finish the homework
|
FINAL PAPER OUTLINE AND CHECKLIST |
|
Hi Class, I am providing you this Outline and Checklist for your Final Paper. Use this Outline and Checklist when writing your FINAL PAPER. Do not delete any of the sections of this outline. Requirements: 1. From the · Hidden Traps… · What you don’t know… · Conquering a culture… · How (un)ethical are you? 2. From your chosen chapter select 3. From that one (1) element come up with 4. Use the given 5. Follow the instructions in the Final Paper Checklist. Make sure that you have covered off all the points. 6. VERY IMPORTANT POINT – Use the transition sentences high lighted in yellow to end and start off each sections of your paper. Past student who did not follow this point lost significant marks. 7. The Title page, Table of Contents, Paper Outline, Writing Quality, Citations, and Referencing must all be written following APA writing guidelines. Not following APA will result in 5 mark deduction. Consult the school’s APA writing guidelines. 8. You must reference at least six (6) 9. IMPORTANT. Your paper must be written in “one voice”. This means each person’s contributions should be edited to where there is no distinction between who wrote what. 10. The page count for the paper is 11. Late papers will receive a 5 mark deduction. 12. This paper is worth 15% of your course mark. See the marking Rubric below |
|
Paper Title Student Name(s) Trinity Western University for the International Degree Completion Program LDRS 320 I2 Ethical Decision Making Mr. Gerald Van Dyck April 30, 2021 |
|
Table of Contents
|
|
DETAILED FINAL PAPER CHECKLIST Project Definition Introduction (1 page) In this section write a one page introduction about your paper. Include the following: · ☐ Provide a · ☐ State what the author is trying to prove in this chapter. · ☐ Explain how this chapter’s ideas has impact on decision-making. · ☐ Mention that your paper will be taking a critical analysis approach to the paper. · ☐ Include a brief explanation of what you mean by a critical analysis approach to the paper. · ☐ End this section by specifically stating the one (1) element/issue you want to write about and what you hope to achieve. Use the following phrase: · ☐ “I am writing a paper about ……” |
|
The Paper’s Question ( Question and Purpose 1page) In this section develop your paper’s question and purpose. · ☐ State that the scope of the paper is limited to your one (1) element/issue using the following phrase: · ☐ · ☐ Say why this one (1) element is important to you. · ☐ · ☐ After you have made this clear, state your main question. This question should be specific enough so you can realistically solve a problem in 10 pages. Otherwise, the scope of the paper is too broad. · ☐ “The main question, therefore, I am trying to answer is…” |
|
Purpose In this section you want to inform what your are trying to achieve. Begin with: · ☐ “The purpose of this paper is to…” · ☐ State the reason for the paper and what you hope to achieve…. state what your goals are. · ☐ Part of your purpose is to gather information that answers or confirms the paper’s question, towards making recommendations to solve the decision-making issue you identified. |
|
Analysis Response to Challenges in Decision-Making (6 to 7 pages) This is the critical analysis part of your paper. Step 1: · ☐ You need to bridge your Question and Purpose to the analysis section of your paper. Start this section : · ☐ “As stated earlier the scope of this paper is limited to answering the question -…. [insert question]…… We asked this question with the purpose of ………..” Step 2: · ☐ Begin the critical analysis of the chapter by briefly re-phrasing what you wrote in your Introduction about the Chapter. Step 3: · ☐ This is where you do your critical analysis of only the one (1) issue/question you identified. This is where you use the research you did on at least six (6) other authors. · ☐ Gather facts only from the chapter and six (6) other literary sources that relate to your one (1) issue. Since your scope is limited to one issue you will need many outside references to support your arguments. · ☐ From the facts/literature gathered, write about what all the other authors say about your question · ☐ Make sure you cite all of the other authors correctly. You must give proper credit to each author you use in your paper. See APA on how to cite authors. Step 4: · ☐ After step 3, state your own personal opinions. Explain what you think about the issue, and what you think of the problem. · ☐ Support your opinion with examples and other authors’ writings. · ☐ Again, make sure you cite correctly. This is an especially important part of the paper for me. · Use the following phrases: · ☐ “It is our opinion that ….”, “we believe that ….” or “we think ….”, “we are of the opinion that….” · ☐ “To support our argument, we provide the following example:” “For example …..”, “The following example supports our idea that…..” Step 6: · ☐ Make good and realistic recommendations on how to possibly fix things the issue you are writing about. · ☐ Recommendations can come from the chapter, the other references or from your own thoughts. · ☐ Make sure you cite correctly. · Use phrases like…… · ☐ “We recommend ….”, “We make the following recommendations …..” |
|
Conclusion Final Thoughts and Conclusion (2 pages) This is where you conclude and summarize your ideas and thoughts written above. The conclusion · ☐ Start your Conclusion by restating your question and purpose by saying: · ☐ “ We began this paper by asking the question, [insert question]” Further, our purpose was to [insert purpose]” · ☐ State whether you successfully answered your question or not by saying: · ☐ “Based on our analysis, we were able to successfully answer our paper’s question.” · ☐ · ☐ “ In summary our analysis shows that ……” · ☐ You must now conclude. This is your final paragraph. Conclude by using the following phrase: · ☐ “To conclude, we are of the opinion that to resolve the issue identified in our analysis we make the following recommendations: ……….” · ☐ It is often good to end with some ‘wise’ final closing sentence by quoting something that relates to your paper. |
References
Citations and references are extremely important in the body of an academic paper.
· ☐ Provide a reference for each additional source you used. Although, the minimum requirement is six (6) additional references, having more adds credibility to you work. It is important that the names cited in the paper match the references in this last section. It is important that I can distinguish between your original thoughts and the thoughts of other authors. All sources must be given their proper credit.
· ☐ Minimum six (6) additional
references.
· ☐ Reference the chapter used from
The Harvard Press Review Book.
· ☐ Please consult and latest version of the APA writing guidelines.
Theories of Consequence Ethics: Traditional Tools for Making Decisions in Business when the Ends Justify the Means
Considers ethics that focuses on the consequences of what is done
instead of prohibiting or allowing specific acts.
What’s more important in ethics—what you do or what happens afterward because of what you did?
Consequentialists will want to know about the effects.
The question, finally, for a consequentialist isn’t whether or not I should lie, it’s what happens if I do and if I don’t?
The central ethical concern is what kind of outcome should I want?
Traditionally, there are three kinds of answers:
the utilitarian
the altruist
the egoist
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism: The Greater Good
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethics—the outcome matters, not the act.
The utilitarian distinguishing belief is that we should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number.
So we can act in whatever way we choose—we can be:
generous or miserly,
honest or dishonest…..
…..but whatever we do, the result should be more people happier.
The utilitarian needs to know nothing more to label the act ethically recommendable.
In rudimentary terms:
Utilitarianism is a happiness calculation.
When you’re considering doing something, you take each person who’ll be affected and ask whether they’ll end up happier, sadder, or it won’t make any difference.
Those who won’t change don’t need to be counted.
For each person who’s happier, ask, how much happier? For each who’s sadder, ask, how much sadder?
The greater sum indicates the ethically recommendable decision.
According to utilitarian reasoning, you’ve done the right thing ethically
For a utilitarian, the question is, does the situation serve the general good?
Basic utilitarian rule:
What ought to be done is determined by looking at the big picture and deciding which acts increase total happiness when everyone is taken into account.
Uncertainty represents a serious practical problem with the ethical theory.
For the utilitarian, it’s not enough to just decide what brings the most happiness to the most individuals right now; the future needs to be accounted for too.
Utilitarianism is a global ethics; you’re required to weigh everyone’s happiness and weigh it as far into the future as possible.
Can Money Buy Utilitarian Happiness? The Ford Pinto Case
The basic question of utilitarianism is qualitative: how much happiness and sadness is there?
To build or not to build?
The cost of building and cost of life vs. cost of total recall and refit.
The decision was finally made in utilitarian terms. On one side, the company totaled up the dollar cost of redesigning the car’s gas tank. They calculated:
• 12.5 million automobiles would eventually be sold,
• eleven dollars would be the final cost per car to implement the redesign.
On the other side of the Pinto question, if the decision is made to go ahead without the fix, there’s going to be a lot of suffering but only for a very few people.
Ford predicted the damage done to those few people in the following ways:
• Death by burning for 180 buyers
• Serious burn injuries for another 180 buyers
• Twenty-‐one hundred vehicles burned beyond all repair
Ford sent the Pinto out. Over the next decade, according to Ford estimates, at least 60 people died in fiery accidents and at least 120 got seriously burned
The total cost came in under the original $49 million estimate. According to a utilitarian
argument, Ford made the right decision.
Versions of Utilitarian Happiness
Four varieties of utilitarianism are hedonistic, idealistic, act, and rule . These seek to maximize human happiness, but their definitions of happiness differ.
Hedonistic utilitarianism
Pleasure and happiness are ultimately synonymous. This means seeking to maximize pleasure…..just about any sensation of pleasure…..felt by individuals……
…..getting pleasure right now is good but not as good as maximizing the feeling over the long term.
Idealistic utilitarianism distinguished low and highbrow sensations.
Pleasures with higher and more real value include learning and learnedness. These are not physical joys so much as the delights of the mind and the imagination.
Soft from Hard Utilitarianism
Soft utilitarianism is the standard version: general happiness level probably goes up.
an act is good if the outcome is more happiness in the world than we had before.
Hard utilitarianism demands more:
an act is ethically recommendable only if the total benefits for everyone are greater than those produced by any other act
It is not enough to do good; you must do the most good possible
If a hard utilitarian drives a decision, go for the jugular, and then use it to do the most good possible
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism affirms that a specific action is recommended if, when applied to everyone, it increases general happiness.
Rule utilitarianism
Rule utilitarian asks whether we would all be benefitted if everyone obeyed a rule
If the general happiness level increases because the rule is there—then the rule utilitarian proposes that we all adhere to it.
Rule utilitarians aren’t against stealing because it’s intrinsically wrong, as duty theorists may propose. The rule utilitarian is only against stealing if it makes the world less happy.
Disadvantages of Utilitarian Ethics in Business
Subjectivity. It can be hard to make the theory work because it’s difficult to know what makes happiness and unhappiness for specific individuals
Quantification. Happiness can’t be measured with a ruler or weighed on a scale; it’s hard to know exactly how much happiness and unhappiness any particular act produces.
Apparent injustices. Utilitarian principles can produce specific decisions that seem wrong
The utilitarian sacrifice is the selection of one person to suffer terribly so that others may be pleasured
Altruism
An action is morally right according to the altruist, and to the ethical theory of altruism, if:
the action’s consequences are more beneficial than unfavorable for everyone except the person who acts.
A suffering life may be an effect of altruism, but it’s not a requirement.
Living for others doesn’t mean you live poorly, only that there’s no guarantee you’ll live well. You might, however, live well
Some Rules of Altruism:
Altruism is a consequentialist ethics. No specific acts are prohibited or required; only outcomes matter.
The goal of their lives and the reason for their actions is bringing happiness to others.
Hard questions altruists face concerning happiness:
Exactly what counts as happiness?
How do we know which is worth more? For example: the alleviation of suffering from a disease vs. the warm happiness of serving a good cause?
How great is the difference, how can it be measured?
Another altruism difficulty is happiness foresight…..
…..are the recipients’ lives really going to be happier overall
Altruism is a variety of selflessness, but it’s not the same thing….. people may deny themselves or they may sacrifice themselves for all kinds of other reasons.
Example:
A soldier may die in combat, but that may not be altruism; that could be loyalty: it’s not sacrificing for everyone else but for a particular nation.
Personal versus impersonal altruism distinguishes two kinds of altruists:
those who practice altruism on their own and leave everyone else alone, and
those who believe that everyone should act only to benefit others and without regard to their own well-being
Conclusion:
Altruism connects with business in three basic ways:
altruists who use normal, profit-‐driven business operations to do good
altruistic companies that do good by employing non-altruistic workers
altruistic organizations composed of altruistic individuals
Egoism
Ethical egoism: whatever action serves my self-‐interest is also the morally right action
What’s good for me in that it gives me happiness is also good that it’s the morally right thing to do
Ethical egoism mirrors altruism:
If I’m an altruist, I believe:
that actions ought to heighten the happiness of others, and
what happens to me is irrelevant
If I’m an egoist, I believe:
that actions ought to heighten my happiness, and
what happens to others is irrelevant
Egoism and Selfishness
The word egoist – an ugly profile typically comes to mind:
self-centeredness
In maximizing your own happiness in the world, you might find that helping others is the shortest and fastest path to what you want.
Egoists aren’t against other people, they’re for themselves, and if helping others works for them, that’s what they’ll do.
A contrast between egoism and selfishness.
egoism means:
putting your welfare above others
working with others cooperatively can be an excellent way to satisfy their own desires, they may not be at all selfish; they may be just the opposite.
selfishness is:
the refusal to see beyond yourself.
Selfishness is the inability (or unwillingness) to recognize that there are others sharing the world….. callous and insensitive to the wants and needs of others
Enlightened Egoism, Cause Egoism, and the Invisible Hand
Enlightened egoism is the conviction that:
benefitting others—acting to increase their happiness—can serve the egoist’s selfinterest just as much as the egoist’s acts directly in favor of him or herself
Enlightened egoist will admit that he is out for himself but happy to benefit others along the way
The enlightened egoist’s generosity is a rational strategy, not a moral imperative
Example:
I agree not to steal from you as long as you agree not to steal from me
Cause egoism
Cause egoism works from the idea that:
giving the appearance of helping others is a promising way to advance one’s own interests in business.
the cause egoist claims to be mainly or only interested in benefiting others and then leverages that good publicity to help himself
The Invisible Hand
It is the force of marketplace competition, which encourages or even requires individuals who want to make money to make the lives of others better in the process
The invisible hand is the belief that businesses out in the world trying to do well for themselves tend to do good for others too.
…..It may even be that they do more good than generous altruists
The person in business generally intends only his own gain, but is led by an invisible hand:
promotes an end
which was no part of the original intention
promotes that of the society, and
does so more effectively than when he directly intends to promote it
Some Rules of Egoism
Egoism, like altruism, is a consequentialist ethics: the ends justify the means.
Personal egoism versus impersonal egoism
The personal egoist in the business world does whatever’s necessary to maximize their own happiness. What others do, however, is considered their business.
The impersonal egoist believes everyone should get up in the morning and do what’s best for themselves and without concern for the welfare of others.
Rational egoism versus psychological egoism
The rational version stands on the idea that egoism makes sense. In the world as it is, and given a choice between the many ethical orientations available, egoism is the most reasonable.
The psychological egoist believes:
putting our own interests in front of everyone else isn’t a choice; it’s a reality
we’re made that way…..something written into our genes
it’s part of the way our minds are wired
.….but regardless, we all care about ourselves before anyone else and at their expense.
Why would I rationally choose to be an egoist?
if I don’t look out for myself, no one will
almost everyone else is that way, too, so I better play along or I’m going to get played
doing well for myself helps me do good for others too
Theories of Duties and Rights: Traditional
Tools for Making Decisions in Business
Duties
The Means Justify the Ends versus the Ends Justify the Means
In business ethics, do the means justify the ends, or do the ends justify the means
Is it better to have rules telling you what to do in any situation
should you worry about how things are going to end and do whatever is necessary
Is it what you do that matters, or the consequences
No one can make the decision for you, but before anyone can make it, an understanding of how each works should be reached
This chapter will consider ethics as focusing on the specific act and not the consequences
Key Takeaways
When the means justify the ends, ethical consideration focuses on:
what you do
not the consequences of what you’ve done
Traditionally, focusing on means instead of ends leads to:
an ethics based on duties or rights
Historically Accumulated Duties to the Self
…. a limited number of duties that have recurred persistently
called perennial duties
These are basic obligations we have as human beings:
fundamental rules telling us how we should act
If we embrace them, we can be confident that in difficult situations we’ll make morally respectable decisions
Perennial duties falls into two sorts:
Duties to ourselves
Duties to others
Duties to the self begin with our responsibility to:
develop our abilities and talents.
