A634.6.3.RB_What are Virtues?_LouBeldotti

A634.6.3.RB

What are Virtues?

            Before this blog, I only thought that Benjamin Franklin had discovered electricity, invented the bi-focal, signed the Declaration of Independence, and is on the US 100 dollar bill.  I never thought of him as virtuous.  As a matter of fact, I experienced Mr. Franklin when I played Dr. Lyman Hall in the play “1776”.  His character constantly called for more rum as we deliberated the signing of this iconic document.  Being a drunk on a hot July day is not my idea of virtuous.

            Putting this aside, Mr. Franklin lists the following thirteen virtues:

Ben's 13 virtues

                      

1.         Temperance: Eat not to dullness. Drink not to elevation.

2.         Silence: Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself. Avoid trifling conversation.

3.         Order: Let all your things have their places. Let each part of your business have its time.

4.         Resolution: Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.

5.         Frugality: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself: i.e., Waste nothing.

6.         Industry: Lose no time. Be always employed in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary actions.

7.         Sincerity: Use no hurtful deceit. Think innocently and justly; and if you speak, speak accordingly.

8.         Justice: Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.

9.         Moderation: Avoid extremes. Forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

10.       Cleanliness: Tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes, or habitation.

11.       Tranquility: Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.

12.       Chastity: Rarely use venery but for health or offspring; never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.

13.       Humility: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

(Franklin, n.d.)

            So, am I virtuous?  I took the test…

How you measure up:

You're on the right path. Even though you made a few choices that didn't reflect Ben's plan for becoming more virtuous, overall you scored pretty well. Although Franklin gave up on his formal effort to be more virtuous, he devoted much of his life to self-improvement.

Here are some areas you might want to think about approaching differently:

Temperance:
As a young man, Ben tried not to drink too much. Maybe you should consider being the designated driver next time you go out partying.

Resolution:
Ben believed that resolutions were meant to be kept. You should consider a plan to better keep yours next New Year.

Cleanliness:
Ben wrote "tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes or habitation." You might benefit from spending more time cleaning on a regular basis.

Tranquility:
Ben didn't sweat the small stuff. Think about what's REALLY important to you in life, and worry less about the smaller annoyances.

(Franklin, n.d.)

            Number three is my mantra.  I believe everything has its place.  I am organized, to fault.  I actually notice when things are moved.  I’m not sure if this makes me virtuous.  I think that it makes me anal. 

            Number nine speaks to me.  I do everything in moderation.  I eat, drink, and play in moderation.  Well, sometimes.  I am a cook and love food.  I have a bad habit of making rich foods.  I have a habit of making strong cocktail.  However, I honestly do this in moderation.

            Finally…

            Number 10 is all me.  After almost 30 years in the Army, I am super clean.  Like Mr. Franklin states, “tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes or habitation”.  I shower, wash my clothes and clean my home religiously.  I revert back to being super anal.

References

Franklin, B. (n.d.). Ben’s 13 virtues. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html

Franklin, B. (n.d.). Virtue quiz. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/exp_virtue_results.html?a=234143444224

A634.5.4.RB_IsMarketingEvil_LouBeldotti

A634.5.4.RB

Is Marketing Evil?

            When I was a recruiter in the Army, marketing was a great part of my job.  Along with the Army’s National marketing campaign, each recruiter is a walking, talking Ad Campaign.  Unfortunately, due to the autonomy of the recruiters, some of the “marketing” was tailored to the amount of pressure the recruiter was under at the time.

            According to Dr. Marty Nemko (2017), “Marketers use many psychological ploys to make you buy what you shouldn’t.”  Nemko also goes on to say, “Yes, sometimes, marketing is a worthy activity. For example, marketing people can help a company develop a more useful product. Also, marketing can help potential customers learn about a new product that's worth considering.

            But more often, marketing attempts to manipulate you into spending on something that, if you considered all the relevant factors, you wouldn't spend on.”

