http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/magazine/06FOB-Ethicist-t.html
This is a great article from the New York Times, highlighting how hard ethics can be in some situations. It mentions two stories, the first is about a guy who has been out of work for a long time and has a job offer setting up off shore help jobs. He is at a crossroad because his father's auto industry was outsourced and he does not agree with outsourcing at all. Should he accept the job or not? The second story is about a girl who is to have her tonsils out, but mother is on her way to jail for 5 years. The doctor is on the crossroads of whether or not to ask the courts to allow the child's mother to come sit with her daughter during the operation. The doctor does not believe the mother deserves a break, but that the little girl does.
It is very easy for someone to say they wish to be ethical. However, in a situation like the one above, what is the ethical choice? It is not easy to discern between ethical and unethical. In the first story, the wife tells the husband to accept the job because if he doesn't someone else will. This is true, but can be applied to any situation. I am sure it is frustrating for him not having a job and struggling to make ends meet, but is a job worth compromising what you believe in? I think it depends on the situation. Obviously, this guy is doing the best he can, but what if he is having trouble putting food on the table or supporting his children? In this situation I believe it is necessary to take the job. In the second story, the biggest questions is whether or not the girl should be punished for her mother's actions. She will no doubt be without her mother for years, which is why I believe the mother should be allowed to sit at the operation. This 10 year-old girl did nothing wrong, and even though the operation is not severe, it is important for her to have all the support she can.
Ultimately, the guy declined the job due to moral principle and the doctor appealed for the mother to be at the procedure and was denied.
This article is a great example of the ambiguity involved in some ethical decisions. I feel the situation is different in every case, which makes it important for business people to step back and look at the situation as a whole, before making a decision on a course of action.
Do you agree with my analysis of the situation?
-Ryan Schaumburg
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Middle of the Road
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-06/politics/navarrette.obama.centrist_1_obama-justice-department-president-obama-liberals?_s=PM:POLITICS
This article does a good job of outlining some of the reasons why President Obama started out in the middle of the road during the beginning of his term as President. The issue of President Obama being a centrist or in the middle of the road had many of his followers wondering if he was indeed a liberal and would support them in the future. Many conservatives were looking at Obama's support on the $787 billion stimulus bill which goes against the beliefs of many of the the people who voted him in office. Obama started in the center when he began picking his cabinet members who strongly supported ideas that Obama has gone against his entire career.
Though a middle of the road leader does compromise to both sides keeping a balance and equilibrium, in some leadership roles this approach is very questionable. Obama did a great job of taking the people into account while still outlining where he wanted to go with his term as President. He maintained the morale of the people at a reasonable level, however people were beginning to question whether they elected the correct President.
I feel that the middle of the road approach can develop some unethical traits among leaders that use this in their leadership style. For Obama to go against his original thoughts and beliefs about political topics and hire people who supported against him in his cabinet that to me seems unethical. I feel that if you are a leader you need to be very truthful from beginning to end to your followers to ensure their loyalty and confidence in you. This is a very small scale of being unethical, but it does raise some concern when a leader becomes hypocritical and goes against the original plan that he/she has outlined.
Do you agree with me that this was a little unethical of President Obama?
Do you think that there is another leadership style that would be better in the "leadership grid" found on page 74 of our text book?
-Kyle Turner
This article does a good job of outlining some of the reasons why President Obama started out in the middle of the road during the beginning of his term as President. The issue of President Obama being a centrist or in the middle of the road had many of his followers wondering if he was indeed a liberal and would support them in the future. Many conservatives were looking at Obama's support on the $787 billion stimulus bill which goes against the beliefs of many of the the people who voted him in office. Obama started in the center when he began picking his cabinet members who strongly supported ideas that Obama has gone against his entire career.
Though a middle of the road leader does compromise to both sides keeping a balance and equilibrium, in some leadership roles this approach is very questionable. Obama did a great job of taking the people into account while still outlining where he wanted to go with his term as President. He maintained the morale of the people at a reasonable level, however people were beginning to question whether they elected the correct President.