The abilities we find within us aren’t just gifts. All these skills are also responsibilities. When we receive them:
they come with the duty to develop them
to not let them go to waste
The other duty to oneself: the duty to do ourselves no harm. At root, this means we have a responsibility to maintain ourselves healthily in the world
Historically Accumulated Duties to Others
The duties we have to ourselves are the most immediate, but the most commonly
referenced duties are those we have to others
Avoid wronging others is the guiding duty to those around us. It’s difficult, however, to know exactly what it means to wrong another in every particular case
Honesty is the duty to tell the truth and not leave anything important out
Respect others is the duty to treat others as equals in human terms. This doesn’t mean
treating everyone the same way
Beneficence is the duty to promote the welfare of others; it’s the Good Samaritan side of ethical duties
Gratitude is the duty to thank and remember those who help us
An important point about all ethics guided by basic duties:
duties don’t exist alone. They’re all part of a single fabric, and sometimes they pull against each other
Fidelity is the duty to keep our promises and hold up our end of agreements
Reparation is the duty to compensate others when we harm them
The final duty to be considered—fairness—requires more development than those already listed because of its complexity
The Concept of Fairness
The final duty—fairness—requires more development because of its complexity. Fairness is treating equals equally and unequals unequally.
The other side of fairness is the requirement to treat unequals unequally.
The important point is that fairness doesn’t mean everyone gets the same treatment; it means that rules for treating people must be applied equally.
One of the unique aspects of the idea of fairness as a duty is its hybrid status between duties to the self and duties to others. While it would seem strange to say that we have a duty of gratitude or fidelity to ourselves, it clearly makes sense to assert that we should be fair to ourselves.
Impartiality—the rule of no exceptions—means no exceptions
Balancing the Duties
Duties include those to:
• develop abilities and talents
• do ourselves no harm
• avoid wronging others
• honesty
• respect others
• beneficence
• gratitude
• fidelity
• reparation
• fairness
Taken on their own, each of these plugs into normal experience without significant problems. Real troubles come, though, when more than one duty seems applicable and they’re pulling in different directions.
Where Do Duties Come From?
The question about the origin of duties belongs to meta ethics, to purified discussions about the theory of ethics as opposed to its application
One standard explanation is that duties are written into the nature of the universe; they’re part of the way things are. In a sense, they’re a moral complement to the laws of physics
Another possible source for the duties is humanity in the sense that part of what it means to be human is to have this particular sense of right and wrong
What Are the Advantages and Drawbacks of an Ethics Based on Duties?
Principal advantages of working with an ethics of duties is simplicity:
duties are fairly easy to understand and work with
Duties are the first thing coming to mind when we hear the word ethics
Straightforward rules about honesty, gratitude, and keeping up our ends of agreements—these are the components of a common education in ethics
The problem:
Duties pull against each other: when one says yes and the other says no. There are no hard-‐and-‐fast rules for deciding which duties should take precedence over another
The Duties of the Categorical Imperative – Kant
Theory of duties—a set of rules telling us what we’re obligated to do in any particular situation—was the right approach to ethical problems
Kant set out to add a mechanism for the use of duties; to get all these duties to work together, to produce a unified recommendation. Kant set out to produce ethical certainty
……….His answer: categorical imperative
An imperative is something you need to do. A categorical imperative is something you need to do all the time: there are ethical rules that don’t depend on the circumstances
Think about doing something, Imagine that everyone did it all the time
What we need to do is imagine this act as universalized
everyone lies all the time
Conclusion. The act of a lie cannot be universalized to where everyone does it all the time.
The first expression of the categorical imperative— act in such a way that the rule for your action could be universalized—is a consistency principle. Like the golden rule (treat others as you’d like to be treated), it forces you to ask how things would work if everyone else did what you’re considering doing.
Think of this ……Telling the truth no matter what is almost impossible to actually live by.
The second expression of the categorical imperative is: Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end. To treat people as ends, not means is to never use anyone to get something else. This is a dignity principle: treat others with respect and as holding value in themselves.
But think of this……using a person as part of a production line to generate an end product. The second expression doesn’t always work either
Rights
Ethics based on rights is similar to ethics based on duties. In both:
specific principles provide ethical guidance for your acts
principles are to be obeyed regardless of the consequences further down the line
The question isn’t so much What are you morally required to do. It’s more about defining exactly:
where and when you’re free to do whatever you want
deciding where you need to stop and make room for other people to be free too.
Duties tend to be ethics as what you can’t do, and rights tend to be about what you can do
What’s a Right?
A right is something you may do if you wish, and others are morally obligated to permit your action
Rights tend to:
centre on the individual
what he or she can do regardless of whether anyone else is around or not
Rights are about assuring that you’re as free as possible.
Duties tend to be:
protective in nature
about assuring that people aren’t mistreated.
Duties tend to be community oriented: they’re about how we get along with others
What Are the Characteristics of Rights?
Universal. The fundamental rights don’t transform as you move from place to place
or change with the years
Equal. They’re the same for all, men and women, young and old
Inalienable. They can’t be taken, they can’t be sold, and they can’t be given away. We can’t not have them
This leads to a curious paradox at the heart of rights theory…..Freedom is a bedrock right, but we’re not free to sell ourselves into slavery
We can’t because freedom is the way we are; part of my essence. It can’t go away without me disappearing too
What Rights Do I Have?
The right to life…..to live without worrying about someone terminating our existence
The right to freedom guarantees individuals may do as they please, assuming their
actions do not encroach on the freedom of others
Similarly, within a company, the right to freedom:
protects individuals against abuse
No boss can demand more from an employee than what that employee has freely agreed
As a general rule, the enabling side of a rights ethics is that you can do whatever you want, but
the limiting and controlling side is that the same goes for everyone else
The right to free speech…..
…..though, the right of free speech doesn’t guarantee a hearing
The right to religious expression
The right to pursue happiness
It doesn’t do much good to be alive if you’re not free, so freedom orients the right to life. It also doesn’t do much good if you can’t pursue happiness, so the right to pursue happiness orients freedom…….
…….the big question is
What is happiness and how far does one pursue it
In reality we are always confronted with a very basic conflict of rights……
…..the question is about which right takes precedence when right conflict:
For example: an owners’ right to set up and run a company as they wish or an employees’ right to express their beliefs how and when they choose
From an ethical perspective—which doesn’t necessarily correlate with a legal one—the resolution to this dilemma and any clash about conflicting rights runs through the question:
whether there’s a way to protect the basic rights of both groups
Libertarianism rights
…..the right to dominion over what’s ours
This is the theory where most conflicts—and most stands in the name of:
personal rights
the pursuit of happiness
….often the fight between law and ethical reality
The Libertarian argument is that:
if one’s personal actions, on and with what they have dominion over, does not infringe on any one else’s rights….why can’t they continue those actions, regardless of the law
A strong libertarian says others will be harmed by an act……an ethics that begins with the freedom to have what’s mine doesn’t buckle before the demands of others
So…..what’s the answer?……
A duty-‐oriented ethics leads toward a solution that is more favorable for the larger community……
……..a duty-‐based orientation would generate concerns about gratitude and respect
A rights-‐based perspective leaves more room for individuality but at the cost of the interests of others
Negative and Positive Rights
The ethics of rights can be categorized as:
negative rights
positive rights
Negative rights are fundamental. They require others to not interfere with me
Example:
The right to life is the requirement that others not harm me
The right to freedom is the requirement that others not interfere with me
the right to speech requires that others not silence me
the right to my possessions and the fruits of my labors requires that others let me keep and use what’s mine
Positive rights are closer to traditional duties. They are obligations others have to:
help protect and
preserve my basic negative rights
The right to life doesn’t only require (negatively) that people not harm me, but it also requires (positively) that they come to my aid in life-‐threatening situations
Example:
I’m in a car wreck. My right to life requires bystanders to call an ambulance. So if an individual with a rights-based philosophy and an individual with a duty-based philosophy both arrive, they’ll do the same thing – just for different reasons. The rights person calls for help to protect the victim’s right to life; the duties person calls to fulfill the duty to look out for the welfare of others
The hard question with positive rights is:
where do you draw the line
At what point does my responsibility to promote the rights of others impinge on:
my own freedom
my own pursuit of happiness
my own life projects
Rights in Conflict
The deepest internal problems with rights ethics arise when rights conflict
Example:
Abortion. On one side (pro-life), support comes from the initial principle: a human being, born or not, has a right to life, which may not be breached. On the other side (pro-choice), every person’s original freedom over themselves and their bodies ends all discussion
Now, one of the reasons this debate is so intractable is that both sides find equally strong support within the same basic ethical framework
There’s no way to decide without infringing on one right or the other.
