I am currently in a state of shock and awe as we conclude
week five. This week pertained to a
great deal of ripping off of Band-Aids once again; I never realized that it
would be so challenging to identify three protected values and what level of
protection would be required in order to show my support of them.
For example, the three values I could think about all
surround a common theme – honesty, integrity, and kindness. I guess it stems
from past experiences somewhere in my life, but I do feel that honesty is
everything. The three values I mapped this week were the importance of
consistency in demonstrating professional ethics, the importance of never
cheating on your spouse, and lastly, that we should do no harm to animals.
I think that this exercise was incredibly challenging for me
because I don’t see the world as always black or white; there will always be
some instance in which what we think is true can be presented in an alternative
light that would have us consider what we originally thought to be true or
required.
For example, how can I possibly prove that protected values
will always be protected or that they can’t change based on the particular frame
in which the information is being considered? Additionally, protected views can
appear one sided, which means that I am only considering my interpretation of
the event, person, situation, or information, which by definition is being
myopic!
In the case of demonstrating consistent personal ethics,
there are times where leaders cannot disclose full information, for example if
layoffs are about to take place, a change in benefits are about to happen, or
the reasons for an employee are no longer with the organization. However, many
of us view being ethical as being truthful and forthcoming with information.
Therefore, if I am not able to be consistent with my team in communications,
how can I be seen as a truthful or reliable leader?
Additionally, in the instance regarding how against animal
cruelty I am, I am actually being a hypocrite; I love a good steak! Even if I were
to alter this protected value to state that I am against domesticated animal
cruelty, it still has a weakened argument. What about those of us that consider
pet rats, snakes, opossums, and other unique or exotic creatures to be
domesticated? What about even my girlfriend who has her own cows and chickens? I
still love hamburgers and I am still going to eat my eggs for breakfast every
day!
Even my argument about never to cheat on your spouse doesn’t
entirely hold water ; is it cheating if someone else’s religion allows for
multiple partners? What if my spouse becomes incapacitated due to medical
reasons but their advance directives will not allow me to withdraw medical intervention
to keep them alive but they are on a vent and medically dead? Because their
body hasn’t left the physical world, and the law doesn’t see me as a widow, if I
enter into a relationship with someone, is that really cheating on my spouse?
As I mentioned in my research paper this week, what happens
when we are confronted with decisions that also demonstrate inconsistencies in
our values, may take place due to the preferences we are faced with, the framework
in which we evaluate the given information, as well as the practicality and
reflection upon the “…extraneous factors” we have to consider when evaluating
our decision-making process (Hoch,
Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 247) . This sounds easier
than I actually believe that it is. Take for example a discussion on abortion;
if it was your child that was raped or your wife’s life that was at risk, and
the only option to protect them was to abort the fetus/ child, would you be so
quick to pass judgment and stand by and say that abortion under any and every
circumstance is inherently wrong?
As we
uncovered several weeks ago while watching the Dan Gilbert video regarding our
flawed decision-making process, we tend to rationalize our decision making by
referencing our past experiences versus being able to walk through and reflect
upon current relevant factors (Gilbert, 2005).
In
Gilbert’s 2005 discussion, he also points out or need to refer to the “…the
past instead of the possible…” and I think that is where some of my challenges
also stem from regarding protected values. For example, in the past, when
people have cheated on a spouse, harmed an animal, or been less than forthcoming
in my profession of accounting and finance, it has tended to have a negative
association in my life. If you cheat on your spouse, I would deem you dishonest
and unworthy of my friendship. If you were less than forthcoming with information,
such as found during the Enron debacle, I would see you as being deceptive and untrustworthy.
If I found that you would harm animals, I would most likely associate you with
the scum of the Earth.
However,
these statements would only be factual within certain parameters. What if your
religion calls for plural marriage or your spouse was being kept alive on life
support for years on end, like in the case of Terri Schiavo? What if
intercourse with another man happened during rape, does that still meet the
definition of cheating?
In
the case of not harming animals; I like to eat meat, however, although I try my
hardest to only eat free-range beef and chicken, the definition of cruel
treatment is subjective. What if I said I could never personally hurt another animal, but I kill the mosquito that
bites me while out in the yard? These instances point out over and over that we
base our decisions on select, often negative, associations from our past
experiences, or better yet, as Gilbert points out, the lesser of two evils (Gilbert
20005). That is why I suppose I feel that the one interesting point made in the
video I still think about today when reflecting upon protected values is that “…our
brains were evolved for a very different world than the one in which we are
living” (Gilbert, 2005) which helps enforce why we need to learn to make better
decisions, and the importance of the flexibility required, even when
contemplating protected values and the decision making influence that these
have with our process.
Overall,
I think that protected values come at a price and also have a price; they come
at price to us, as we may be seen as myopic when only considering the value and
importance they have to us, and how they isolate us from considering important
outside information that can be supplied by others. They all have a price, as
each of mine is only as valid as the situation and circumstances in which I frame
them. The inconsistencies that they offer essentially serve as a reminder to me
of the importance to not make decisions based on only my values and
perceptions.
As
a leader, it is important that I consider the values and opinions of others,
and not focus solely on issues and circumstances as a matter of fact that can
be overly generalized and applied to each and every situation. The level of
protection I am willing to offer and provide for my protected values goes back
to what I need to value more in the particular situation in which I am
contemplating and the framework of information under consideration. In the end,
as Gilbert (2005) points out, we are human and we tend to make emotional
decisions; my three discussed protected values come from a highly personal
place, and therefore it would be foolish for me to contend that my
decision-making process doesn’t come from an emotionally charged place. As our
reading during week one demonstrated, people tend to make emotional trade-offs
when confronted with difficult decisions (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther,
2001, p. 21). When attempting to make better decisions as managers, we must
remove the emotional and impulsive aspect from our routines to be able to
improve decision accuracy, and minimize our efforts and “…negative emotions…”
that can often lead to inappropriate decisions in the end (Hoch et al, 2001, p.
29).
Until
we blog again!
References
Gilbert, D. (2005, July). Why we make
bad decisions. Retrieved November 17, 2015, from Ted.com:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness#t-375013
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton On Making Decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment