A634.9.4.RB_LeeDarrell - A Reflection of Our Learning

I always breathe a little sigh of relief when we hit the last week of a class. This time, it was a HUGE sigh of relief. The workload was quite a bit higher than my other classes have been. I spent about 20 hours a week on this course. To put that in perspective, the EMBA program at Yale admonishes prospective students to be prepared to dedicate 25 hours per week which includes classroom time. (Perhaps others don’t require the same investment of time for the course but that is what I required to do an adequate amount of research to actually learn the material to meet the objectives and not just bluff my way through it as that would not help with practical application.) Understanding that I invested that amount of time into it and knowing the levels of frustration that I often faced, the question is – was it worth it? What did I get out of it? I feel that the value was 100% worth the cost.

The first main takeaway from the course was learning about the primary theories of ethics. We can break everything down into two primary categories – consequentialism and deontology. “Consequentialists argue that we should act in ways that produce the best consequences” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 23). On the other hand, “deontology states that we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and that these rules and rights are at least partly independent of consequences” (p. 22). Loosely put, a consequentialist looks at the big picture and bases ethical decisions on the effects of actions. Though this sounds wonderful in theory as you can argue that your actions serve the greater good, purse consequentialism is disastrous. Think George Orwell’s “1984”. Yep. Two plus two make three because it’s good for the people. Doublethink, I know. Really, though, consequentialist ethical decision-making has led to some of the most heinous acts in history to include genocide. Deontologists, on the other hand, act based on the principle of the matter regardless of the cost. Though it might seem appealing to take the morally high ground, the cost can be unthinkable at times. Many a Lifetime movie script involves repairing relationships broken by deontologists. Simply understanding the difference in the two and knowing how we base our own ethical decisions may help us to know when to give a little and when to take a little.

The second takeaway from this course for me was learning that ethics are morality aren’t necessarily easy and we may be obligated to be morally “superior” to others in our spheres of contact (LaFollette, 2007). We may want to stomp our feet and say, “well, that isn’t FAIR that I am held to a different standard” but the fact is that variables such as our age, level of education, level of ability, and even the timeframe may alter our moral obligations. As an example of that, I am a member of the New York Athletic Club which is a private athletic and social club. It’s a suit and tie kind of place and the membership rolls include people such as Governor Pataki, Rudolph Giuliani, GEN Petraeus, and many high-level executives and old rich people…and me. (They are very pro-military so I am one of their charity cases, I guess.) As one that it outspoken for equality, I often find myself at odds with some very influential people. However, we are not all held to the same standard. When they began their careers, society had not embraced women in leadership roles like it has now. They are not immoral just because they are of that older generation. Likewise, it is probably a little more morally acceptable for me to over-indulge in the libations than it is for the CFO of Oppenheimer who tends to hang out on Wednesday evenings there. This rationale is why I get so angry today that all of these old monuments to leaders of the Confederacy are being removed. It is like our history is being erased! What’s next? Removing George Washington from the dollar bill because he was a slave owner? It was a different time. They had a different understanding! These great leaders were not any more immoral than Martin Luther King, Jr! Why are we erasing them from history? If we do that to them, will future generations do that to us? Think about it. What we know to be right today may be very wrong tomorrow.

My last and most powerful takeaway from this course has been incorporated in discussion after discussion with me. It was something that caught me so incredibly off guard that it completely changed the way that I view just about everything, especially in the political realm. (Maybe I shouldn’t say that it changed the way that I viewed things so much as helped me understand why I had already begun to view them differently.) Morality is not relative but our ethics are (LaFollette, 2007). Our ethics are based on the situations in which we find ourselves and therefore are based on facts and not opinions. For someone right leaning, their political views are based on facts. For someone left leaning, their political views are based on facts. However, again, the morality itself is not relative. This explains the polarization for some of the hottest issues. Take abortion for example. 100% of people agree that murder is wrong. If pro-lifers like myself are right in that abortion is murder, how can anybody be pro-choice? Because our ethics are relative, for someone that is pro-choice, abortion is not murder. (By the way, I don’t get how you can be pro-life and support the death penalty. It seems that pro-life is a deontological view as a consequentialist would see the effects of having a child in the wrong situation. However, being pro-death penalty is more of a consequentialist thing so how can you be a deontologist in one situation and a consequentialist in another? Things that make you go “hmmm”.) The bottom line is that when we understand that the ethical views of others are based on the facts of their lives, maybe it helps us to be a little more empathetic which can probably help us work together just a little more, don’t you think?