The conclusion is that, in general, problems with rights theory occur in one of two places:
I have negative rights to life, freedom, and my possessions but they infringe on your rights to the same
I have a right to freedom and to do what I want but that right clashes with larger, society-level protections put into place to assure everyone a reasonable shot at pursuing their happiness
Rights and duties are closely related and cannot be separated from one another
Example: If the state gives:
the right to life to a citizen it imposes an obligation on the person
to not expose one’s life to danger
to respect the life of others
Right implies duties because:
Every fundamental right has an implied duty
Claiming our rights implies that we have the duty to allow others to claim their rights
The doctrine of correlativity – that every right at least implies a correlating duty. This does not mean there is a correlating duty….just implies
What Justifies a Right?
1. One justification is comparable with idea about duties….. being part of the logic of the universe
Duties and rights exist because that’s the way things are in the moral world
2. Another justification is to derive them from the idea of duties……to treat others as ends and not as means to ends
If we possess basic dignity….. then that dignity must be reflected somehow:
…..it must have some content, some meaning
The case can be made that we possess certain autonomous rights
Key Takeaways:
Rights are universal and inalienable
Basic rights include those to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness
Rights theory divides negative from positive rights
Ethical rights provide for individual freedom…….. but
Allow few guidelines for individuals living and working together in a business or in society
Introduction to Ethics
Defining ethics
The English word “ethics” relates to the enactment of one’s character”.
It comes from the word êthos – meaning “character, moral nature”.
Standard definitions of ethics have typically included such phrases as:
the ideal human character or
moral duty
Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a set of rules outlining the social norms, religious rules and responsibilities of, and or proper practices for, an individual.
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves:
systematizing
defending
recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct
The common theme of all ethical philosophies is determining or finding matters of value or ……..
…… the degree of importance of some things or actions with the aim of determining
what actions are best to do
what is right or wrong
Why? – to achieve “the good”, benevolence, propriety for the self and others.
Most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law and don’t treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.
The word ethics in attempts to use reason to answer various kinds of ethical questions.
Ethics can be a question of how one should live. It is a generic human capacity.
Ethics refers to a common human ability to think critically about moral values and direct our actions in terms of such values.
Determining matters of value includes the area of philosophy called:
axiology:
ethics – the concepts of “right” and “good” in individual and social conduct
aesthetics – the nature of art, beauty and taste and with the creation or appreciation of beauty
In determining Matters of Value……….
……….Values have degrees of importance to us……… meaning we have a range of values from
primary to secondary values
broadly defined preferences
transient opinions
Our value system starts with our underpinning belief structure that affects our ethical behavior, which is the basis of our intentional activities
Thus, in our goal of determining appropriate courses of actions or outcome, what makes something ethically valuable to us is:
the degree of importance of our own values we place on that something or action
An action or something, however, can also be “philosophically good”
Something that is philosophically good is something that is valued “in itself,” or “by itself,” and not for the sake of anything else
Humor is sometimes intrinsically good. No one is morally required to have a sense of humor but It’s good in itself
Other examples of things that may be intrinsically or philosophically good are:
nature
art
music or
language
…..…things that may be aesthetically beautiful. The study of value in things is call Axiology
Our values, whether shaped intrinsically or in combination with our:
vices and virtues,
experiences,
defining moments,
moral principles,
religious and political ideologies,
social conscience, and
aesthetic values, all have influence on our attitudes and ethical actions.
This whole “values” set ultimately reflects a person’s sense of right and wrong or what “ought” to be.
Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:
Meta-ethics – concerning the theoretical meaning of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
Virtuous ethics – describes the character of a moral person as a driving force for ethical behavior
3. Normative ethics – concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action
Meta-ethics
Meta-ethics is philosophical ethics that asks:
how we understand,
know about, and
what we mean when we talk about what is right and what is wrong.
Meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts
An ethical question pertaining to a particular practical situation cannot be a meta-ethical question (rather, this is an applied ethical question).
A meta-ethical question is abstract and relates to a wide range of more specific questions.
A meta-ethical question, for example, “Is it ever possible to have secure knowledge of what is right and wrong?”
Moral skepticism is a metaethical theory that says no one has any moral knowledge. Moral skeptics make the claim that moral knowledge is impossible.
Moral skepticism is opposed to the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.
Moral skepticism concludes that:
We are unjustified in believing any moral claim because it is irrational for us to believe either that any moral claim is true or false.
Noncognitivism holds that we can never know that any moral claim is true because moral claims are incapable of being true or false.
Instead, moral claims are expressions of emotion (e.g. “stealing babies: Boo!”), or expressions of “pro-attitudes” (“I do not believe that babies should be stolen.”)
Knowledge bearing on human life is placed highest, while all other knowledge was secondary.
Self-knowledge is considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within his capabilities to his pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty.
A person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge.
People will naturally do what is good if they know what is right.
Evil or bad actions are the results of ignorance.
Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Virtue ethics.
2. Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral person as a driving force for ethical behavior
They encourage people to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of humankind.
Being virtuous is when a person acts in accordance with virtue. A person will do good and be content.
On the other hand, unhappiness and frustration are caused by doing wrong, thus leading to failed goals and a poor life
Virtue ethics correlates
knowledge with virtue and
equates virtue with joy
Virtue ethics is based on character traits such as:
being truthful
practical wisdom
happiness
flourishing
well-being
It focuses on the type of person we ought to be, not on specific actions that should be taken.
Basically, the moral person is grounded in:
good character
motives
core values
Virtual ethics are made up of moral virtues and intellectual virtues
Aristotle suggests that moral and intellectual virtues are developed in different ways.
intellectual virtues are developed through teaching and instruction
moral virtues are developed through a process of habituation
moral virtues need to be practiced acting in virtuous ways. Moral virtue comes only through repetition and experience. A process of habituation
intellectual virtues are about awareness and connection with reality.
Intellectual virtues are distinguishable from moral virtues because IV share an underlying motivation for cognitive contact with reality.
Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, were only made worthwhile and of benefit when employed in the practice of the virtues.
The practice of the virtues is the surest path to happiness. Keep in mind, not all moral virtues involve a concern for the well-being of others (benevolence)
Moral Virtues
Courage in the face of fear
Temperance in the face of pleasure and pain
Liberality with wealth and possessions
Magnificence with great wealth and possessions
Magnanimity with great honors
Proper ambition with normal honors
Truthfulness with self-expression
Wittiness in conversation
Friendliness in social conduct
Modesty in the face of shame or shamelessness
Righteous indignation in the face of injury
Intellectual virtues
intelligence, which apprehends fundamental truths (such as definitions, self-evident principles)
science, which is skill with inferential reasoning (such as proofs, syllogisms, demonstrations)
theoretical wisdom, which combines fundamental truths with valid, necessary inferences to
reason well about unchanging truths.
good sense — passing judgment, “sympathetic understanding“
understanding — comprehending what others say, does not issue commands
practical wisdom — knowledge of what to do, knowledge of changing truths, issues commands
art, craftsmanship
3. Normative ethics
Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act.
Normative ethics examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions.
Normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a belief.
Hence, normative ethics is sometimes called prescriptive, rather than descriptive.
Traditionally, normative ethics (also known as moral theory) was the study of what makes actions right and wrong.
These theories offered an overarching moral principle one could appeal to in resolving difficult moral decisions.
Normative ethics includes: (Focus on these three)
Deontological ethics
Consequentialism
Utilitarianism
1. Deontological ethics
Deontological ethics holds that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.