            I will have to agree with Nemko.  It doesn’t help that I am an impulse buyer.  I am drawn to attractive packaging and labeling.  Also, if something is a novelty, I may potentially purchase it.  Most of these things that I would not have ordinarily purchased.  As a matter of fact, a few years ago I made an impulse purchase of a Chihuahua because of how they had they kennels staged.  These are just some of the tricks of marketing.  

            While attending Touro University International, I wrote a general assignment on this exact topic.  Other marketing ploys are “Loss-Leader Pricing” (think four gas stations at a four way intersection), “Staging” and “Impulse Racks” (think Walmart), “Demonstrators” (think Sam’s Club), and “Business Intelligence” (remember the last time you did a web search for a product and then went to another website and saw the exact thing you were searching for in an Ad Banner?).  Because of demonstrator at Sam’s Club I actually bought two bamboo pillow and I hate them.

            According to Dr. Linda Ferrell, Marketing ethics define acceptable conduct in the marketplace (Ferrell, n.d.).  She also states (Ferrell, n.d., pg. ETH-2), “There are many reasons to understand and develop the most effective approaches to manage marketing ethics.  All organizations face significant threats from ethical misconduct and illegal behavior from employees and managers on a daily basis.  Well-meaning marketers often devise schemes that appear legal but are so ethically flawed that they result in scandals and legal entanglements.” 

            Dr. Ferrell (Ferrell, n.d., pg. ETH-10) concludes, “One lesson that every marketing student should understand is that most companies will engage in some form of misconduct.  As Warren Buffet has stated, ‘we just hope it’s small and that we find it quickly.’  Because marketers engage in behaviors impacting many varied stakeholders, their potential to do harm and opportunity to have a very positive impact is great.” 

            With all of this said:

1. Do you feel ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers?  Corporate guidelines should be set.  However, sometimes the individual’s view of ethics run afoul.  Regardless, ethical guidelines do make a difference to marketers.  Having guidelines in place may not totally eradicate wrong doing but it certainly will slow it down.  Damage control is more manageable and it is easier to pinpoint what was done wrong. 

2. How can companies balance the need to win with being ethical?  As earlier stated, when I was an Army Recruiter, I witnessed unethical behavior often.  The pressure to fulfill a “quota” would cause some recruiters to either walk the thin gray line or step directly into the black to “win”.  The same goes for companies.  Their pressure comes from “the bottom line”, pleasing the C-Suite, and stockholders.  To balance the need to win with being ethical, a company must have stringent guidelines with firm consequences for violating them, hire ethical employees, provide a quality service or superior product, and monitor, monitor, monitor.  Most of this is pretty easy to accomplish.  However, how does a company hire quality people?  And what is an ethical employee?  According to Mark S. Putnam (Putnam, 2006), “an ethically balanced person has values, perspective, responsibility, and character.”  I think that the most import of these is values and character.  According to Putnam, “Values are the fundamental principles or rules when lived by make you "ethical" or not. You must have deeply-held core values that show themselves visibly in the everyday moral decisions you make.”  Values can be ascertained by the interviewer asking pointed questions.  Putnam also states about character, “There must be a genuine self-awareness of who you are at your very core. What do you believe is right or wrong? This is the real you behind the façades and outward appearances. Your character should not change with the circumstance but be a constant moral anchor.”  One can see the character of an individual by his or her actions and deeds.

3. Is it ethical to track your buying habits or web visits to target you for marketing purposes?  I see nothing wrong with it but some people are irritated by it.  It known as Business Intelligent (BI).  According to Margaret Rouse (Rouse, 2005 – 2017), “Business intelligence (BI) is a technology-driven process for analyzing data and presenting actionable information to help corporate executives, business managers and other end users make more informed business decisions. BI encompasses a wide variety of tools, applications and methodologies that enable organizations to collect data from internal systems and external sources, prepare it for analysis, develop and run queries against the data, and create reports, dashboards and data visualizations to make the analytical results available to corporate decision makers as well as operational workers.”  BI monitors the web pages that are visited, the products that have been clicked on, and more.  I say, just ignore the ad banners that will follow you.  It would be a good idea for an opt-out, however.