Again, was this class worth it? Yes. It absolutely was. Knowledge is the first step toward practical application.

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

A634.8.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Gun Control: What is the Answer?

Often, we become so entrenched with our own beliefs based on the values that we hold that we unable to even entertain contrary ideas. We draw a line in the sand and take our stand. It is okay to vehemently defend our beliefs. In fact, by defending our beliefs, we are able to better support and refine them so that they are more relevant to our lives (LaFollette, 2007). What I absolutely love about studying ethics in this class is that it helps me to open my mind and see that my views are not the only relevant views. I am able to better empathize with those that hold different beliefs and I realize that it has nothing to do with morality but rather the individual situations in which people find themselves. One such issue is on gun control.

For as long as I can remember, I have been around guns. I was taught when I was a child how to handle both rifles and handguns. Though never a fan of hunting – I can’t stand the thought of harming an animal (though I am not a vegetarian) – I have always been a strong advocate of firearms and the 2^nd Amendment. To me, this has never been an issue of ethics but rather an issue of rights. Like I said, though, studying ethics has really opened my mind to the other side of just about every argument, including this one.

When we consider rights, there are actually different kinds of rights. Now this took me a minute to understand but it actually makes sense. Though the 2^nd Amendment is in the U.S. Constitution, it isn’t a fundamental right. “A fundamental right is non-derivative right protecting a fundamental interest. Not every interest we individually cherish is fundamental” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 180). In other words, just because something is in my best interest and is cherished by me, it may not be in the best interest of all. Another polarizing heated debate that illustrates this is with healthcare. Though affordable healthcare is important and is of great interest to a large portion of our society, it is not of as great importance to those that are adequately insured. Considering gun control, we can see a clear difference (or at least a generally clear difference) in the fundamental interests for those in rural areas versus those in urban areas (Blocher, 2013). In rural areas, guns are not just a part of the culture but also a way of life. They are openly displayed and carried. Their primary uses including hunting and defense, especially since help may not be readily available. On the other hand, in urban centers, guns serve no practical purpose as there are few opportunities to hunt and police officers are always within a stone’s throw. A few years ago, I was assigned to the 5^th Special Forces Group out of Ft. Campbell, KY. I lived in the small city of Hopkinsville, KY, which is primarily a Mennonite tobacco and corn farming community. I swear, babies were born with guns in hand but people there actually have a practical use for them. Now I live on the 35^th floor of a high rise on the corner of Central Park in NYC. Here it is illegal to even have a gun without going through a time-consuming and expensive registration process. Even considering that guns are of interest to some and not others, it may not even be classified as a fundamental interest. “Other fundamental interests are necessary to one’s flourishing no matter what one’s particular desires, interests, and beliefs” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 181). Even way out in the country, it is possible today to flourish without a gun.

