Top Ten Lessons Steve Jobs Can Teach Us

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2011/09/19/the-top-ten-lessons-steve-jobs-can-teach-us-if-well-listen/2/

The article conveys that Steve Jobs is the best CEO ever.  There are lessons that he can teach us about great leadership in a highly successful organization.  From the lessons listed, Steve Jobs “wants the best from himself and everyone who works for him.”  He is a leader that serves others, which is the definition of ethical altruism (Ch. 15).  Steve Jobs mentors, empowers subordinates, and team builds his organization because he cares so much and wants to see the organization succeed along with the individuals that have helped him along the way.  I can agree with this because after he is gone, his followers will still have his ideas and values that they can take with them to innovate the future.  Furthermore, not only did he motivate others, he motivates himself to show his followers that they can succeed “through hard work, determination, and sense of vision.”  These were some of the characteristics that led to the success of Apple after almost going bankrupt.  Furthermore, Jobs surrounded himself with many “talented” minds and by respecting them, he allowed them to be themselves and think creatively.  This is what helped integrate the needs, values and purposes of Jobs’ followers with his own needs, values and purposes.   I agree with respecting people because they can contribute new ideas and thoughts to a group which can benefit an organization in the long run.  By doing this, Jobs and his followers were able to make Apple into a highly successful business.

How would you feel about working with Jobs? Do you think his leadership style led to the success of Apple? 

-Dave Harbeck

Wal-Mart's Latest Ethics Controversy

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2007/db20070612_548611.htm

This article involves a controversial ethical decision made by a vice president of corporate communications, Mona Williams, at Wal-Mart.  The article states that when Chalace Lowry accept a job as an administrative assistant at Wal-Mart that ethics was very important to the company's mission and vision.  With that being said, Lowry reported a suspicious incident about her boss and she could not disclose her name when filing the form; therefore, her boss, Williams, knew it was her that filled out the form concerning William's ethics.  Lowry suspected that Williams had insider information about exercising her stocks before Wal-Mart planned a $15 billion stock buyback.  Lowry did not have full proof, but "acted in good faith" because Wal-Mart emphasized the importance of proper ethics and to report an incident if suspicious.  Now, Lowry has to look for a new job because Wal-Mart started to make her feel uncomfortable and rumors were started about her.

Based upon the article, some ethical questions come to concern about how the incident was handled.  Our book states that ethics are morals and values that are found appropriate by members of society and individuals, it helps us decide what is right or wrong in any situation.  Leadership ethics is based upon a leaders character, what they do, their actions and behaviors.  This entire incident at Wal-Mart I feel was handled very wrong.  Lowry did what she thought was right, even if it could have been a mistake, and it backfired on her.  I don't understand how the human resources department can show complaints to the people that they were based on.  I feel that since it was a senior executive who got complained on is why it was brought to their attention.  This should not be allowed because senior executives should not feel that they can break the rules when other subordinates cannot.  Also, Wal-Mart went so far as to make Lowry feel uncomfortable at the work place and when she asked for a transfer, they did not help her much and told her she needs to find a new position in Wal-Mart within 90 days or she had to look for a new job.  I feel that Lowry did indeed catch William's in an unethical act because of the way Wal-Mart acted in order to get her to leave.  Overall, I feel that Wal-Mart handled this situation in a very unethical way and go as far to make the worker feel uncomfortable and start rumors.  I would not want to work with this organization if they insist on good ethics then act opposite to employees when senior executives get caught acting unethically.  I felt that an investigation could have occured but clearly Wal-Mart was in no rush to get rid of the senior executive.  And if they get away with it once, it will occur again and again.

Would you want to work for an organization like this?  What are some thoughts about how the situation was handled? 

-Dave Harbeck

Visa Fraud Sparks Arrests Nationwide

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/feb2009/db20090212_920784.htm

With all of the immigration laws that are being put into place all around our country there are still people who get their hands on illegal documents that allows them to get visas to stay in the U.S.  Thirteen people in six different states were arrested because there was an investigation with visa fraud.   Not only did the federal government arrest certain people, they also went after a group call Vision Systems Group.  Vision Systems Group is based out of Iowa and was indicted on 10 federal counts that include conspiracy and mail fraud charges.  Based on the definition our book gives for ethics which is, "The word ethics has its roots in the Greek word ethos, which translates to customs, conduct, or character.  Ethics is concerned with the kinds of values and morals an individual or society finds desirable or appropriate".  Based on the books definition this company was being run in a very unethical way.  The company is based out of Iowa so they know all about our immigration problem, yet they still went on with doing illegal business.  Vision Systems was most likely conducting this illegal because of the profits they were gaining.  With all of the greed in the world today and how bad our economy is, it is hard for a company not to do something that will make them profitable.  Even if something is illegal or unethical people's greed will usually win and they will make unethical decisions.  Vision Systems thought that this was the best way to run their company but it has back fired.  The government now is trying to collect $7.4 million from them because they think that is how much they made by doing all of this illegal business.  The owner of this company was not running this company from a teleological perspective but rather was a ethical egoism approach.  If the company was run in a teleological perspective then none of this would have happened because they would have answered the question "What is right?".  Instead they didn't answer the question and worked in a ethical egoism way because they were looking out only for themselves and acting for the greatest good for the company.  This company is a very unethical company and was operated with the wrong approach.  They are now reaping the consequences from their illegal actions and it could very well hurt them so bad that they have to go out of business.