I feel that the middle of the road approach can develop some unethical traits among leaders that use this in their leadership style. For Obama to go against his original thoughts and beliefs about political topics and hire people who supported against him in his cabinet that to me seems unethical. I feel that if you are a leader you need to be very truthful from beginning to end to your followers to ensure their loyalty and confidence in you. This is a very small scale of being unethical, but it does raise some concern when a leader becomes hypocritical and goes against the original plan that he/she has outlined.
Do you agree with me that this was a little unethical of President Obama?
Do you think that there is another leadership style that would be better in the "leadership grid" found on page 74 of our text book?
-Kyle Turner
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Integrity and Ethics
According to dictionary.com,
Integrity equals: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
I never thought about the amount of integrity and how it affects an organization until recently when I read this article: http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page292681?oid=527025&sn=2009+Detail+no+image&pid=287226
The article made the amazing point that companies with higher integrity had less misconduct, higher financial strength, stronger long-term shareholder returns, and overall higher business performance, all of which I feel are major goals of the company.
Considering leadership, if a company's leader is more focused on hiring people with high integrity, everything else will fall into place. If leaders can motivate employees to make the right decisions, the company can reap the benefits. Instead of asking a potential employee what they did in a time of conflict, why not ask about a time they felt they acted with integrity? Instead of worrying about a task, why not worry about how ethically (or unethically) the task is accomplished? I feel that if integrity (and ethics) were more of a concern at the bottom of an organization, they can climb their way to the top and stop unethical behavior from the core.
Posted By: Melissa Beechy
Integrity equals: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
I never thought about the amount of integrity and how it affects an organization until recently when I read this article: http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page292681?oid=527025&sn=2009+Detail+no+image&pid=287226
The article made the amazing point that companies with higher integrity had less misconduct, higher financial strength, stronger long-term shareholder returns, and overall higher business performance, all of which I feel are major goals of the company.
Considering leadership, if a company's leader is more focused on hiring people with high integrity, everything else will fall into place. If leaders can motivate employees to make the right decisions, the company can reap the benefits. Instead of asking a potential employee what they did in a time of conflict, why not ask about a time they felt they acted with integrity? Instead of worrying about a task, why not worry about how ethically (or unethically) the task is accomplished? I feel that if integrity (and ethics) were more of a concern at the bottom of an organization, they can climb their way to the top and stop unethical behavior from the core.
Posted By: Melissa Beechy
Starbucks Ethics and going green
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/leisure/article5240824.ece
With Starbucks recently being named one of the most ethical companies, I was looking for an article that outlined all of their key ethical practices that landed them on the list. Instead, I found an article from 2008, based out of the UK, that highlighted some of the worries people were having relating to the ethics of Starbucks. This article highlighted some of the things we don't normally think of when deciding what goes into making an ethical company.
With consumers becoming more price sensitive, it is becoming harder for companies to act ethically and still make a profit. Developing products that are good for the environment is also very costly. Companies need to be sure consumers are going to buy a product that is good for the environment if they are investing millions of dollars.
Do you think money is a major motivator for both consumers, as well as companies, in the effort to go green?
- Kelly Moran
With Starbucks recently being named one of the most ethical companies, I was looking for an article that outlined all of their key ethical practices that landed them on the list. Instead, I found an article from 2008, based out of the UK, that highlighted some of the worries people were having relating to the ethics of Starbucks. This article highlighted some of the things we don't normally think of when deciding what goes into making an ethical company.
With consumers becoming more price sensitive, it is becoming harder for companies to act ethically and still make a profit. Developing products that are good for the environment is also very costly. Companies need to be sure consumers are going to buy a product that is good for the environment if they are investing millions of dollars.
Do you think money is a major motivator for both consumers, as well as companies, in the effort to go green?
- Kelly Moran
Monday, February 14, 2011
Values and believes in a new CEO
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jan2009/ca20090130_544017.htm#readerComments
Still in the topic of social responsibility and the CEO's responsibility to support the employees and the community. This article was appealing to me because I think this is a good example of using utilitarianism values in leadership. The founder and CEO for the ad agency Hill Holliday wanted to find a insider to take over after him in the company. He wanted someone who shared his values: “about the work itself, the way both clients and employees were treated, and about the agency's commitment to charity.” I think his values and believes are example on good ethical leadership. He is not only concerned about the company and it profits. His main responsibility is the idea of the company with happy employees and commitment to charity.