4. As a leader, how will you manage the ethical aspects of your marketing efforts?  I feel that I am a very ethical person.  In secondary education, there isn’t much need for marketing efforts.  If I ever go back into the public or private sector, I will definitely you the practices that I described in number two above.

References

Nemko, M. (2017, January 17). Marketing is Evil. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-do-life/201701/marketing-is-evil

Ferrell, L. (n.d.). Marketing ethics.  Retrieved from http://college.cengage.com/business/modules/marktngethics.pdf

Putnam, M. S. (2006).  Ethical balance.  Retrieved from http://www.globalethicsuniversity.com/articles/ethicalbalance.htm

Rouse, M. (2005 – 2017). Business intelligence (BI). Retrieved from http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com/definition/business-intelligence

A634.4.4.RB_IsAffirmativeActionEthical_LouBeldotti

A634.4.4.RB

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

                My definition.  Affirmative action is intentionally providing consideration and favors to those not in the majority of a society.  According to LaFollette (2007, pg. 87), “Affirmative action – the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women in hiring and school placement”.  Very similar.

            As a society, America has gone through many transitions over the course of its existence.  Those that we refer to as “Pilgrims” left Mother England because of religion in 1620.  They fought for freedom from the crown for over 156 years.  But their freedom did not mean freedom for others.  I say this because a year earlier in 1619, subjects of the crown brought twenty African slaves to Jamestown, VA to tend to the tobacco crop (History.com, n.d.).

            So, most believe that the slave trade began in the South.  However, New England was a hot bed for slavery twenty years before the Southern Colonies.  According to Cliff Odle (2015), “In 1620, the Pilgrims reached land in the new world and set up a colony. Plymouth, as they called it, would be their new home where they could worship freely, separate from the Church of England. Four years later, a gentleman by the name of Samuel Maverick arrived with two African slaves. Their arrival marked the beginning of a trade that would last more than two centuries, and challenge the meaning of freedom even after the trade was abolished.

            In 1643, the Puritan citizens of the Plymouth colony joined forces with the Massachusetts Bay Colony, The New Haven colony and the Connecticut colony to form the New England Confederation. One of the first articles in the confederation established guidelines to legalize the slave trade, placing Massachusetts among the first colonies to do so. It would be nearly twenty years before the first southern colony did the same.”

            With that said, the principle that this country was built on freedom.  On July 4, 1776, the original thirteen colonies ratified our Declaration of Independence (from England) which states (USHistory.org, 1776), “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Sadly, we did not view slaves as people but property.  They did not have certain unalienable Rights and were not entitles to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.    

            America has been a tempest in a tea cup since the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and the Civil Rights Act signed 101 years later in 1964.  Many people came to the realization that slavery was wrong.  Guilt set in.  The “sins” of our fathers needed to be corrected.  According to LaFollette (2007, pgs. 87-88), “Everyone except diehard racists now admit that systematic discrimination against blacks is wrong.  It was wrong to deprive people of jobs, housing, health, public benefits, and legal and civil rights merely because of their race.  Affirmative action, they claim, is wrong for the same reason: these programs discriminate against whites simply because of their race.  Two wrongs do not make a right.”

            I’m going to have to agree.  I believe that there should be absolute equality regardless of race, gender, sexual preference or religion.  Tossing a group a “bone” just because of these things or past treatment is just unethical.  Someone is adversely affected, no matter how you slice it.  The playing field needs to be leveled. 

