A634.4.4.RB - Shuck, Allison

Is Affirmative Action Ethical

The question has been asked, is affirmative action ethical? The answer to that question, we must define what affirmative action is. Affirmative action is the process of securing racial diversity within educational institutions, organizations and government associations. Affirmative Action was created to help prevent discriminations against minorities, females, and/or persons with disabilities. Many people believe that affirmative action as a good thing, but is it really?

According to Burns & Schapper (2008) Affirmative Action confirms that the racial and gender biases of the past are still present today. However, I feel that the table has turned. What once use to be common is no longer common anymore. Let me explain! In the past, blacks, both males and females as well as, white females did not have very many rights, so by default most privileges were given to white males. However, that is not the case today. If a white male and a black female apply for the same job, both that of which are qualified, the job will most likely be given to the black female. Why you might ask, because black females are the minority.

So my question to you is, is affirmative action morally ethical? In the world today, many people believe that affirmative action really stand for ‘reverse discrimination’. Do you?  I personally think it does. I think that is wrong for any educational institution, organization or government association to discriminated or grant favoritism to one person over another based on his or her race or gender. We all claim to believe in equality and justice for all, but we neglect to live by that standard for.

Reference

Burns, P., & Schapper, J. (2008). The ethical case for affirmative action. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 369-379. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9625-8

A634.3.5.RB - Shuck, Allison

After reading the article The Harder They Fall by Kramer (2003) I realized that the only way to completely understand the mistakes made by business leaders today is to outline the facts. More often than not, leaders demonstrate the “genius –to- folly syndrome – a swift and steady rise by a brilliant, hard-driving, politically adept individual followed by a surprising stint of miscalculation or recklessness” (Pg.60). So what does that mean exactly?  Personally, I think it means that those individuals who are driven by the pursuit of power change in a negative way once that power is obtained; then by no one’s fault but their own, they loses that power from making unethical decisions.

The winner-takes-all mentality is not all that it’s cracked up to be. It is a mindset for destruction! Many individuals believe that winning involves doing thing differently, breaking the rules. However, that is not the case! The winner-takes- all mindset can be very dangerous, especially when leaders develop contempt for those individuals who believe in following the rules. According to Kramer (2003), “the disdain for the rules puts risk-taking leaders on a very slippery slope”. Some leaders often get so distracted by winning that they continue to make the same rational decisions over and over again until they fall flat on their face.

Very few individuals who make it to the top know what it takes to get there and stay there. So how can you have it all? Well, for starters you should display a high degree of self awareness and develop a combination of psychological and behavioral habits to stay grounded. It is important to keep things simple; once you get to the top, continue doing what you have always done and don’t deviate. Own up to your mistakes and remember that you are human; you have flaws just like everyone else. Always dig deep to uncover the truth and prepare for the unexpected; you never know what life is going to through at you. Focus on the small stuff, look head and make predictions of what might go wrong. And, most of all, Become more mindful and reflective; understand what when wrong in the past will help you to build a more promising future. 

A634.2.4.RB - Shuck, Allison

A Tale of Two Theories

Consequentialism is a theory of reasoning that indicates how people make decisions. It employs that people are morally obligated to make a decision based on consequences. It assumes that people naturally choose an outcome that will produce the best consequence. However, when facing a moral decision, one must consider all those affected by the decision before making it. According to Lafollette (2007), consequentialism involves “considering the available actions, tracing the likely consequences of each for all affected, and then selecting the one with the best overall consequence”.  

Deontology is the theory of reasoning that helps us acquire and develop our moral beliefs. It involves evaluating the morality of a decision based its adaptation to the rules. It assumes that our moral obligations, whatever those may be, are defined by rules but are partly independent from consequences. Meaning that are decisions are based on guidelines but the consequences of our decision vary depending on the situation. Lets evaluate, as a child you learned the importance on not telling a lie; if you were caught telling a lie, there would be serious consequences. Well the theory of deontology implies that in certain situations one must do what is morally right even when the consequences are not in our favor. For example, when your wife asks you “does this dress make me look fat”, as her husband, you are morally obligated to tell her the truth, even if you know the consequences will be negative. According to Lafollette (2007), deontologist think rules or principles are important independently of consequences, they disagree about which actions are right (or wrong) and just how right (or wrong) they are. 

A634.1.6.RB - Shuck, Allison

The Buck Stops and Starts With You

So many people in the world believe that management education has contributed to the systematic failure of leadership, and I believe they are right! Why, you might ask, because business schools today fail to teach their students about values and ethics. According to Podolny (2009), “people have come to believe that business schools are harmful to society, fostering selfinterested, unethical, and even illegal behavior by their graduates”.

So how can we fix this problem? The first step in reducing the misconception of management education is for business schools to show society that they have the same values.  To do this, businesses schools must start by re-evaluate the courses required for management education. Although the concept management education involves looking at the big picture, business schools need to start teaching their students the ideology of ethics; defining how minor details fit within the big picture.

 In addition, business schools need to start hiring teachers with management experience. Teachers need to be able to give their students a holistic understanding of business problems and solutions. This will help business schools expand their current curriculum and encouraging qualitative research on leadership values and ethics.

Furthermore, business schools need to stop competing on rankings and communicate the real reason behind obtaining a degree in management.  Although a person with a degree in management may make a lot of money that should not be the reason for obtaining the degree. Business schools need to teach their students the value behind the degree and how it can be used to make a positive impact in the world.

Lastly business schools should implement a code of conduct, much like that of doctors and lawyers. The code of conduct would be used as a way to regulate unethical decisions made by graduate students. Thus, any graduate who breaks the code could potentially have his or her degree revoked.