Worldview, Leadership and Ethics

1. Do you think every person on Earth has a worldview? Explain your answer.

In short, yes. We all observe the world around us and how it affects us, and we affect it. We all have a totality of beliefs and a philosophy about life, whether we realize it or not.

Some persons may have a negative view because of what they have been taught. Others may have a more positive view because they have extended themselves to learn more about what is around them. We all have a belief about the world that surrounds us. Some of us are just more cognitive about it.

2. How has your background (family, culture, education, life events) influenced your worldview?

My past has played a big role on how I see the world today, for the better or for the worse. For example, having lived through three divorces as a child I am more careful in my choice of persons I date. I am sure I will be a little more hesitant about marriage.

My religious background is deeply seeded in family, culture, education, and life events. Because of my religion I would say I am who I am. It has been the light in the dark parts of my life. Without it, I am not sure who I would be today. I have been given many opportunities to become a better daughter of God and a more able servant in His hands because of His gospel.

3. How does your worldview influence your life? Your leadership style or perhaps existence in an organization? How you respond to ethical problems?

My worldview influences my life everyday. Being an educator, I work to educate my students about the world that is beyond the walls of the high school. I encourage them to take advantage of the opportunities I never had.

In some ways, it is frustrating to view the world as I do and see my students disregarding the valuable information. Some days I wish I could pound it into their heads and force them to "get it." But I cannot, so I have to find ways to help them understand and desire better than what they have. This has taught me to be a better "leader" in not necessarily forcing people, but helping them to find the desire to be better. It's a little trickier than I thought it would be.

Because of my worldview, I see a lot of potential for me. I work everyday to become a better example of what I believe a leader should be. Some days I am successful, and other days I fail miserably. But I believe it is all a work in progress.

One of my biggest struggles is pressure to pass all the students I can. In my heart I don't believe it is right to give a student a grade and / or credit they haven't earned. But pressure from up top begs that I do. In order to avoid the dilemma, I need to become the kind of teacher who does everything in her power to instill a sense of desire to succeed in her students. How this is done, I am still working on. But sometimes we have to work harder in order to avoid the ethical questions.

My Worldview

1. How would you describe your “worldview” – your philosophy of life and reason for living? How does that impact your personal and professional life? Who/what is at the center of your worldview?

My philosophy of live is to live every day to its fullest. You never know when it will be your last day, when it will be the last day for a person with whom you associate with, or if you could have made a difference in someone's life had you been more kind and less selfish.

Today I attended a funeral and they always give me great cause for reflection on my personal life. Am I living my life in such a way that people will say the things I would hope they'd say when I'm gone? Will I live my life in such a way that people from all walks of life would want to come pay their respects? Am I living my life in such a way that I am prepared to meet God whenever He calls me home?

I live every day to make a difference, to help create light where there was none. I live every day because that is what my Savior would have me do. He never once shrunk from a challenge, he loved every one, and he did good continually. I live every day to one day become and emulate the perfect example He set forth for me.

My view impacts my personal and professional life greatly. Lately I have been praying to see people around me as God sees them. It has helped me to be more kind and less short of temper when things don't turn out how I want them to. We are all children of God and we need to feel that; and sometimes, we feel that through other people.

Because of God I have what I have in my life. He is the center, my life, and my light. This last week has been a growing experience for me as I have ruminated on these very questions. Being a teacher has taught me that even though my students struggle behaviorally, they need compassion in their lives too. That doesn't mean I give away grades, but it means that we all struggle and we all need some kind of connection to love.

2. This series considers two "diametrically" opposed worldviews. What are your initial impressions of the secular, or “scientific,” worldview? The “spiritual” worldview? Explain how these impression contribute to or mediate your worldview?

I learned some interesting things watching these videos. Actually I watched them a few times because I caught something new every time. I believe in science, but I don't believe it all came from a "big bang." There are so many things that point to a Higher Being.

Science fascinates me quite honestly. There are many things that have been pigeon holed into scientific equations. At one point a man talks about an "Orderer" because science contains order. Another points to "Naturalism" and says things exist because of nature.

I was not aware that Freud was actually raised a Jew. He also had some Catholic and Christian influences. His mother called him her "Golden Child." Religion, family and education consumed his life. His life was associated with many sharp changes; none of which were really explained. It makes me wonder if her turned to science to try and explain change because it was never explained to him.

C.S. Lewis on the other hand took everything for face value. He too was raised with family and religion as a center in his home. Lewis too had a bit of a rough go as a child with the loss of his mother and his father threatening to ship them to the Americas. He even prayed to God to save his mother but nothing happened. However, he held on to the "joy" that he had found one day in the garden.