Do you guys feel that I was right with the analysis about the company being ethically egoism rather than running it in a teleological perspective?
What do you think about this company how their illegal business?
If you had no idea if you were going to get caught or not would you have have ran the company the same way if you knew you were going to be able to make millions in profits.
What approach would you take to ran this company?

Daniel Itami

"Orchestrating" a Massive Fraud

The Greatest Financial Scandals: R. Allen Stanford

This scandal happened in 2009, with the loss of about $8 billion.  R. Allen Stanford was the founder of Stanford Financial Group and the Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.  The Securities and Exchange Commision, SEC, charged him and two of his associates with organizing a massive fraud, similar to the one composed by Bernard Madoff in 2008. The company had promised high returns on certificates of deposits. 

Financial historians believe that frauds, such as the ones orchestrated by Stanford and Madoff, happen when the asset bubbles pop.  As the market goes up, people invest their money to make money, like they believe everyone else is doing.  However, when the country goes into a recession, like the one that has happened in the last couple of years, the bubble pops.  This is when all of the financial scandals start to unfold because the companies cannot afford to pay back money from investors when they want to withdrawal.

It is hard for me to understand how people can do this to other innocent people. So let me pose this question to you to start a small discussion.  Do you think that these investment bubbles pop because of the fraud scandals themselves? Or is the only correlation that the fraud scandals are revealed because the financial bubbles pop due to the economy?

Danielle Huff

Ethics, Politics and the Law

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/opinion/01fri1.html?ref=ethics

After reading over chapter 15: Leadership Ethics, and then reading an article from the New York Times written this past June titled "Ethics, Politics and the Law" it was very clear to me that there is a huge disconnect between how Supreme Court Justices have behaved and the way ethical way leaders are expected  to behave.  This editorial discusses how Supreme Court Justices are making it hard for the court to maintain its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of the law by behaving like politics instead of independent, impartial Justices. Justices have involved themselves in activities that maks it less likely that the court’s decisions will be accepted as nonpartisan judgments, such as Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr. appearing at political events. Also, the 82 rulings in the past term reveal the court’s fundamental inclination to the right, with the conservative majority further expanding the ability of the wealthy to prevail in electoral politics and the prerogatives of businesses against the interests of consumers and workers.  One issue that stands out in this situation is that Justices are not bound by an ethics code. Justices of the Supreme Court are supposed to be impartial from politics and anything outside their main purpose of serving as guardians of the law. Therefor, it is their duty, or moral obligation and responsibility to do the right thing and remain impartial from politics.   Justices are given life tenure so they are free to upset the powerful and have no need to cultivate political support.  Justices should always be tied to altruism, promoting the best interests of others and protecting the purity of the law.  Because the Supreme Court Justices have not made themselves 100% accountable to a strict code of conduct, and therefor appearing to be acting out of ethical egoism by not making decisions that are pure and legitimate to the law. The word "Justice" is in these professional's title and duty.  It is demanded of Supreme Court Justices that they place fairness at the center of their decision making and to not grant special treatment or consideration except in situations that demand it.  It is the Justices duty to serve others by fairly set law apart from all else and to put the plaintiffs and defendants welfare foremost in their rulings.  When leaders are dishonest with themselves and others about the way in which they are behaving, others come to see them as undependable and unreliable.  People can lose faith in what they say and stand for, and as a consequence, the leader's impact is compromised.  This is completely unacceptable for Supreme Court Justices because of the astounding impact they have on the United State's legal system.  These Justices must begin to address doubts about the court's legitimacy so that their rulings are seen as seperate from politics and 100% ethical. I ask that my team members review this article and give any insights on how they feel about the Supreme Court Justices actions in the past term.

Faith Gephart Elmore

Here's What We're About!

This is Faith Gephart-Elmore, Dave Harbeck, Danielle Huff and Daniel Itami and we are team 7.  We have chosen the theme of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" regarding ethical decisions.  This will include scandals, ethical decisions, leadership ethics, social responsibility, and any other ethical issue that has had a good or bad outcome.  These cases can involve individual leaders or many leaders.  We will go into discussion about many different cases relating to our theme then analyze the overall case as to why these ethical decisions (good or bad) were made.  We invite all of you to share your personal thoughts and opinions on our blog site.

-Team 7