It is sometimes described as
duty-, obligation- or
rule-based ethics.
Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism
2. Consequentialism
Consequentialism holds that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
From a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues the proper course of action is one that maximizes a positive effect, such as “happiness”, “welfare”, or the ability to live according to personal preferences
Some argue that the Normative ethics (consequentialist and deontological) are only feasible if the two schools ground themselves in divine law or in religious conviction
It is proposed that those who do not give ethical credence to notions of divine law take up virtue ethics – virtues held up to “universal standards”
Deontological ethics
Deontological ethics or deontology, meaning “obligation, and duty” is an approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the rules and duties that the person doing the act strove to fulfill.
This is in contrast to consequentialism, in which rightness is based on the consequences of an act, and not the act by itself.
Under deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence, if it follows the rule or moral law.
According to the deontological view, people have a duty to act in a way that does those things that are inherently good as acts (“truth-telling” for example), or follow an objectively obligatory rule.
Consequentialism
Consequentialism refers to moral theories that hold the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action (or create a structure for judgment.
Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. This view is often expressed as “The ends justify the means”.
The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the weight given to the consequences in evaluating the rightness and wrongness of actions.
In consequentialist theories, the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh other considerations.
3. Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues the proper course of action is one that maximizes a positive effect, such as “happiness”, “welfare”, or the ability to live according to personal preferences.
Utilitarianism is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory.
This form of utilitarianism holds that the morally correct action is the one that produces the best outcome for all people affected by the action.
Utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures
How (Un)Ethical Are You
Most of us believe that we are ethical and unbiased. We believe that we:
Make good decisions
Are objective, and
Reach fair and rational conclusions
Research shows that in reality most fall short of our inflated self-perception, where we
have the illusion of objectivity
These unconscious or implicit biases can be contrary to our consciously held, explicit beliefs
As leaders we need to let go of the notion that our conscious attitudes always represent what we think
The prevalence of these biases suggests that the most well being person unwittingly allows conscious thoughts and feeling to influence our objective decisions
This article explores four related sources of unintentional unethical decision-making:
Implicit forms of prejudice
Bias that favours one’s own group
A tendency to over-claim credit
Conflict of interest
1. Implicit Prejudice: Bias that emerges from unconscious beliefs
Research shows that people judge according:
to unconscious stereotypes
attitudes, or implicit prejudice
We learn to associate things that commonly go together and expect them to inevitably co-exist
Example:
Thunder and rain, grey hair and old age. We automatically make such associations to help us organize our thoughts. We grow to trust these stereo-types, however, they are binding and typically not accurate
Because implicit prejudice come from the ordinary and unconscious tendency to make associations, it is distinct from conscious forms of prejudice
This explains why people who are free of conscious prejudice still demonstrate biases
Example:
People who had strong implicit biases were less likely to select women for positions who exhibited “masculine” personalities qualities, such as ambition or independence
The biased perception was that these women possessed less social skills than men.
2. In-Group Favouritism: Bias the Favours Your Group
Have you ever helped someone get a position by asking a favour. Few people set out to exclude anyone through such acts of kindness
In-group favouritism amounts to giving extra credit to someone within your group
Yet while discriminating against those who are not part of the group is considered unethical, helping people seemingly close to us is often viewed favourably
Research shows that where people are equally qualified and similar in all respects, the person who is considered “part of the group” will unconsciously be seen to be more qualified
There is no hatred or hostility….this behaviour is the root of discriminatory favouritism
An example of this is where minorities, who are sometimes more qualified, are unconsciously discriminated against
3. Overclaiming Credit: Bias that Favours You
People generally hold positive views about themselves
Studies show that the majority of people consider themselves above average. The more we think of our own contributions, the less fairly we judge others
Research also shows that the more people think of themselves , the less other people want to collaborate with them
People overclaiming can destabilize alliances
Where people are in relationship and one takes too much credit for their contributions, they become skeptical about whether the other person is doing their fair share
As a result both parties reduce their own amount of effort in the relationship
Unconscious overclaiming can be expected to reduce the performance and longevity of groups
4. Conflict of Interest: Bias that Favours those who can Benefit You
Conflict of interest can lead to intentionally corrupt behaviour
Research shows how much conflicts can unintentionally skew decision-making
Example:
You have cousin who cheats on his taxes. You work for the tax department. You have a very close relationship with him. He is a builder and renovates your house for you at a reduce “family” rate. He is not doing well financially. Your neighbour also worked on your house. You discover that he cheats on his taxes as well
Question: Who would you report
Are you :
objective,
unbiased,
benefitting
Has your decision-making been unintentionally skewed
Were your actions in the best interest of all involved: your cousin, your neighbour, you
There is a built-in conflict of interest because of the family relationship
This built-in conflict makes it impossible for you to see the implicit bias in your flawed decision-making
There is also in-group favouritism
There is also Implicit Prejudice by association: “Blood is thicker than water” – an automatic unconscious association
What do we do?
Trying harder is not enough
To overcome these bias many companies are trying harder to focus their ethical teaching on broad principles of moral philosophy:
to help leaders understand the ethical challenges
Trying harder is not the trick
Ethics training needs to focus on how our minds work and expose leaders directly to the unconscious mechanisms that underlie biased decision-making
Leaders can make wiser choices if they are aware of their unconscious biases
Leaders need continual conscious strategies to counter the pull of their unconscious biases
Collect data
The first step to reducing unconscious bias is to collect data to reveal its presence. People are often so surprised by their bias
That is because people tend to rely and trust in their own intuition
People need to unpack and examine the facts surrounding the bias
Unpacking means evaluating the fairness of the claims of the bias
Knowing the magnitude and pervasiveness of your own biases can help direct your attention to areas of decision-making that are in need of examination
Shape your environment
Research shows that implicit attitudes can be shaped by external cues in the environment
Study findings suggest that one remedy for implicit bias is to expose oneself to images and social environments that challenge stereotypes
Don’t remain in an environment that reinforces your bias. Create new or alternative environments
If the environment is promoting unconscious biased or unethical behaviour, consider creating countervailing experiences
Broaden you decision-making
Would you be willing to ever be in a group where you were disadvantaged by your own decision
How would your decision differ if you could make theme wearing various identities not your own? John Rawls calls this the “veil of ignorance”
He says that if you can put yourself aside/deny your own identity, then you could make real ethical choices
To deny your identity would be to by-pass your biases
The Vigilant Manager
If you answered in the beginning of this chapter that you were an ethical person, how would you honestly answer it now.
People who aspire to be ethical must:
challenge the assumptions that they are always unbiased and
acknowledge that cognitive vigilance, even more than good intentions, is a defining characteristic of an ethical manager.
They must actively:
Collect data
Shape the environment
Broaden their decision-making
Only those who understand their own potential for unethical behaviour can become the ethical decision makers that they aspire to be.
How to Avoid Catastrophe
What are near misses?
Near misses are often unremarkable small failures that permeate day to day business but cause no “apparent” harm.
People are hard wired to misinterpret or ignore the warnings embedded in these failures, and so they often go unexamined.
If conditions were to shift these near misses could erupt into chaos and crisis.
When disaster happens numerous poor decisions and dangerous conditions have contributed to it
With near misses we overlook the warning signs. With each near miss, rather than raise alarms and prompt action, we move on along the process because nothing happened
We accept the fact that nothing wrong happened as a good indicator that we are making the correct decision
Multiple near misses normally proceed every disaster and business crisis.
Most of the misses are ignored or misread. Our cognitive biases conspire to blind us to these near misses.
Two particular cognitive biases cloud our judgment.
1. Normalization of deviance – the tendency overtime to accept anomalies as normal, particularly risky ones,.
Things we become too comfortable with become normalized.
Therefore, what should be dangerous could be perceived in our minds as being safe because no dangerous event has ever occurred.
2. Outcome bias – tendency to focus on the results more than on the often unseen complex processes
Near misses should be instructive failures where leaders can apply their lessons to improve and ward off catastrophe
However, ….