References

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

History.com. (n.d.). SLAVERY IN AMERICA.  Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery

Odle, C. (2015). The Rise and Fall of the Slave Trade in Massachusetts Part I. Retrieved from https://www.thefreedomtrail.org/educational-resources/article-rise-and-fall-of-slave-trade-part1.shtml

USHistory.org. (1776, July 4). The Declaration of Independence.  Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/

A634.3.4.RB_The Harder They Fall_Lou Beldotti

A634.3.4.RB

The Harder They Fall

            Timber!  This is the call of the Lumberjack as the tree falls and make its rustling and thudding sound.  And the bigger the tree is, the harder it falls.  Just like trees are felled by the axe swing of the Lumberjack, so are Executives, CEOs, Business Leaders, and Politicians by their own folly.  And the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

            So, why does this happen?  According to Roderick M. Kramer (Kramer, pg. 58, 2003), “Throughout 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…Scandal set in, and these once feted and envied leaders found themselves falling hard and fast…Yet just when they appear to have it all, these A-list performers demonstrate uncharacteristic lapses in professional judgement or personal conduct.”  A definite “fall from grace”. 

            After a little internet research, I came across an article on Time Magazines (Time, 2016) online site listing the “Top 10 Crooked CEOs”.  They are:

• Bernard Madoff, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLS.  Plead guilty on March 12, 2009 to eleven charges of fraud.

•  Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, ENRON.  Convicted on May 25, 2006 of fraud.

• Dennis Kozlowski, Tyco International, LTD.  Convicted on June 17, 2005 of misappropriation of corporate funds.

• John Rigas, Adelphia Communications Corporation.  Convicted July 8, 2004 of bank, wire, and security fraud.

• Joe Nacchio, Qwest International.  Convicted on April 19, 2007 of insider trading.  Appeal pending.

• James McDermott, Jr., Keefe, Bruyette, and Woods.  Convicted April 27, 2010 of insider trading.

• Sam Waksal, ImClone. Convicted October 15, 2002 of security fraud, bank fraud, obstruction of justice, and perjury.

• Sam Israel, Bayou Group Hedge Fund.  Convicted of fraud in April 2008.

• Bernie Ebbers, WorldCom.  Convicted on March 15, 2005 of nine counts of conspiracy, securities fraud, and making false regulatory filings.

            All of these men were shining stars that rose to the top and then fell…and fell hard.  There seems to be an underlying theme with these ten…GREED.  With greater responsibility comes greater income.  The boys in their custom-made suits let money control them just like drugs control a drug addict.

            Greed affects many.  The once moral pastor stealing from his own congregation.  The dedicated employ embezzling from his or her company.  The investment banker stealing from his clients.  The mechanic performing unnecessary work on a car to pad the bill.   According to LaFollette (LaFollette, pg. 36, 2007), “The idea that inappropriate maxims are self-contradictory seems to work well for promises and lies.  It is doubtful that this could explain all moral judgments.  Moreover, although his [Kant] view capture the common idea that we must be leery of inclinations – since they often lead us to make exceptions in our own case – it is unclear why acting from inclinations is always devoid of moral worth.” 

            The top jobs and positions are few as Kramer describes.  Rising to the top takes a lot of hard work and dedication.  In some instances, there is only one winner who makes it.  According to Kramer (Kramer, pg. 60, 2003), “Researchers Robert Frank and Philip Cook have characterized such tournaments (vying for that one position) as ‘winner-take-all markets’ – a very few star performers generate most value and end up enjoying the lion’s share of the spoils…these winner-take-all markets creates players who suffer from a ‘winner-wants-all’ mind-set.  These elite performers expect everything – but often end up with nothing.”  This speaks directly to my “greed” comment.

            So, what about those leaders who do not fall from grace?  According to Kramer (Kramer, pg. 64, 2003), “They had different personalities and management styles, but they all seemed to retain a remarkable sense of proportion and displayed a high degree of self-awareness…I learned that each had developed a certain combination pf psychological and behavioral habits that helped them stay grounded.”  Some of these habits and traits were:

•         Keep your life simple.
• 
  
•         Hang a lantern on your foibles.
• 
  
•         Float trial balloons.
• 
  
•         Sweat the small stuff.
• 
  
•     Reflect more, not less.

