A634.4.4.RB_TAYLORHEATHER

Affirmative Action

The term Affirmative Action often is associated with the Civil Rights Movement or admission into college based on race.  This is a misinterpretation of the current legislative policies surrounding "Affirmative Action."  According to the Department of Labor (2016), "For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans." (para. 1) The National Conference of State Legislatures (2014) defines Affirmative Action as " policies...in which an institution or organization actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society" (para. 1).

Would people have such a negative view about Affirmative Action if they thought of veterans first? Why is race the main discussion point offered by many when debating Affirmative Action? LaFollette (2007) has an entire chapter devoted to the topic as it relates to ethics, even after spending an entire chapter on race. Within the text, every single page of the chapter on Affirmative Action speaks of "Blacks" as a group.  There is no focus on other qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities or covered veterans.  If the mission of the LaFollette (2007) text is to speak solely of affirmative action and blacks, would a more appropriate title for the chapter been "Black Affirmative Action?" By focusing only on Blacks, there is a further segregation of the single race from other minority populations which have been harmed by the majority.  There is little to no mention of Native American populations, which have experienced generational harm from Anglo-Saxon Protestants for arguably an equal, if not greater, number of years.  Entire tribes of people were slaughtered, yet no mention in the text. Is this racial bias?

To provide a greater picture or understanding of Affirmative Action as it relates to ethics, it is important to discuss all groups that are covered under the legislation.  While the movement may have started during the Civil Rights era, where segregation was being conquered, it has evolved into something much greater, with a much larger impact on society in America.  Making the argument into a literal "Black and White" issue takes away from the advances achieved by the legislation for women, persons with disabilities and military veterans.

After reading the text and articles on the legislation, Affirmative Action legislation is continuing to provide opportunities for advancement among minority populations and those who otherwise may receive unequal treatment in the workplace (i.e. persons with disabilities or veterans).  Personally, I am thankful for the legislation.  LaFollette (2007) offers, "No legal regulation, no matter how valuable, is perfect" (p. 98).  There is still much to be achieved when it comes to balancing the provisions and expectations of Affirmative Action.  "A key question [about affirmative action] is the extent to which institutions should allow race and ethnicity to counterbalance the conventional measures. Of course, the same question must be raised about admission preferences granted to the children of donors or alums" (Minowitz, 2016, p. 149).

DOL. (2016). Affirmative Action. United States Department of Labor.  Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact

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

Minowitz, P. (2016). Rescuing "diversity" from affirmative action and campus activists. Perspectives on Political Science, 45(3), 147-162. doi:10.1080/10457097.2016.1181894

NCSL. (2014). Affirmative Action: Overview.  National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-overview.aspx.

A634.3.4.RB_TAYLORHEATHER

The Harder They Fall

Kramer (2003) sheds light into the psychological and behavioral processes that occur when individuals increase their prominence, power and prestige.  Through the study of successful and unsuccessful leader, Kramer identified a pattern.  Leaders that engaged in continuous reflective and critical thought were able to sustain power without experiencing a plummet from the top.  It is interesting to note the contradictory behaviors in which many make it to the top as compared to those that stay at the top.

When the fast-rising entrepreneur wants to make it to the top, Kramer (2003) explains there is often a "willingness to act quickly on those impulses- often before there is time for adequate reflection" (p. 61).  This is contrasted by the behavior of the leader who not only makes it to the top, but operates within their leadership role through stable practices.  These leaders engage in a practice of "Floating trial balloons [which] helps leaders uncover the truth and prepare for the unexpected- especially when mindful scrutinization of the business environment becomes a natural part of the leader's routine" (Kramer, 2003, p. 65).  

During the MSLD program, there have been numerous reflective exercises, course assignments and discussions about the importance of critical thought.  Are the leaders that make unwise, hasty or unethical choices simply not thinking things through?  Do they abandon the thought-processes taught to satisfy temporary desires?

This week a professor at ERAU was in the news for engaging in unethical behavior including sexual acts against minors.  While he may not be a high-ranking executive, he still holds a leadership role in his classroom and in the educational community.  This is happening in the same university where we are learning ethical standards.

The following statements are not intended to excuse any of the behaviors of the individuals engaging in unethical practice, but rather to create a reflective understanding so that I may avoid the same pitfalls.  In the reading of leadership anecdotes resulting in failure due to poor decision-making, I find there are similarities to LaFollette's idea of "situation sensitivity" (2007, p. 58). While the behaviors of leaders may not be deemed as ethical to the working-class culture, it may be viewed as appropriate risk-taking by those who share their standing on lists of top world leaders.  Would fellow leaders condone the actions offering colloquial statements like, "Sometimes you got to do what you go to do?" Would these individuals help to brush the dirt under the rug?  Do we see some of this behavior in our political world today?

To bring this to a more personal level, in the past year I have had the opportunity to become a locally recognized leader.  I have been invited to the prestigious foundation dinners, the award banquets, and have been sought after for participation on local boards.  News-media outlets have broadcast and published interviews.  Well-known celebrities have posed for pictures with my family.  At the end of the day, those newspaper articles will yellow and fade with time.  The celebrities will end up likely not being remembered 50 years from now.  The galas and dinners will be forgotten.  My family, however, will be the ones I hope to spend time with in 50 years.  That is who I focus on.

At a recent speaking engagement, an executive for a large company offered me the opportunity to work at their business in a leadership position.  I explained that though there is much work to be done and it would be an honor to help the community in such a way, it is imperative that I focus on my health first.  I explained that my eagerness to help the community has often resulted in me making self-sacrificing choices which adversely impact my health and my family.  While it would be a great career-building stepping stone, at this time it is less important to occupy a title and more important to sustain life.  She admittedly stated that if I were to be in the position that it would demand most, if not all of my time, energy and quality of life. Like Kramer (2003) suggested,  I floated a balloon out there in this conversation, and uncovered the truth. The role would likely pull me away from sustaining what I hold most dear in my core values, prioritizing family and health first.  While some may feel that self-sacrifice, loss of sleep and experiencing decreased health is a given when accepting such leadership positions, I find that extreme self-sacrificing behaviors are a violation of the "Golden Rule."  If you are to treat others how you want to be treated, you need to uphold quality treatment of yourself.  This means giving yourself the grace to choose a night at home with family over sitting at a community business dinner with prominent figures.  This means choosing health over wealth.  Those choices will provide a continued level of humility needed to keep you grounded as a leader.  They will allow you to look through the photo album, smiling brightly at the family photos and quickly glancing over the newspaper clippings.

Kramer, R. (2003). The Harder They Fall.  Harvard Business Review.  Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=22830cbb-df55-4976-9c6d-2360ce314a9d%40sessionmgr2

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