This view seems to be similar to the Conceptual skill we can read about in our course book in chapter 3 Skills approach. A leader have the conceptual skill if he or she comfortable talking about the ideas that shape an organization and the intricacies. According to the book is this skill most important in the top management. These skills seems also to be the ones that the founder looking for in a new CEO in the article.
Do you think this skills are important when you looking for a new CEO? Do you need to pick an insider to a CEO to keep the company´s values and commitments, or is it possible to recruit outside the company and hang on to the same things?
- Eva-Lena Juhlin
Still in the topic of social responsibility and the CEO's responsibility to support the employees and the community. This article was appealing to me because I think this is a good example of using utilitarianism values in leadership. The founder and CEO for the ad agency Hill Holliday wanted to find a insider to take over after him in the company. He wanted someone who shared his values: “about the work itself, the way both clients and employees were treated, and about the agency's commitment to charity.” I think his values and believes are example on good ethical leadership. He is not only concerned about the company and it profits. His main responsibility is the idea of the company with happy employees and commitment to charity.
This view seems to be similar to the Conceptual skill we can read about in our course book in chapter 3 Skills approach. A leader have the conceptual skill if he or she comfortable talking about the ideas that shape an organization and the intricacies. According to the book is this skill most important in the top management. These skills seems also to be the ones that the founder looking for in a new CEO in the article.
Do you think this skills are important when you looking for a new CEO? Do you need to pick an insider to a CEO to keep the company´s values and commitments, or is it possible to recruit outside the company and hang on to the same things?
- Eva-Lena Juhlin
Monday, February 7, 2011
Corporate Ethics All Start with CEOs
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.ilstu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=107&sid=05669493-6db5-46de-8eb6-587f6def2f95%40sessionmgr114&vid=2
Staying with the CEO theme on our blog, I found a great article that gives a first hand experience of corporate ethics from the CEO of SPL World Group. His thoughts on the issue are consistent with Robert Greenleaf's "servant leadership" and using utilitarianism values in leadership.
The author stresses the tendencies in today's business environment for CEO's to treat each market issue as a chance for market advantage for the business to fulfill duty to maximize shareholder's profits, rather than fulfilling their duty to their employees and the community as well. He believes that as CEO HE is responsible for making sure that the firm is always a good citizen, respectful of laws and values, supportive of the markets to which they profit from, and most importantly supportive of the communities to which they operate in. This is where the utilitarianism values come from, the welfare of helping out the communities to where businesses operate. He then goes on to mention the importance of treating employees with respect. A great quote from the article, that is spot on with servant leadership says, "i cannot create enduring value from my investors, unless i create real value for my employees." The author really recognizes that his employees are the driving force of the company, and by creating long-term benefits and rewards for them it not only gives them a reason to stay, but keeps the organization in a positive light among the employees as well.
It is not always cost efficient for a organization to help out the community, however it is always a good idea. Social irresponsibility is a sure way to weaken public image, lower profits, and most importantly hurt the surrounding communities who buy your products or services. I agree wholeheartedly with the author, that ethics start with the CEO. Making speeches and changing ethical guidelines can only do so much, the CEO needs to model the way. When employees in the organization see their leader practicing the ethical responsibilities required of the them, the organization will follow.
Please respond with your agreements or disagreements with the topic!!
-Ryan Schaumburg
Staying with the CEO theme on our blog, I found a great article that gives a first hand experience of corporate ethics from the CEO of SPL World Group. His thoughts on the issue are consistent with Robert Greenleaf's "servant leadership" and using utilitarianism values in leadership.
The author stresses the tendencies in today's business environment for CEO's to treat each market issue as a chance for market advantage for the business to fulfill duty to maximize shareholder's profits, rather than fulfilling their duty to their employees and the community as well. He believes that as CEO HE is responsible for making sure that the firm is always a good citizen, respectful of laws and values, supportive of the markets to which they profit from, and most importantly supportive of the communities to which they operate in. This is where the utilitarianism values come from, the welfare of helping out the communities to where businesses operate. He then goes on to mention the importance of treating employees with respect. A great quote from the article, that is spot on with servant leadership says, "i cannot create enduring value from my investors, unless i create real value for my employees." The author really recognizes that his employees are the driving force of the company, and by creating long-term benefits and rewards for them it not only gives them a reason to stay, but keeps the organization in a positive light among the employees as well.