….when people observe successful outcomes, and do not recognize and learning from near misses, it is simply not a matter of not paying attention
Roots of crisis
When people observe a successful outcome, their natural tendency is to assume the process that led to success was fundamentally sound…. even when it was not
Organizational disasters rarely have a single cause
They are initiated by unexpected, seemingly unimportant small latent/human errors of:
technical failures
bad business decisions.
These latent errors or human errors align with enabling conditions to produce a significant failure.
Enabling Conditions are factors in the environment that contribute to an event happening.
Latent errors often exist for long periods of time before they combine with enabling conditions to produce a significant failure.
Whether an enabling condition transforms a near miss into a crisis normally depends on chance.
Thus, it makes little sense to try to predict or control enabling conditions.
Instead, companies should focus on identifying and fixing human errors before circumstances allow them to create a crisis.
Because latent errors are normalized by bias, near misses become increasingly acceptable. Further, deviances caused by the near misses are also normalized.
Remember: These latent errors underlying a crisis exist long before the crisis happens.
These deviances are cognitively ignored because of our outcome bias. The latent errors only become apparent when a crisis gains momentum.
When coupled with the right enabling conditions the crisis will erupt. Only when enabling conditions occur, the latent error will trigger a crisis.
Recognizing and preventing near misses
Research suggests there are seven strategies that can help organization recognize near misses and root out the latent errors behind them.
Heed high pressure
The greater the pressure to meet performance goals, the more likely people are to discount near miss signals or misread them.
A classic case of normalization of deviance is exacerbated by political pressure.
Pressure can create an atmosphere that increasingly accepts less than expected performance.
Research shows that when people make decisions under pressure, they tend to rely on heuristics, or rules of thumb.
Thus, they are more easily influenced by biases in high pressure work environments.
People who are more easily swayed by outcome bias are:
more likely to normalize deviance
more apt to believe that the decisions are sound.
2. Learn from deviation
Research shows that decision makers clearly understand the statistical risk represented by deviation, but become increasingly less concerned about it.
It is important that leaders seek out operational deviations from the norm/specific rules and examine whether their reasons for accepting or tolerating the associated risk has merit.
The question to ask is whether we have always been comfortable with this level of risk? Has our policy toward this risk changed overtime?
3. Uncover root causes
When leaders identify deviations, their reflex is to correct the symptom rather than its cause.
Leaders are to create an intentional model to report near misses.
Leaders should be encouraged to report mistakes and near misses so the lessons can be teased out and applied.
4. Demand accountability
Even when people are aware of near misses, they tend to downgrade their importance. OneNote be comfortable is to hold leaders responsible for and to justify their assessments of near misses.
5. Consider worst case scenarios
People tend not to think through the possible negative consequences of near misses unless they’re expressly advised to do so.
Research shows that examining events closely helps people distinguish between near misses and successes.
Research also suggests people will often adjust their decision-making accordingly.
6. Evaluate projects at every stage
When things go badly, managers conduct post-mortems to determined causes and prevent recurrences.
…….Research suggests this is too late.
When things go well, however, few managers do a formal review of the success.
Because near misses can look like successes, they often escape review.
Reward owning
Observing and intending to near misses requires people to be motivated to expose near misses.
In many organizations, employees have good reason to keep quiet about failures.
When critically examining projects while they are under way, leaders can avoid bias and more likely to see near misses.
A technique called pause-and-learn process typically uncovers near misses that have gone undetected in the past.
Conclusion
Two forces conspire to make learning from near misses difficult:
cognitive bias, and
outcome bias.
When leaders do not recognize these biases, leaders tend not to grasp their significance.
Organizations often fail to expose and correct latent errors even when the cost of doing so is small.
They miss the opportunity to improve and learn from these small mistakes.
The Hidden Traps in Decision Making
Making decision is the most important job of any leader. It is tough and risky.
Bad decisions can damage a business and a career, sometimes irreparably.
So where do bad decisions come from?
They can be traced back to the way the decision were made:
the alternatives were not clearly defined,
the right information was not collected,
the costs and benefits were not accurately weighed.
Research shows that we use unconscious routines to cope with the complexity inherent in most decisions.
The routines are know as Heuristics – an approach that uses practical methods that are not necessarily guaranteed to end in optimal results.
The process may not be logical, rational…but sufficient to reach a goal. Heuristic people who act on instinct default to mental short-cuts.
These short-cuts are influenced by:
bias,
misconceptions,
irrational ideas.
These are psychological traps – organized flaws – that cause distortion.
Mental short-cuts help us make continuous stream of distance judgements required to navigate problems.
The fuzzier and far away a problem seems to us in our mind, the easier it is for us to rely on heuristics.
Because the heuristic person put issues out into the peripheral, they tend not to see the imminent dangers.
Heuristics trick our minds into thinking that things are more distant than what they really are.
Heuristics is hard-wired into our brains making us make decisions on these “distant” issues on irrational thinking, biases, and other sensory misconceptions.
These psychological traps can undermine everything to where we fall into traps.
We will examine the psychological traps that are likely to undermine business decisions.
The Anchoring Trap
When considering a decision, the mind gives disproportionate weight to the first information it receives.
This means that the first bit of information/sound your brain receives influences your mind to any other second question. You become trapped by what you first hear.
This can come in the form of:
a comment,
an accent,
a person’s skin colour, or
a person’s clothing.
This trap places too much weight on past experiences/stimuli as being a reliable and relevant way to judge or assess current and new information.
What can we do about it?
These anchors are unavoidable therefore cognitive mechanisms need to be set in place to challenge this trap, thus reducing their impact:
Purposefully view problems from different perspectives.
Think before allowing yourself to be anchored by others.
Be open-minded and seek information and opinions from several people
It is important that you do not end up anchoring others.
If you reveal too much of your own, especially if you are a leader, preconceptions, they may end up anchoring others.
The Status-Quo Trap
We all like to believe that we make decisions rationally and objectively. However, we all carry biases and those biases influence the choices we make.
Strong biases perpetuate deciding based on the status quo.
Making decisions on status quo is comfortable because you may be avoiding taking action that would upset what others have come to accept as normal.
Staying within the status quo does not challenge us, does not increase our responsibility, and does not open ourselves up to unwanted criticism. Sticking with the status quo is psychologically less risky.
Research shows that the more responsibility you have to make decision, one tends to choose to stick with the status quo.
When there are alternative, the status quo will be more likely chosen.
The status quo does not require any additional effort.
What can you do about it? – Again, a set of cognitive mechanisms:
Continually remind yourself of your objective. Examine how you would be serving your objective if you stuck with the status quo.
Never think of the status quo as an alternative. Doing nothing is ever a solution.
Avoid exaggerating the effectsresults of moving away from the status quo.
When evaluating alternatives focus on the future potential rather than on past/historical results.
If you have several alternative, don’t default to the status quo because of the heightened effort and responsibility.
The Sunk-Cost Trap
Another bias is that once time, effort and money has been invested into a decision, you are stuck with the decision because of the sunk-costs and efforts.
The belief is that the past is irrecoverable.
We know that sunk costs are irrecoverable to the present
but
we project this same thought to the future leading us to make inappropriate decisions
Either people are unwilling to admit error or it is easier just to continue on.
Sometimes a corporate culture reinforces the sunk-cost trap.
If there are real or perceived penalties for making a past bad decision research shows that managers will be motivated to let failed projects drag on.
What can we do about it?
Seek out people who were not part of the original decision. They can remain objective because they have no past invested history associated with the decision.
Be aware of the influence of sunk-cost biases made by subordinates.
Don’t cultivate a failure-fearing culture that leads employees to perpetuate their mistake.
The Confirming-Evidence Trap
This bias leads us to seek out information that supports our existing instinct or point of view while avoiding information that contradicts it.
The confirming-evidence bias affects:
where we go to collect evidence but also
how we interpret the evidence
leading us to give too much weight to supporting information and too little to conflicting information.
When confronted with information with balanced argument we have a tendency to:
select, and
support …..
……that information to which we hold strong opinions.
The information that seems to contradict our thinking is dismissed without careful consideration to the facts.
We will become much more engaged with the things that confirm our existing likes and biases.
What do we do about it?