What I am about to say may really bend some minds. What I want and what I support are two separate things. I want moderate gun control with moderate restrictions. However, I will always vote for complete gun rights. Though it is true that the gun is just the tool and not the agent (LaFollette, 2007), the gun kind of helps, don’t you think? I want there to be common sense regulations in place. This is the same song-and-dance that we hear all the time. We need background checks to ensure that those that have the guns are of good moral character. We need to restrict certain weapons that are designed to penetrate armor as they are specifically designed to kill. We need to limit the amount of firepower that an individual can have for the same justification that we have seat belt laws. It is dangerous to others. Though it is true that anybody can harm another with any gun, the likelihood greatly increases when we increase the range, firepower, and capacity. You see, guns are inherently dangerous which means that they are designed to harm (LaFollette, 2007). The more technology that goes into them, the more harm is done. Some may argue that knives are equally as useful in harming others which may be true but a knife is designed to be sharp and durable not as a weapon (generally) but as a tool. They are not designed to harm others but rather they are designed to cut your dinner or cut through a rope. Therefore, because of the intended use, it is not inherently dangerous.

So if I want reasonable reforms, why would I not vote for them? The answer boils down to an issue that isn’t even an ethical one. The 2^nd Amendment was added to the Constitution for a specific reason and that was to guarantee the ability to form a militia that can push back against a tyrannical or oppressive government (Winkler, 2007). Are guns dangerous? Absolutely. However, a government that has the ability to seize total control with no recourse is even more dangerous. That is why I feel that we have no choice but to allow access to assault rifles and even armor piercing ammunition. There is a danger to others but the danger to society as a whole is far greater if we increase gun control beyond what it already is.  

Blocher, J. (2013). Firearm localism. The Yale Law Journal, 123(1), 82-146

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

Winkler, A. (2007). Scrutinizing the second amendment. Michigan Law Review, 105(4), 683-733.

A634.7.4.RB_LeeDarrell - Ethics and Behaviors

One of the reasons that I selected the Master of Science in Leadership program was because of the immediate practical application of the material. An MBA would be great for the future when I am retired from the Army but I can use what I am learning now to increase my effectiveness as a Soldier. My last class which covered leadership in a complex environment and this class on ethics have reaffirmed that I made the correct choice. For every single topic covered, I can see exactly how that applies to my current role as a recruiting center leader. The material for this blog really brought that home today.

I ran across an article shared on a social media page the other day describing 31 traits of horrible bosses (Jackson, 2012). As a leader and manager, I like to measure myself up against lists such as these to see if others may perceive me as a bad leader. Fortunately, if you measure me against this particular list, I am doing okay overall but I have to be the honest broker and admit that I have a hard time with one of the traits in particular - giving honest feedback on performance reviews. I am surely not afraid of conflict but I hate hurting the career of my subordinates. (The Army is trying to correct our evaluation system but in the past if you weren’t made to look like you walk on water then you could forget about promotions. Our new evaluation system forces us to rank people so it is easier now to be realist and still not hinder promotions...theoretically.) However, by not giving honest feedback and real criticism, how am I helping my subordinates grow? Since I am not in the habit of providing criticism, I would do well to remember that there is an ethical way in which to approach it. As you know, criticism can be taken very personally and can be hurtful. However, when our intent is to bring about the best in others and not to tear them down, it is a valuable tool (Weinstein, 2012). Our true intentions usually are apparent to others. If we intend to provide criticism to truly help our subordinates grow then we will approach it with empathy which they will sense.

Another trait of a horrible boss is never admitting to being wrong (Jackson, 2012). The fact is that we all are going to mess up from time to time. We are going to make poor decisions that hurt others. That is just a part of being human. So, as managers, why do we have such a hard time saying “I am sorry” and actually meaning it? An apology without action to back it is just wasted breath (Weinstein, 2012). When I first assumed my new position, I had a Soldier that informed me that he had a pay issue that he had been trying to get resolved for five months. I had so many things going on with the assumption of my role that I didn’t do much to action it for two weeks. I had sent a few e-mails but was seriously lacking in my follow up. Of course, this young man was fed up because whereas I had only been dealing with it for two weeks he had several months of dealing with it. He ended up sending a very unprofessional e-mail the entire chain of command which greatly embarrassed my commander and me. However, I realized that I really owed him an apology backed by action for the fact that he felt that that was his only course of action. Now I have another Soldier with a pay issue that was just brought to my attention two weeks ago. I have an opportunity to show that I truly am sorry that I didn’t see to the first Soldier’s needs by ensuring that none of the rest of my team experiences what he did.