It is not always cost efficient for a organization to help out the community, however it is always a good idea. Social irresponsibility is a sure way to weaken public image, lower profits, and most importantly hurt the surrounding communities who buy your products or services. I agree wholeheartedly with the author, that ethics start with the CEO. Making speeches and changing ethical guidelines can only do so much, the CEO needs to model the way. When employees in the organization see their leader practicing the ethical responsibilities required of the them, the organization will follow.
Please respond with your agreements or disagreements with the topic!!
-Ryan Schaumburg
Sunday, February 6, 2011
CEOs' Ethical Lapses Put Boards in Tough Spots
http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2010/08/09/ceos-ethical-lapses-put-boards-in-tough-spots/
This article was appealing to me because it focuses on the idea that CEO's put their boards in tough spots, when in reality the CEO should be responsible for the unethical decisions that they make. When referring to putting boards into "tough spots," I disagree. I believe that board members should not feel guilty when questioned and answering to the truth. I believe it is a tough decision to let the CEO of a company go, especially because they are the immediate successor of the business, but if the CEO has been unethical and has gotten caught, chances are there are other spots in the business where he/she has chosen to be unethical as well.
The article moves into different executive ethical lapses including: Steven J. Heyer of Starwood Hotels & Resorts, David Edmondson of RadioShack Corp., Harry Stecipher of Boeing Co., and Thomas M. Coughlin of Walmart Stores Inc. All of these executives that employees look up to have acted unethically and have either stepped down from their position or were replaced.
Board members are facing problems when finding a warning sign because it may later on become a much bigger scandal. I believe by facing the warning sign early on, the chances of avoiding a scandal will become higher. I believe there should be a zero tolerance on unethical behavior in the workplace in order to create a productive and ethical environment of a firm.
Your thoughts? Have you heard of any specific scandals of corporations that could have been avoided due to an early warning sign that was overlooked?
-Lauren Mowers
This article was appealing to me because it focuses on the idea that CEO's put their boards in tough spots, when in reality the CEO should be responsible for the unethical decisions that they make. When referring to putting boards into "tough spots," I disagree. I believe that board members should not feel guilty when questioned and answering to the truth. I believe it is a tough decision to let the CEO of a company go, especially because they are the immediate successor of the business, but if the CEO has been unethical and has gotten caught, chances are there are other spots in the business where he/she has chosen to be unethical as well.
The article moves into different executive ethical lapses including: Steven J. Heyer of Starwood Hotels & Resorts, David Edmondson of RadioShack Corp., Harry Stecipher of Boeing Co., and Thomas M. Coughlin of Walmart Stores Inc. All of these executives that employees look up to have acted unethically and have either stepped down from their position or were replaced.
Board members are facing problems when finding a warning sign because it may later on become a much bigger scandal. I believe by facing the warning sign early on, the chances of avoiding a scandal will become higher. I believe there should be a zero tolerance on unethical behavior in the workplace in order to create a productive and ethical environment of a firm.
Your thoughts? Have you heard of any specific scandals of corporations that could have been avoided due to an early warning sign that was overlooked?
-Lauren Mowers
Green = Good?
In the article "Going Green's Unexpected Advantage" G. Michael Maddock and Raphael Louis Vitón discuss the advantages for leaders to make their employees and business go green. They argue that the green approach makes a key driver of innovation and carries a huge competitive advantage. The main arguments G. Michael Maddock and Raphael Louis Vitón point out are "It makes no sense to sail against the wind", "It can save you a lot of money" and "It's not that hard to apply a green lens".
My first thought was: does this caunt as ethical leadership on today´s society? Go green seems to be a good way for a leader to be ethical and take public responsible, but none of the arguments talk about some good for the environment. Only to act as you do something good for the society. The last argument (“not that hard to apply a green lens”) mainly suggest that you don´t need to do a big difference to be classified as green. That means that the green stamp is something meaningless that doesn´t make any difference.
In this view, the green approach seems to be more a competitive advantage for the business than cause of corporate social responsibility. What do you think? Can the green aproach do more harm than good?
