A634.4.4.RB - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

The title of this post sums up this week's reflection quite nicely.  I should just be able to say "yes", get my grade and move on. To me this is a very simple issue, we built an entire civilization upon the enslavement, genocide, and repression of different ethnic backgrounds and it is incumbent upon our society to offer ways for people of these ethnic backgrounds to regain the ground they had lost. Some would say I am exaggerating with genocide but I think the Native American population tends to disagree and I bring it up as it is not something I've seen widely discussed. I could discuss slavery and Jim Crow but I have seen those brought up a great deal and a large discussion on the ills of our history is outside the realm of this blog post. This post assumes those ills are widely known and accepted.

So accepting that there are significant horrors in our nation's history why should it not be ethical to seek to redress those affected. Some opponents of Affirmative Action say that since those polices are no longer in effect or have long since past that there is no need to give preferential treatment to people of any ethnic background. This is only appealing on a very basic level. A deeper understanding of the effects of racial discrimination is needed. In short, centuries and decades of oppression have left affected ethnic backgrounds way behind in opportunity. This is plainly evidenced in wealth gaps among ethnicities. Hugh LaFollette touches on this in his work The Practice of Ethics by arguing that the parents of blacks in our current society had to start much further behind on the socio-economic ladder than the parents of whites (LaFollette, 2007). This is an inarguable point. It is preposterous to assume that blacks are all of sudden going to have the same opportunity as whites in 2014 as their parents were largely prohibited from succeeding at all.  Success in life is largely determined on where you start and this is just as true in America. In fact, many Nordic countries enjoy greater economic mobility than the US.  Knowing all of this, it is imperative that we open as many doors as possible to those that are further behind. It isn't enough to say, "Well we are all equal, sorry for that stuff we did to your parents. Good luck getting out of that crushing poverty."  A society should be judged on how it treats those that are most vulnerable and I feel that in that light we fail.

Another argument is that affirmative action discriminates against whites as they may be the most qualified candidate and therefore deserve the job. I have sat down with HR professionals and hiring managers across a spectrum of industries and I can confidently say the best qualified candidate is rarely chosen for a position. It is the person that is the best overall fit for the position that is chosen. So what if you have the best production numbers? If no one likes you, you aren't getting that job. So that particular argument tends to fall a little flat. I get that the larger point is that candidates that would have been chosen cannot be chosen as they are of the "wrong" ethnicity. This does happen. But does it happen so often that the policy should be thrown out? No.

In an ideal world, a workplace should be diverse as diversity is actually better for the bottom line. However, if poor education opportunities and lack of support structures make it harder for certain ethnic backgrounds to acquire the necessary qualifications to acquire leadership roles all the best intentions are worthless. There simply aren't qualified candidates. Why? The education requirements for leadership positions are, typically, post-secondary and lack of available credit, funds, and opportunity leave minorities struggling to meet the basic criteria much less face any overt racial challenge.

Getting back to the discrimination argument; yes there may be some discrimination against qualified white candidates but it is in such a small number as to make that ethical choice in favor of affirmative action. Once again, the answer lies in the statistics. In that first link you should notice the trend is increasing though numbers of minorities in CEO positions is painfully small. This should be taken as a need to continue affirmative action policies, not remove them.

A634.3.5.RB - The Harder They Fall

This article in the Harvard Business Review begins a discussion on how leaders self-destruct as they reach the pinnacle of their careers. A disregarding of rules, a flaunting of regulation, and selfish behavior are revered rather then discouraged. Kramer, the author, does go on to mention that leaders that stay in their position often portray the exact opposite of behaviors. They are humble, work towards the truth, and keep their lives simple. This post will briefly discuss my take on the subject as as well as, hopefully, provide some insight into daily dilemmas.

Recent work has led to the conclusion that narcissists make better leaders; just not too much. Narcissism has self-confidence as one of its defining traits. An over-abundance of narcissism and self-confidence is a pathological condition that is typically viewed negatively. However, I think as a society we have elevated the corporate raider, the narcissist, to a coveted status. This may be because as a culture we have decided to value selfish behavior over altruistic behavior. This can be seen in everything from the financial crisis of 2008 to election of self-professed Ayn Rand acolytes for whom selfishness is a moral virtue. The point of this isn't to devolve into a deconstruction of objectivism but rather point out that altruism and concern for the many has fallen out of favor. Combine this with a narcissistic personality and you have a recipe for disaster. It's been seen time and again from Enron to Bank of America. I view the problem as a cultural flaw rather than a select few "bad apples" ruining it for everyone. If it were only a select few the problem would be self-correcting. I am realistic enough to know that on all ends of the spectrum people will take advantage of the system. Altruism, in its purest form, pretty much sets itself up to be taken advantage of. However, when is the last time a bunch of folks on welfare crashed the national economy and sent millions into unemployment? 

This brings me to my larger point and the insight that I use to guide my decisions. With a greater responsibility comes a greater moral imperative to behave in an ethical fashion. The more people I am able to hurt with a choice, the greater the need to ensure that choice is as ethical as possible. There are times when there are no "good" choices in a situation but there should always be a need to minimize any harm done. I aspire to leadership roles and in self-disclosure I probably score somewhere on the narcissism scale. However, I refuse to let pure self-interest guide my direction. I now care for several patients and I while I cannot always make choices that make them happy I can make choices that minimize their harm or attempt to provide a greater good.  I carry this over into my personal life as well. I think we have a responsibility to each other.

The temptations that come with increased personal power are numerous. I feel it is important to establish firm ethical guidelines early in my career. As I learn more about leadership and experience real-world stressors I am open to examining those guidelines with an eye towards improvement. I believe self-awareness is one of the most important traits a leader can posses. I am not so naive to think I am the first young leader to write a review of their ethical guidelines, I do think that I can establish positive ethical habits that will serve me well into the future. I steadfastly reject the notion that selfish behavior somehow increases the health of the group.