I believe that sometimes the "joy" we find in our lives serves as an anchor for hard times. All of us have hard times in life, and we feel that God has not heard our cries. However, it is the times of happiness that help to keep us going from day to day.

Science is intriguing, but I believe in the Divine more than the secular. I am interested to learn more and to watch the remainder of the program. The more we know, the more tools we have in order search to find the answers we have been seeking.

Like Lewis, sometimes we feel faith has failed us. So we turn to science that never seems to fail. But is that the best thing to do? Do we really believe Science will outperform the Divine?

Ethical Ruminations

Week two questions at hand. Here we go! I would be interested to know what your response would be ...

Several years ago Phillipa Foot drew attention to an extraordinarily interesting problem:

Suppose you are the driver of a trolley whose brakes have just failed. On the track ahead of you are five people; the banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. The track has a spur leading off to the right, and you can turn the trolley onto it. Unfortunately, there is one person on the right-hand track. You can turn the trolley, killing the one; or you can refrain from turning the trolley, killing the five.

Question:

1. Is it morally permissible for you to turn the trolley? Why? Explain.

A.

I am not sure what my response would be. In my head would be running the questions: How old are the people at stake? Are there children involved? Aged persons? Would I run more risk to the people on my trolley by taking the right turn which could potentially kill more than the five or one persons ahead of me? Are there potentially more people ahead of me that I would kill before I could get the trolley stopped, either direction? Does the track veering to the right loop back around, thus costing me six lives instead of five?

In reality I would have perhaps seconds, if not less, to run through the scenarios. Of course, my conscious would go for the situation that would be the least deadly. Honestly, I am not sure what I would actually do because I am not experiencing all of the variables. My right turn could be so sharp at the speed I am going down the hill that I could cost not only the life of the person ahead of me, but potentially everyone on board. Heading straight could potentially put me in the path of even more people thus costing me my passengers plus five ahead of me.

Argh! I am not sure... Perhaps I would head straight in the hopes that the hill levels off and I could save all of my passengers. If the turn were not very sharp, I would take the turn knowing it was a safe turning speed for as fast as I were traveling.

I know this doesn't provide a concrete answer to the question. But like I said, I am not experiencing all of the variables and thus cannot make a correct assessment of the situation.

Now consider this:

You are a great transplant surgeon. Five of your patients need new parts - one needs a new heart, the others need, respectively, liver, stomach, spleen, and spinal cord - but all are of the same, relatively rare, blood-type. By chance, you learn of a healthy specimen with that very blood-type. You can take the healthy specimen's parts, killing him, and install them in your patients, saving them. Or you can refrain from taking the healthy specimen's parts, letting your patient's die.

Questions

2. Is there a moral difference between the two cases? Explain.

A. Situation 1 is an accident, an unforeseen failure of the brakes. Situation 2 is consciously taking a live to save others. I believe Situation 2 would be a failure of the moral compass to take one persons life to give to others. The only way I could see pulling the plug on someone in Situation 2 is if the healthy specimin were on life support with no hope of having a quality of life (loss of brain function). I would speak with the family and hope they saw the benefit of giving up one to save many. But I am not sure I could purposely sacrifice one to give to others.

3. What are the distinction between the two? Explain

A. Like I mentioned earlier, one is an accident and the other is not. There are times when you are subject to the nature of the beast, and there are other times when you can consciously choose with time to ponder on the situation.

4. Why is it that you may turn that trolley to save five, but may not cut up one healthy specimen to save five lives? Explain.

A. This question reminds me of Seven Pounds. He took five or six lives, and then turned around and essentially "gave back" those lives through unethical use of a federal ID and then suicide. Was what he did an ethical way to repay his "debt"?

Thinking about the organs at hand, I wonder if taking the whole organ is necessary. One can donate part of a liver and stomach; You don't really need a spleen; And a spinal cord transplant is not even possible right now. There has been transplantation of embryonic spinal cord, but that's it.

Turning, or not turning, the trolley is an "accident." Purposely sacrificing someone is considered murder in the justice system (unless the previous situation were true, see A2). I would still struggle living with myself no matter the situation, however the justice system looks at the outcomes differently.

Do I worry about me? Yes. Do I worry about my family, as a result? Yes. Whether it's right or not, I would also calculate into the risk my public appearance. Both would certainly get media attention and affect me for the rest of my life.

5. Does the solution to the trolley problem lie somewhere in the theory of rights, utility, justice, consequences, virtues, good will, egoism...