Check to see if we are examining all evidence with equal rigor
Check your motives
When seeking advice don’t ask leading questions that invite confirming evidence.
The Framing Trap
The way we choose to frame a problem or a question influences the choices we ultimately make.
We tend to frame things the way we want to see things or by the status quo.
You can frame a question with a negative or a positive spin – i.e. is the glass half empty or half full.
By using negative speak you can direct people to take the half empty approach.
Another example is framing with different reference points:
if you invest 100K you have a 50% chance of making a million dollars selling sheep. Or you have a 50% chance of loosing 100K trying to make a million dollars selling sheep.
Research shows that different reactions result from the different reference points presented by two different frames.
Eg. 50% of the people found this show so exciting. 50% of the people found the show to be super boring.
What can you do about it?
Don’t automatically accept the initial frame
Pose issues and problems in a neutral manner – including both gain and loss
Examine the way others have framed things before you accept information
Estimating and Forecast Trap
Making estimates and forecasts based on fairly certain information may be ok.
Estimating and forecasting where there is uncertainty is another matter.
Feed back is rarely given as to accuracy. Our minds find it very difficult to become calibrated for making decisions in the face of uncertainty.
When confronted with uncertainty we allow our minds to become clouded and the potential results to be distorted. This distortion does not allow us to assess probabilities.
This is an uncertainty trap.
There are three uncertainty traps:
1. The overconfidence trap – we are actually overconfident about the accuracy thus leading to errors in judgement.
Those who are overconfident about the accuracy within uncertainty, actually set a very very narrow range of possibilities. Their scope is very narrow.
2. The prudent trap – people are extremely cautious in uncertainty in order to stay on the safe side. This safe side could be real or perceived. Research shows that over cautiousness is encoded in formal decision-making.
This approach is so ingrained that even when worst case scenarios are infinitesimally possible of happening, the formal process remains overly cautious.
The past can overly influence us because of dramatic past events.
These dramatic events can distort our thinking and cause us to see or believe in a higher probability of something going wrong…..
…. even if there are no strong indicators.
What can we do about it?
to reduce overconfidence with estimates and forecasts make sure that you evaluate an outcome by looking at the extreme possibilities.
Minimize the distortions from recallability by cognitively not allowing past experiences cloud your ability to rationally think through the issue.
Conquering a Culture of Indecision
Imagine….. presenting a project and waiting for everyone else to open the discussion:
No one wants to comment.
There is a loud silence in the room.
The comments are all positive.
Remarks are finally made but judging from their remarks, it appears that everyone in the room supports the project. The project ends….but has it resolved anything?
Appearances can be deceiving.
Many people may be discontent, keeping their reservations to themselves.
silence
discontentment
reservation
…..can strangle a project to death
The true sentiment may be that people oppose the project
Silence and the lack of closure leads to false decisions:
project has not resolved much
False decisions and conclusions get undone by unspoken factors and inaction.
Leaders are charged with:
reaching a decision
connecting
engaging with one another.
Leaders who do not take charge:
demonstrate the inability to take decisive action and
create a corporate culture of indecisiveness.
Leaders can break this culture of indecisiveness by:
challenging assumptions
encouraging dialogue
The quality of the dialogue determines:
how people gather and process information
how they make decisions
how they feel about one another
about the outcome of these decisions
Dialogue can lead to new ideas and speed as a competitive advantage
It is the single most important factor underlying the productivity and growth of the knowledgeable worker.
Breaking a culture of indecision requires a leader who can engender between people:
intellectual honesty
trusting relationships: connections
The leader must set the tone by:
using these connections
modelling open and honest dialogue
Setting the tone is only the first step.
To transform a culture of indecision leaders must also see that the organization’s social operating mechanisms have honest dialogue at their centre.
Leaders must establish clear lines of accountability for reaching decisions and executing them.
Follow-through and feedback are the final steps in creating a decisive culture.
Feedback can be used to:
coach those who are struggling
redirect behaviours of those blocking progress and
provide reward to those who achieve.
It all begins with dialogue
Studies show that products and operational strength are not what really sets the most successful organizations apart.
What can not be easily duplicated between these companies are:
the decisive dialogues and robust operating mechanisms and
their links to feedback and follow-through.
These factors constitute an organization’s most lasting competitive advantage.
Decisive dialogue encourages:
creativity
brings coherence to seemingly fragmented and unrelated ideas
Outcomes seem right because people have helped to shape it
Where there is intellectual inquiry rather than advocacy people are energized and ready to act.
In these dialogues it is important for the leader to inject realism
Further, this dialogue should appear open to insight where people feel:
energised
challenged
more sharply focused
It is important that there is not a failure to get all relevant information into the open.
How dialogue is conducted affects people’s attitudes and behaviour in subtle and not so subtle ways.
How dialogue becomes action
The social operating mechanisms of decisive corporate culture features behaviours marked by 4 characteristics:
Openness,
Candor,
Informality, and
Closure
Openness means that the outcome is not predetermined.
There is an honest search for alternatives and new discoveries. Leaders create an atmosphere of safety that permits:
good discussion
group learning
trust
2. Candor is a willingness to:
speak the unspeakable
expose unfulfilled commitments
air the conflicts that undermine apparent consensus
Candor means that people express their real opinions…..not what they think team players are supposed to say
Candor helps wipeout the silence
Informality encourages candor. It reduces defensiveness
People feel more comfortable asking questions and Reacting honestly
Closure imposes discipline
Closure means People know exactly what they are expected to do
Closure produces decisiveness by:
assigning accountability
deadlines to people
Closure tests the leader’s inner strength and intellectual resources
Leaders get the behaviour they tolerate….putting up with old cultures of individualism and information hoarding
Cultures should be one where there is:
transparency
information sharing
…..a cultural mechanisms of airing and resolving conflicts
Bringing conflicts to the surface is a sign of organizational health
A healthy culture provides the opportunity for:
open dialogue
a safe environment for disagreement
In every organization conflict is inevitable
Therefore, a healthy approach to conflict it can be an opportunity for identifying best solutions
Dialogue is not about stating a message once and assuming it will sink in
Change in corporate culture and behaviour is made through a repetition of the dialogue
True behavioral change comes through a genuine cultural change
It is important for the organization to develop a cultural/social operating mechanism that promotes:
free flowing,
productive and decisive dialogue.
Further, for dialogue to be productive, the conversation should be focused on a common task.
Follow-through and feedback
Follow-through is at the root of decisive cultures.
A lack of follow through destroys:
the discipline of execution
encourages indecision
A good example of a follow-through and feedback mechanisms is the performance and compensation review process…..especially if it is explicitly linked to the corporation’s social operating mechanisms.
This feedback mechanism, however, cannot be viewed as ritualistic
Where there is no genuine conversation or no feedback, there is:
no chance for employees to learn
no opportunity for candid dialogue between employees and leaders
Without the right type of dialogue:
feedback mechanisms will not work as intended
not serve its purpose
behavioural and cultural change can not happen
Leaders must give honest feedback to their direct reports, especially to those who find themselves not doing well
Finally…..feedback should be many things:
candid
constructive
relentlessly focused on behaviour performance
about accountability
implementation/execution
One thing….it should not be surprising to the employee
Feedback mechanisms should be conducted on a continual basis…as a year long process
Dialogue and Indecision
| Intellectual Honesty |
Social Operating Mechanisms |
Follow-through & Feedback |
| Connection between leader and team | Executive meetings Strategy reviews |
Honest feedback, and reward high achievement |
| Model respect, openness and honesty | Where the people of a corporation do business | Coaching for those struggling |
| Decisive dialogue sets the tone for the organization | Establish clear lines of accountability for decisions & action | Redirect behaviors blocking the organization progress |
Conclusion
Ultimately, changing a culture of indecision is it matter of leadership
It is a matter of asking hard questions:
how robust and effective are our social operating mechanisms
How well they are linked
did they have the right people in the right frequency
do they have a rhythm and operate consistently
is follow through built in
Further, a social dialogue mechanism must be marked by:
openness
candour
informality
closure
Transforming a culture of indecision is a big demanding task
It requires:
asking the right questions
identifying and resolving conflicts
providing candid and constructive feedback
Leaders with the strength to insist on honest dialogue and follow-through will be rewarded not only with a decisive organization but also with a workforce that is:
energised
powered
engaged
What you don’t know about making decisions – Garvin and Roberto
Leaders are made or broken by the quality of their decisions.