A few weeks ago, we examined slippery slope arguments (SSAs) in depth. SSAs assert that we should reject some behaviors because of either projected consequences or because they can easily lead to other actions that are unethical (LaFollette, 2007). As an example, think of arguments against the use of marijuana. Those that view it as a gateway drug may argue that just trying it once will eventually lead one becoming a homeless junkie so the best thing to do is just never take that first puff. Of course there are several stages in between that I just glossed over there but you get the idea. Let’s consider an SSA from an organization standpoint. Chuck Gallagher (2013) is one that fell victim to his own ethical slippery slope in the workplace which resulted in him spending a little bit of time in federal prison. Now he focuses his efforts on helping organizations realize how these slippery slopes are so damaging. He points out that there are five levels on the slope, the first three of which are often viewed as “acceptable”. They are:

1.      Actions that are bad for the customer

2.      Actions that are bad for the company

3.      Policy violations

4.      Unethical behavior

5.      Illegal behavior/actions

I have sadly seen each and every one of these in my time as an Army recruiter. I will just highlight the worst examples.

As recruiters, we are salespeople so our applicants are our customers. When I first came to recruiting, I actually observed the assistant center leader in my office talk a homeless person out of enlisting to go active duty (full time) and instead convinced him to join the Army Reserve (part time) because we needed one more Reserve contract to close our yearly mission. I was appalled! I have also seen countless examples of policy violations where paperwork was omitted in enlistment packets to conceal potentially disqualifying information (particularly when an applicant has admitted to a law violation but the police and courts have no record of it). I have seen unethical behavior where government vehicles were used to conduct personal business or EZ Passes were “borrowed” for the weekend which allows unlimited use on toll roads. And, very sadly, I have seen careers ruined when recruiters have forged documents leading to fraudulent enlistments. Of course this isn’t to say that just because you use the office copier/printer to print flyers for a garage sale that you are going to end up as a criminal but the idea is that one behavior makes it easier to take the next step. If you are willing to do what is bad for a customer, you might be willing to do something that isn’t in the best interest of the company then you might be tempted to violate policy and so on and so forth. (By the way, I openly admit to using the office printer to print articles for school but we have express permission because our continued education is in the best interest of the Army. We are even allowed to complete self-development during duty hours.)

With as many unethical behaviors as I have observed, I am very encouraged by the far more numerous positive ethical behaviors that I observe on a daily basis. Just a few weeks ago, we had a Future Soldier (someone that has signed a contract but has not yet shipped) that was injured during Future Soldier Training. Instead of trying to cover it up, it was properly documented and brought to the attention of the chain of command. The responsible Soldier knew that he easily could have covered it up and nobody would know that it was his fault but he did the right thing. Therefore, the chain of command also did the right thing and took care of him. It was an accident. It wasn’t intentional. Therefore, his disciplinary action was retraining on conducting training. That was it. He wasn’t removed from duty. There is no paper trail. Now that is positive ethics in action!

Gallagher, C. [Chuck Gallagher]. (2013, January 27). Business Ethics Keynote Speaker – Chuck

Gallagher - Shares Straight Talk about Ethics! [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE

Jackson, E. (2012, August 09). 31 Telltale Signs You Are a Horrible Boss. Retrieved July 15,

2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/07/27/31-telltale-signs-you-are-a-horrible-boss/#1c15502bbddc

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

Weinstein, B. [TheEthicsGuy]. (2012, August 24). Keynote Speech Excerpts from The Ethics

            Guy [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ

A634.6.3.RB_LeeDarrell - What are Virtues?

With the exception of Jesus, nobody has ever lived a perfect life. No matter how hard we may try, achieving perfection is absolutely impossible. However, we don’t have to achieve perfect to live virtuous and morally fulfilling lives. We can take small steps to better ourselves every day.