(Kramer, pgs. 64, 66, 2003)

            As far of these type of dilemmas occurring in my life, I do my best to avoid them.  In all of my occupations (Army, Private Industry, and School Teaching), I was one of many.  Maybe that is what kept me out of hot water.

References

Kramer, R. M. (2003). THE HARDER THEY FALL. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

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

Time. (2016). Top 10 crooked CEOs. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1903155_1903156_1903160,00.html

A634.2.4.RB_Theories of Ethics_LouBeldotti

A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

(MyKomms.com, 2017)

In Chapter 2, LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your thoughts on these two theories.

            According to LaFollette, “Consequentialists claim that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences.  It is not difficult to see why this is an appealing theory.  It employs the same style of reasoning we use in making purely prudential (wise, self-interested) decisions” (LaFollette, pg. 23, 2007).

            As a child, I had to learn about consequences for good and bad behavior.  The consequences were taught to me by my parents and teachers.  I quickly learned through corporal punishment the consequences of my wrong actions like writing on the walls, cutting my brother’s hair or catching my mattress on fire with a hot plate.  I learned other consequences through trial and error like sticking a butter knife into an electrical outlet, eating my first hot pepper, and cutting my hand with a razor blade.  So, what about good consequences for good behavior?  As a child, being rewarded reinforced good behavior.  Doing household chores like cleaning my room was rewarded with a monetary allowance.  Getting good grades in school was also rewarded with money.  Did I learn about morals in these situations?  Not so much.  However, these were lessons that taught me right and wrong along with good or bad.

            So, do we make decisions regarding our behavior based on a determined value or weight of a consequence?  LaFollette believes so.  According to LaFollette, “The consequentialist needs to know not only which consequences count, but also how much each counts.  A consequences weight is the product of the nature of the interests it affects, the number of interests affected, and their respective probabilities” (LaFollette, pg. 26, 2007).  LaFollette also indicates that the nature of the consequence is a determining factor of the weight of the consequence. 

            My morals are pretty well established.  However, I can understand the importance of weight.  I know it is illegal to steal.  But if my children were starving and I had no money, I may consider stealing.  If I had plenty of money and still stole to feed my family, the weight would be different even though the consequences would still be the same but my moral deliberation would be completely different.  In both situations, my family would be fed and happier.  LaFollette describes this as “Utilitarianism”.  However, the consequences of my actions would then cause unhappiness if I were sent to jail…like a double edge sword.  But does the end really justify the means?  It depends on the situation in my opinion. 

            Now back to my childhood.  As most children do, I lived in a world of “don’t do this” and “don’t do that”.  “Don’t run with scissors…you might put an eye out!”, “Don’t sit too close to the TV, it will ruin your eye sight!”, “Don’t eat too much or you’ll bet a belly ache!”, “Candy will rot your teeth!”, “Coffee will stunt your growth!”, “Don’t touch that!”.  So, if I ate candy, was I being immoral?  I thought so, plus I didn’t want to make Mommy and Daddy mad or have rotten teeth.  LaFollette describes this as “Deontology” (LaFollette, pg. 24, 2007). 

            I found consequentialism and deontology slightly similar…both have their nucleus as the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong.  However, LaFollette states, “Many consequentialists think their theory also permits – or even requires – moral rules: it is generally better if everyone follows the same rules than if they decide for themselves what is moral…Deontologist contend there are strict moral limits on what we can do to others.  Consequentialists do not.  That is the source of the most common objection to consequentialism: that if we consider only consequences, then we will eventually – and perhaps often – act immorally (LaFollette, pg. 24, 2007)”.

            At the end of the day, morality takes center stage.  However, I believe morality is subjective.  This is based on where we are from and who we are raised by regardless of age. 

            Enjoy this argument!

References

MyKomms.com. (2017). Consequentialism vs. deontology. Retrieved from https://www.mykomms.com/university/part-detail/consequentialist-or-deontological-justification~53wcDXK7qMSFQC0_p3Bj_Aq0oESxDN2EHWFFNq5UxhM?level=

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