A. I believe the solution, or lack thereof, does lie in the afore mentioned words. Right now I cannot say to what extent because I have not completed all of my reading. But I hope to have an answer by the end of this course :)

Foot, P. (1978). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy, 19.

Reflection on readings and Outsourced

“All employees work to achieve goals, primarily economic ones, and a system that rewards them for following established rules and procedures and maximizing their individual performance would seem to be in everyone’s self-interest” (Conrad & Poole, 2005, 82-83).

In reflecting on the reading and Outsourced (2006), I think about organizational communication in a cultural sense. In the United States, we are so focused on achieving economic goals, that perhaps we lose sight of the not-so-economic oriented ones. On that path, we run over others, refuse to see where they are coming from, and force “our ways” on them.

In the film, Todd needed to get his call center to finish the sale in six minutes. When he arrived the time was 12 minutes, and earlier it was 15 minutes. One day he wakes up and offers them an incentive, a reward, in order to get their time down. The people are allowed to bring in personalized things and photos, and even offered rewards, in exchange for improving call time. Improving his or her times was in everyone’s best interest so the call center would stay active.

“The cultural strategy suggests that humans are emotional beings and that feelings of connectedness and community are important aspects of all social structures, including organizations” (Conrad & Poole, 2005, 156). People in the movie lived, worked, and partied together. They shared part of themselves by bringing photos of their family, trinkets, and their dress to the work place. It was when this door was opened that success began to unfold for the call center as a whole.

One point in the movie that I found of particular interest was an interaction between another businessman and Todd. All he wants is a cheeseburger, in India. He is fighting for something he can’t have, and fighting against those who won’t give it to him. The man then tells Todd, “The quicker you embrace it, the less struggle you’ll have.”

Conrad & Poole (2005) state that, “To work, rules must be clear enough to be easily understood, specific enough to give employees precise guidelines for acting, and general enough so as not to seem trivial or persnickety” (83).

Perhaps there are times in our business career where conforming would be to our benefit. But is it a positive move, or a negative one? Does the move go against our standards, or does it improve our standards?

This was one of the major struggles I had in corporate work. One company in particular was focused on a “family work environment.” They touted all these values, but did not live them on so many levels. I struggled for six months trying to conform, to assimilate, but in the end it was more than me. The company wanted something from me I was not willing to compromise.

Often, management looks for ways to cut costs, but it may not be a real benefit for the company. Dave, the manager, states at the beginning of the movie, “We get eight heads for the price of one… We’ll pay the new manager $11,000 a year.” And then later on, “China’s the new India. Twenty heads for the price of one.”

Costs are cut, but quality is diminished as cultural lines are crossed. In the movie the person in the call center takes a customer by surprise. The customer is trying to buy school supplies for her grandchild and the worker asks if she needs “rubbers.” The meaning for that word in the Unites States is different from the meaning of it in India. There come the realization of “identities”, “reality shock”, and a sense of “internalization” (Conrad & Poole, 2005, 159). They begin to “act as the organization wants them to because they believe that it is natural and normal to do so” (160).

However, all are not so willing. Asha speaks up against internalization when she calls Todd on the carpet. He wants them to “act American” so the caller doesn’t feel so alienated. She states, “Isn’t that a little dishonest. I’m not going to lie. When I was hired to do this job I was hired to sell products on a phone, not to lie to people… I did not know we had to be deceptive.”

There was a point where Todd was participating in “self-surveillance” (177). He did what the company wanted him to do because he felt positive emotions (mostly in his pocket book) when he complied. But in the end, he participated in “externalization” (158) seeing that there was more to life than working it away, but living it everyday and enjoying the association of those around you.

Communication Audit Proposal

Introduction

Organizations recognize the benefit of keeping all those involved, and interested, in their company aware of the happenings both within their organization and in the sector of interest. The techniques used vary from the “tried and true” (e.g. direct mailings), to “push” (e.g. e-mailing) and “pull” (e.g. Web site postings) variants of high-tech tools. Technology has facilitated the customization of communication vehicles, permitting targeted content while esteeming personal preferences concerning format and frequency. While users become for comfortable with technology, the manner of how they get information from organizations changes, so the vehicles must be modified accordingly.

In today’s face-paced world, organizations are finding they use too many vehicles of communication. Varied customer bases, partnerships, constituencies, maintaining and updating their communication efforts with meaningful frequency consume much of their time. Many times it’s not clear which method is most effective, it there is a differentiation among types of users, or even what information is most needed from the group.

A comprehensive Communications Audit consists of six major activities: Orientation, Survey, Focus groups, Web site usability testing, Audit and benchmarking, and Synthesis of data for final reporting.

Why?

1. Clarifies departmental goals and objectives for staff

2. Clarifies relationships between audiences, messages, channels, activities and materials

3. Identifies best communication methods

4. Clarifies ownership of activities for stakeholders and staff members

5. Develops creativity and camaraderie among staff members

6. Puts staff on same page with key messages – what we say to people

7. Includes stakeholders input into communication process (feedback!)

8. Ensures you are reaching your stakeholders, and that they understand the messages

9. Allows everyone to participate

10. Measures departments strengths and weaknesses

(Source: W. K. Kellogg Foundation)

Proposal

I propose to do a communication audit at my current place of employment, Roy High School. Many people I have talked with in Weber School District laud the school as a place where there is open communication, cohesiveness of faculty, and where there is a perfect storm of leadership. This audit will take a deep look into Roy High School as an organization and examine both its internal and external communication efforts.

This survey proposes to take an inventory of all communication efforts and resources; takes a snapshot of who the school is talking to, what they’re talking about, how we’re conveying the message, and what methods we’re using to solicit feedback; and it will also involve a close look at message presentation.

There are three types of Communication Audits:

1. Envelope Test

2. Paper survey (both departmental staff and clients (i.e. students, parents, and other stakeholders)

3. Comprehensive Audit

These three methods will be more comprehensive than traditional survey methods. Buy employing all three of the methods a complete snapshot will be taken of the organization. This will help to identify what is being done right, what needs improvement, and what is missing. By identifying those, a more complete communication plan will be created to help the organization move forward, and in starting open dialogue about communication.

The open communication will allow for everyone to participate, not just “leadership”, further helping people buy into the idea of creating a communication plan. It will also ensure there is no stone unturned. Employees in trenches often knew more about daily operations than leadership. Leadership will need to be prepared that by inviting dialogue, they need to be prepared to hear everyone’s input, including the divergent voices.

Mod 2 Final

Our Final for Module 2

This is our final project for Module 2 in my Strategic Communications class. I feel a little detached from this project as I seemed to be ostracized from the beginning. It seemed that no matter how hard I tried to help or be a part of it, no one would let me. So, I worked to do my part and there isn't much I can do beyond that. Enjoy!

Also, the questions I had to answer for the module...

Who are your stakeholders in this situation?

Our primary stakeholder here is the Army. They will ultimately decide if SGT STAR moves forward or gets tossed into the bucket. Potential recruits are also stakeholders in this situation because they are the ones who are interacting with him, and based on their experience will make or break the investment.

Secondary stakeholders include other branches of the service, government entities, and taxpayers. This avitar-like creation could be expanded to other sites within the government if it is seen as an effective investment. Next IT would also become a stakeholder because they want to make sure that not the Army is happy, but that other branches see it as a value to investigate and possibly invest in.

What are the challenges about marketing a new technology?

The challenge of marketing a new technology is just that, it's new. It's untried and unproven. Fred Brown said so himself. He said, "I'm scared of what I don't know. I'm scared of what could happen. Technology changes so fast. It's hard to keep up. We must keep building value for someone."

Innovation is a continuous process and companies must find the best way to give the biggest ROI's. Brown says that often he works under a "fire ready" mentality. Sometimes they put it out there before they know if it's 100%, but it's OK to be wrong.

With SGT STAR, it must not only be purchased and implemented, but used across a huge expanse. He is no where to be found in television ads, used sparingly in social media, and isn't everywhere on the Web site, especially the recruiter section. While there is a way to save a "chat" session, there is no place to leave contact information so a real recruiter can contact the potential recruit.

On YouTube there a a couple of videos showcasing SGT STAR, but there is also a record of abuse with people asking irrelevant questions. There is no record of people speaking about how it has helped them. Somehow, there needs to be a positive rapport built, and that would take place through the communications plan.

View the clips of Fred Brown’s leadership perspective and discuss the likely impact on the campaign strategy.

As mentioned above a few times, Brown states that AI can augment the human experience, adding value to the corporate relationship with customers. When creating the avitar, he did it with advocating for the customer in mind, helping people do what they want to do. He said that the strategy is to use technology in how we think about a customer and how we can build implementations on how we can save the customer money with big ROI's.

I believe those are good things, but I also worry about his "fire ready" stance. This could possibly affect the campaign strategy negatively because it is not 100% full proof. It's OK to be wrong, but how wrong? When is it more OK than not? Perfection is not expected to begin with, but the customer is spending a lot of money and it should be pretty close to it.

Attitude Reflects Leadership