Benjamin Franklin has always been a fascinating historical figure to me. I have always considered him to be the voice of reason and wisdom to the founding fathers of our nation. It is common knowledge that he had his vices, though. That may be why I have always admired him. It makes him more human so I can relate to him. I have more in common with him than I do Mother Teresa or Ghand. The same is true with characters from the Bible. God used the most vile people – adulterers, murderers, prostitutes, thieves, and scoundrels – and used them as the most influential and noble leaders because we can relate to them.

Benjamin Franklin created a list of 13 virtues by which he strived to live (you can see a list with the explanation for each here: http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html). They are:

1.   temperance

2.   silence

3.   order

4.   resolution

5.   frugality

6.   industry

7.   sincerity

8.   justice

9.   moderation

10. cleanliness

11. tranquility

12. chastity

13. humility

As I looked over this list, I reflected on each of them and thought about how they really affect my life. I would love to tell you that I have at least mastered a few of these but I would by lying to you if I said that. I know that I am better at some of these than others but I need to work on each of them. I took a little quiz to see my strengths/weaknesses (you can see how you do here: http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/exp_virtue.html). The problem when we do these little personality quizzes is that we often answer the questions the way that we want to see ourselves. Isn’t that silly? I mean I know the truth about myself and I know that I am the only one that will see the results yet it is still difficult for me to answer truthfully. I had to take it three times before I really got the purest results. The results were somewhat surprising because an area that I thought was a strength – frugality - is a weakness!

Growing up, we were poor. My sister and I thought that it was really neat that we often got to eat things like pancakes for dinner but what we didn’t know is that was all we had in the house and there was no money to buy anything else. We learned how to make our own toys and costumes. We had nothing. My mother taught us how to stretch every dollar and how to budget at a fairly young age. I have always been careful with my money. I started a Roth IRA right after I turned 18. I have no debt (other than a mortgage) and a healthy savings account. However, frugality doesn’t only apply to how we manage our money. I am far less thrifty in other ways. For example, I waste a lot of resources by taking long showers, running the air conditioner all day, not replacing all of the light bulbs with LEDs, driving when I could take the train, etc. Frugality with all of our resources is a sign of moral achievement (Nemeth, 2004). This is a virtue that I really want to incorporate into everything that I do and not just with my money.

Another virtue that I need to apply is resolution. This was another one that caught me off guard. When I set my mind to do something, I get it done. I have never been a quitter. One of my positive resume points is that I always see every challenge through to completion and use failure as a growth opportunity. However, my problem is not that I don’t complete that which I am resolved to do but rather than I often don’t resolve to do something at all. In fact, that is why I am working on this degree now instead of seven years ago. I didn’t resolve to do it until early last year. When we make our resolutions, we need to be open minded. We can’t just resolve to do what we want to do but sometimes we need to resolve to do what others are advising us to do (Fernández-Zapico, 2009). Therefore, I resolve to seek out and apply at least one piece of advice every day, whether from a friend, colleague, mentor, or article.

I don’t want this to be completely about the virtues that I have found to be lacking. Let me end on a positive note! One virtue that I believe I apply in every situation and is now second nature to me is tranquility. Do I get frustrated at times? Well, sure I do but I am like a duck and troubles around me are like drops of water that just bead up and fall off. I wish that I could tell you the secret to being like that. I haven’t always been this way so there must have been a point that I started to shift my perspective but I can’t pinpoint when that way. What I can tell you, though, is that bad things are going to happen to good people. It is unavoidable. Getting upset about it won’t make the situation better. Since it is impossible to avoid, I choose to not get anything break me. I encourage you to make the same choice.

Fernández-Zapico, M. E. (2009). Keep at It! Accept the Challenges of Your Critics. Pancreatology, 9(5), 551-553. doi:10.1159/000211525

Nemeth, R. Z. (2004, Nov 21). Magazine examines virtues and values. Telegram & Gazette