A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

Consequentialism and deontology are often seen to be at odds in the realm of philosophical thought. Where consequentialism holds that the consequences of an action are what determine if an action is morally correct, deontology argues that the moral mindset or devotion to a duty that make an action morally correct. The basic assumption is that one must be in a given camp tends to permeate discussions of morality. 

I feel that I have a duty to society so I often fall into the deontology camp. However, perversions of deontological thought can often be seen. Nazi Germany is everyone’s favorite whipping boy for corruption of societal philosophy but it does serve as a good example of how deontological arguments can be taken to extremes. Did a citizen of Dresden feel they were serving a greater societal good by shipping the Jews to Auschwitz? After all it was their duty. If you want to take deontology to a gross conclusion, these citizens were not acting in a morally corrupt manner. However, this is a perversion of deontological thought. Kant, largely considered to be a deontologist, argued that only “good will” is the deciding factor in moral actions. If the police chief of Dresden truly believed that he was operating in good faith and to achieve a higher purpose, the systematic killing of a group of people could be argued as morally correct. I argue that most people would view this as morally reprehensible and that is where moral absolutism takes over. Some actions, such as murder, are viewed as morally incorrect no matter the reason behind it. 

Going back to consequentialism things are slightly more defined. Only the consequences of an action matter. In this case, taking an immoral action such as murder may be justified if the consequence of such an action is seen as “good” or morally correct. Once again, the police chief of Dresden could argue that the consequences of killing a group of people are a societal gain and thus the immoral act of murder is acceptable. It gets even easier to justify when you don’t view the target of the action to be human in the first place.  

Utilitarianism is a school of consequentialism that teaches, at its core, the more happiness is created, the more morally correct an action. Like any school of thought this can be taken to extremes; a common example being harvesting the organs of a healthy person to increase the happiness of five other healthy people. For many this is an adequate measure of moral actions.

Where consequentialism fails is that it is impossible to know all the consequences of a particular action. This unknown means that a given action may ultimately be immoral. Deontology solves this riddle by saying the ultimate consequence isn’t the guiding factor on morality. Both have flaws when taken to extremes. 

I don’t think the average person, or average leader, is consciously making choices based on a school of thought. I do think that consequentialism tends to permeate United States culture and that is creating a sense of selfishness and entitlement on all ends of the demographic spectrums. Rugged individualism is often celebrated and personal achievements are highlighted far more that group achievements. Much attention is focused on individual sports players, often neglecting that without their team, the players are ineffective. Where I see an interesting paradigm is that individual sports such as tennis, golf, and boxing are often less popular in the public sphere; where in a culture that purports to celebrate the individual the opposite should be true. Sure there are devoted fans of these sports and those that master it are able to command great salaries but on a national scale think of the fervor that surrounds the Super Bowl versus Wimbledon. I think that on an instinctive level, most people understand that the group, team, or society is what creates ultimate success or failure. The betterment of the group is better than the betterment of the individual. 

I look at this as being in the deontological camp but borrowing from utilitarian principles. I see that people have a duty to adhere to moral standards or truths but these truths need to advance the group as a whole. A truth that only benefits one person isn’t much of a truth.

A634. Ethics in Schools

The teaching of ethics in schools provides a valuable context in which future managers can make choices. Ethics is mainly concerned with making choices in a fog of uncertainty. Whereas legal choices can be fairly straightforward, ethical choices may not; a common saying being “what is legal is not always ethical.” Therefore managers need to understand both themselves (emotional intelligence) and the corporate culture in which they operate. The former can be taught outside of ethics classes. Emotional intelligence is large umbrella that covers all manner self-assessment and self-awareness attributes and then seeks to apply them in a leadership role. Corporate culture cannot be taught in a class, what can be taught is how to influence and create positive corporate cultures that embody and reward ethical actions.


This is all well and good for people, like myself, that have spent close to six years study management and leadership; to include several dedicated courses to ethical leadership. However many people in leadership positions are not trained managers. They may be experts in medicine, finance, retail, or marketing but they lack a formal background specific to management. It is safe to say that most managers have advanced degrees (though in some fields it is not required) but are those degrees heavy on managerial principles. For example, a young doctor graduates from school and goes to work for a local hospital. After many years of diligent work this doctor is promoted to a Chief of Staff position. The doctor undoubtedly has a wealth of medicinal knowledge, a great deal of practical experience, and most likely some ethical training. But was that training in managerial ethics? Most likely it was in the ethics of practicing medicine. To be sure there would be some overlap but does this equate to being able to make organizational decisions regarding everything from finance to patient care? Maybe…and the variances can be much greater in organizations where leadership roles do not always require formal education such as store or regional managers in a retail environment. In many instances schools may take a shotgun approach to ethics where they hope something sticks while their students graduate with finance degrees. 

This does not mean that these other courses are not teaching ethics. Accounting degrees require ethical guidelines as do law degrees, or any other professional path. Ethics is required across many spectrums. However not all ethics focuses are created equally. Accounting may focus on making ethical accounting choices; leadership ethics focuses on social, personal, and corporate responsibility. It is a fine but very important point.


This begs one final question. Do you want managers that are only trained in Organizational Leadership being in charge of doctors and surgeons when they have no formal training as such? A case can be made that one should need medicinal training to make informed choices regarding the leading of medical organizations. This argument can be extended to any number of professions.


MBA’s are just one form of leadership school but really ALL schools are graduating future leaders. Ethical management, not just the ethics of a particular field, needs to be a focus in all forms of higher education, not just the MBA.