The reason:
most businesspeople treat decision-making as an event
Making a decision that way is to overlook the larger social and organizational context.
It’s a process that unfolds over weeks, months, or even years.
Decisions as Process: Inquiry versus Advocacy
Not all decision-making process is are equally effective.
Two broad approaches:
Inquiry
Advocacy.
Inquiry
Inquiry is a very open process. It’s all about:
alternatives
exchange of ideas
tested solutions
Inquiry considers options and works together. Goal is:
not to persuade
agreement on the best course of action
share information and
draw their own conclusions
With Inquiry
Encourages critical thinking and debate.
Participants feel comfortable raising alternative solutions.
People question assumptions.
Disagreements revolve around ideas and interpretations rather than entrenched positions.
The implicit assumption:
A solution will emerge from:
a test of strength among competing ideas… not duelling positions.
Advocacy
immersed in discussion and debate,
select a course of action on what they believe is the best available evidence
Not on new ideas and interpretations
Advocacy perspective…..participants
passionate about their preferred solutions
stand firm in the face of disagreement.
Passion:
Hard to remain objective
limits ability to pay attention to opposing arguments
Goal
make a compelling case,
not convey a balanced view.
Disagreements are:
fractious
antagonistic.
Personalities and egos come into play.
The implicit assumption – a superior solution will emerge from a test of strength.
This approach:
suppresses innovation
encourages participants to go alone with a dominant view
avoids conflict
CONFLICT
Constructive conflict
Critical thinking and rigorous debate lead to conflict.
Conflict:
not always means negative
brings issues into focus.
Conflict comes in two forms:
cognitive (intentional)
affective (emotion)
Cognitive conflict – disagreements of ideas and assumptions on best way to proceed
This conflict is crucial to effective inquiry
Challenging underlying assumptions:
flags real weaknesses
introduces new ideas.
Affective conflict is emotional.
Involves personal friction
clashing personalities
Diminishes willingness to cooperate.
The challenge for leaders
increase cognitive conflict
keep affective conflict at a minimum.
Meaning……..
keep emotional conflict at minimum
personal friction diminishes relationships.
HOW?
establish norms or rules
make vigorous debate the rule
…………..not the exception.
structure the conversation so the process fosters debate
Example: Point counter Point
One group is asked to develop a proposal
A second group generates alternative recommendations.
The groups exchange proposals and discuss the various options until there is agreement.
Intellectual Watchdog
One group is asked to develop a proposal
A second group critiques the proposal of the first and sends back for revision.
Cycle is repeated until proposal meets the standard of the second group.
But even if you’ve structured the process toward encouraging cognitive conflict, there’s always the risk that it will become personal.
How to structure?
First
pay attention to how issues are framed
the language used
Set ground rules about language
avoid words and behaviours that trigger defensiveness.
Second
help people step back from pre established positions
breaking up natural coalitions
assign people to tasks on some basis rather than traditional loyalties
Alternative alliance partners for people with differing interests to work with one another.
Third,
shift individuals out of well grooved patterns, or vested interests or highest. Ask groups to research and argue positions they ordinarily do not endorse.
Finally, ask participants locked in debate to revisit key facts and assumptions. Gather more information. People become so focused on differences that they end up reaching a stalemate. Ask people to examine underlying pre-assumptions.
13
Consideration
Once a decision’s been made and alternatives dismissed, some people will have to surrender the solution they preferred.
At times those who are overruled grudgingly accept different outcomes.
The critical factor appears to be the perception of fairness – procedural justice. People participating in the process must believe that their views are considered and that they had an opportunity to influence the final decision.
If so, participants believe process was fair and they will be more willing to commit themselves, even if their views did not prevail.
All opinions cannot prevail, but all opinions have value in shaping the right answer.
Voice without consideration is damaging. That leads to resentment and frustration rather than to acceptance. People need to believe that they were heard and considered. Thus, the decision-making process will be seen as a sham.
Leaders can demonstrate consideration through-out the decision-making process. At the outset, they need to convey openess to new ideas and a willingness to accept views that differ from their own.
They should avoid disclosing their personal preferences early in the process.
Leaders must take care to show they are actively listening and are being attentive.
How?
ask questions,
probe for deeper explanations,
echo comments, and
show patience.
After a leader makes a final choice, they should explain their logic. They must describe the rationale for their decision, detailing the criteria they used.
Most importantly, they need to convey how each participant’s arguments affected the final decision.
Closure
Knowing when to end deliberations is tricky. All too often decision-making rushes to a conclusion.
Decision making can drag on endlessly where a decision is made too late. Making a decision too early is just as damaging is deciding too late period.
Deciding too early
Sometimes people’s desire to be team players overrides their willingness to engage in critical thinking and thoughtful analysis.
Where a group readily accepts the first possible option is known as “group think”.
The danger of group think suppresses the full range of options to be considered but also unstated objections will come to the surface at some critical moment.
First line of defense against group think – leaders need to learn to recognise latent discontent (existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden or concealed). Leaders need to bring people back into the discussion
HOW?
This may be done by approaching dissenters one by one an encouraging them to speak up.
Second – another way to avoid early closure, cultivate minority views either through norms or rules. Minority views broaden and deepen debate as they stretch a group’s thinking.
Deciding too late
At times, a team hits the wall. Without a mechanism for breaking the deadlock, discussions become an endless loop.
At other times, people bend over backward to ensure even-handed participation. Striving for fairness, participants insist on hearing every view and resolving every question before reaching a conclusion.
This demand for certainty results and usually in an endless loop, replaying the same alternatives, objections and requests.
What do leaders need to do?
At this point it’s the leader’s job to call the question and announce a decision.
The message here is that leaders need to become more comfortable with ambiguity and be willing to make quicker decisions in the absence of complete, unequivocal data or support.
CONCLUSION
A Litmus Test
Successful outcomes can be evaluated only after the fact. Is there anyway to find out earlier whether you are on the right track.
Researchers suggest there is. Research shows that there are a set of traits that are closely linked with superior outcomes.
Multiple alternatives
When groups consider many alternatives, they engage in more thoughtful analysis and usually avoid settling too quickly on obvious answers.
Assumption testing
Facts come in two varieties:
those that have been carefully tested and
those that have been merely asserted or assumed.
Effective decision-making groups do not confuse the two. These groups step back from their arguments and try to confirm their assumptions by examining them critically.
You may still find they are lacking hard evidence, but at least people will know they are venturing into uncertainty if you have critically examined your facts.
Well defined criteria
Without clear goals, competing arguments become difficult judge.
Fuzzy thinking – long delays are the likely result.
To avoid this problem specific goals up front and repeatedly during the decision-making process.
Although these goals can be complex, quantitative and qualitative, at the fore.
4. Dissent and debate
there are two ways to measure the health of a debate:
the kinds of questions being asked and
the level of listening.
Some questions open up discussion; others narrow it and end deliberations.
The level of listening is an equally important indicator of a healthy decision-making process. Poor listening produces:
flawed analysis
personal friction.
Participants routinely interrupting one another before considering all the facts and information, affective conflict is likely to materialise.
Group harmony disappears in the absence of active listening.
5. Perceived fairness
A real time measure of perceived fairness is level of participation.
Often, a reduction in participation is an early warning of problems. Some members of the group are already showing their displeasure.
Keeping people involved in the process is the most crucial factor in making a decision, and making it stick.
It requires the strength to promote conflict while accepting the:
ambiguity,
wisdom to know when to bring conversations to a close,
patience to help others understand the reasoning behind your choice, and
ability to embrace both the divergence that may characterise early discussions and the unity needed for effective implementation period
Needs help with similar assignment?
We are available 24x7 to deliver the best services and assignment ready within 3-12 hours? PAY FOR YOUR FIRST ORDER AFTER COMPLETION..
Get Answer Over WhatsApp
Order Paper Now
