Schwartz, 2017). As leaders, it is important to keep in mind that adapting to change consist of a multi-step process.

According to Brown (2011), company culture plays a large role: as it correlates to an array of things in an organization (p 406). Figure 15.4 shows and define what strong and weak cultures are:

To ensure organizations have strong company culture, there must be a strong commitment and share of company values. In addition, it is important for leaders to note that strong culture often times leads to higher resistance to change (Brown, 2011).

Another helpful tool to consider for organizational transformation is the Strategy-Culture Matrix:

Since company culture correlates to an array of areas within the organization, it is ideal to know the status of the company culture before implementing a strategy. Figure 15.5 shows the relationship between company culture and strategy: which can help leaders decide the most appropriate strategy for the company.

            For this week’s module we watched two videos that focused on transformational strategies. The first video consisted of a short interview with Gallery Furniture owner, Jim McIngvale. In the 31 years of his business, McIngvale dealt with two major issues. The first was a recession that lead to a decrease in new homes (which decreased customer traffic) and another was a $30 million fire that resulted in an 80% drop of the company (VitalSmarts, 2012). Due to these changes and continuing decline, McIngvale decided to take immediate actions.

Since McIngvale was aware of customers leaving the store without any purchase, he decided to train his employees on how to approach potential customers. Something that left me in awe was when McIngvale quoted that he had to “teach them (employees) to love what they hated” (VitalSmarts, 2013). This statement reminded of myself when advising students who disliked or wanted to avoid online classes. Since individuals who resist something mostly focus on the negatives, it is important to counter this by bringing out the positives (Brown, 2011). In McIngvale’s case, he showed his employees examples of successful people to bring out the message that they too can be successful if they implement the new strategy (VitalSmarts, 2013).

The second video for this week’s module was a TED talk by Stanley McChrystal titled, Listen, Learn….Then Lead. Throughout the talk, McChrystal shares what he learned about leadership in the military. He initially talked about how he was raised with the traditional styles of leadership, but in time, he realized how leadership styles have changed. In summary, he has learned the importance of relationships. One of my favorite quotation in the TED talk actually occurred in the end where McChrystal quotes, “If you're a leader, the people you've counted on will help you up. And if you're a leader, the people who count on you need you on your feet.” (McChrystal, 2011). Unlike the past, leadership has shifted from a traditional, “one-leads-all” to that of a polygarcy: where everyone has a leadership role (Obolensky, 2014). The key here is that everyone can learn from each other. While they’re not necessarily employees, an example that occurs in my organization is between me and students. As an advisor, it’s always important to remember that students actually have experiences in classes and other university resources. From this other perspective, I can gain new information: which can be used for future advisement.

References:

Anthony, S. & Schwartz, E. (2017). What the Best Transformational Leaders Do. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/05/what-the-best-transformational-leaders-do

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McChrystal, S. (2011). Stanley McChrystal: Listen, learn…then lead. TED. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). UK: Gower Publishing.

VitalSmarts. (2012). Influencer: Gallery Furniture Video Case Study [Video file]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E20RW75Fhu4