Article: http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/dec2010/ca20101220_742780.htm
Posted by: Eva-Lena Juhlin
Salary Packages and Regulations
http://finsec.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/5-59-million-westpac-ceo-salary-package-unethical/
In this article it brings light on other issues around the world happening relating to CEO's acting unethically. The article comes from New Zealand where the CEO of a company received a salary package of $5.59 million, which was the largest in New Zealand corporate history. This package has been described as unethical because the economy is struggling and average workers have had zero or limited growth in their own salaries.
This topic has raised concern in New Zealand for the need for executive salary controls. This article interested me because of the global aspect of it. It shows that CEO's all over the world are acting unethically and the talk of regulations is becoming more and more popular.
Does anyone have an opinion on regulations for CEO salaries? Should they exist?
-Kyle Turner
In this article it brings light on other issues around the world happening relating to CEO's acting unethically. The article comes from New Zealand where the CEO of a company received a salary package of $5.59 million, which was the largest in New Zealand corporate history. This package has been described as unethical because the economy is struggling and average workers have had zero or limited growth in their own salaries.
This topic has raised concern in New Zealand for the need for executive salary controls. This article interested me because of the global aspect of it. It shows that CEO's all over the world are acting unethically and the talk of regulations is becoming more and more popular.
Does anyone have an opinion on regulations for CEO salaries? Should they exist?
-Kyle Turner
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Interesting Numbers
http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2010/07/27/6-unpopular-ceos-who-still-collect-millions
This is just an article I found extremely interesting. The amount of money the CEOs in this list have made since acting unethically is astounding. I wonder what else they do that we don't/won't even know.
Is this fair at all? Think of what the company could be doing with the money they are instead paying their failed leaders. They could be investing it, helping the company grow, paying out dividends, donating to a good cause, etc. This kind of stuff really bothers me, and makes me think about how they are pretty much rewarding the CEOs for their unethical behavior. That sure is what it seems like...
Posted by- Melissa Beechy
This is just an article I found extremely interesting. The amount of money the CEOs in this list have made since acting unethically is astounding. I wonder what else they do that we don't/won't even know.
Is this fair at all? Think of what the company could be doing with the money they are instead paying their failed leaders. They could be investing it, helping the company grow, paying out dividends, donating to a good cause, etc. This kind of stuff really bothers me, and makes me think about how they are pretty much rewarding the CEOs for their unethical behavior. That sure is what it seems like...
Posted by- Melissa Beechy
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Two Different Types of CEO's
This article is highly representative of both our class focus on different types of leaders, as well as the topic of our blog.
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/there-are-two-kinds-of-c-e-o/?scp=2&sq=enron&st=cse
After reading this blog, it had me wondering if what the writer, Jay Goltz, was saying was true. I think it is wrong to stereotype CEO's as good or bad based on the size of the company, but then again it makes perfect sense. Almost everyone would agree that small business owners do invest more in their companies than the CEO's of large corporations. However, I think we may just hear more about large corporate scandals than we do about small business scandals. A scandal involving a CEO of a small/mid sized company is much less likely to make the news than a large corporate scandal is.
How do you feel? Do you think CEO's of smaller companies tend to be more ethical since they do have so much more invested? Or, do you think it doesn't matter the size of the company, or how much a CEO has invested? One thing is clear though: the good, the bad, and the ugly exist in any sized company.
Posted by: Kelly Moran
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/there-are-two-kinds-of-c-e-o/?scp=2&sq=enron&st=cse
After reading this blog, it had me wondering if what the writer, Jay Goltz, was saying was true. I think it is wrong to stereotype CEO's as good or bad based on the size of the company, but then again it makes perfect sense. Almost everyone would agree that small business owners do invest more in their companies than the CEO's of large corporations. However, I think we may just hear more about large corporate scandals than we do about small business scandals. A scandal involving a CEO of a small/mid sized company is much less likely to make the news than a large corporate scandal is.
How do you feel? Do you think CEO's of smaller companies tend to be more ethical since they do have so much more invested? Or, do you think it doesn't matter the size of the company, or how much a CEO has invested? One thing is clear though: the good, the bad, and the ugly exist in any sized company.
Posted by: Kelly Moran
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)