Grappling with the Gray

You can’t be ethical until you’ve fully examined and understood both sides of any issue.

Few things in life are black and white. That’s why we have to learn to Grapple with the Gray.

This episode's ethics challenge:

Sylvie and Hannah grew up as best friends. Even after they settled in different cities, they remained in close contact.

After Sylvie became engaged, she was so eager for Hannah to attend her wedding that she offered to pay the airfare for Hannah to participate in the celebration. Hannah left for the airport in plenty of time, but a multi-car accident delayed her arrival. When she finally got to the gate, the plane had not yet taken off, but the agent had already bumped her from the overbooked flight. The agent offered to book Hannah on a flight the next day and gave her a $500 gift card as compensation for her delay.

Since the later flight would not allow Hannah to reach her destination in time to attend Sylvie’s wedding, she called off the trip. When questioned whether she should get the gift card since she had paid for the flight.

Who is entitled to the compensation: Sylvie or Hannah?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Sam Ardery is an attorney and mediation guru. He is the author of Positively Conflicted Engaging with Courage, Compassion and Wisdom in a Combative World, which I have read and heartily recommend.

Laura Staley, Ph.D., is founder of Cherish Your World. She is a columnist, author, speaker and coach, empowering clients to produce remarkable results in their lives

Frank Zaccari is a Business and Organizational Development Expert, keynote speaker, TV and podcast host, 4X Amazon bestselling author, and Air Force veteran.

Welcome to Grappling with the Gray, a forum for promoting the development of an ethical mindset and ethical decision-making to help us clearly see both sides of complex issues and better navigate the moral challenges of everyday life.

And here is today’s ethics challenge:

In October 2019, a federal judge upheld the right of Harvard University to set a higher standard of admissions criteria for Asian-American students and allow entry to a larger number of underrepresented ethnicities, thereby creating a more diverse student population.

The case hearkened all the way back to the 1978 Bakke decision, which declared racial quotas unconstitutional while maintaining the constitutionality of affirmative action.

On the one hand, there is clear benefit to creating an academic environment in which a diversity of cultures, values, and viewpoints are represented. A variegated student body promotes discussion and debate in a way that a homogeneous community cannot.

But on the other hand, it seems unfair that a university – or any organization – should have one set of standards for one group and a different set of standards for others. Is that not essentially that same kind of discrimination that made the need arise for affirmative action in the first place?

How can we practice compassion for disadvantaged groups and create diverse environments without unfairly handicapping worthy individuals?

Meet the panelists:

Rachel Druckenmiller 🗣 is the Keynote Speaker who Sings, turning burned out, checked out employees into energized, motivated, and connected teams.

Sarah Kalmeta aka Sara the Pivoter, is founder of Pivot Point, a career transition coach, author, and podcast host.

Lester Young is a re-entry specialist, founder of Path2Redemption, a member of The Leadership Challenge, The Commission of Minority Affairs, and The Affordable Housing Task Force.

You can’t be ethical until you’ve fully examined and understood both sides of any issue.

Few things in life are black and white.  That’s why we have to learn to Grapple with the Gray.

This episode's ethics challenge:

True story:

Susan was working in the back office of a neighborhood clinic one morning.  A patient arrived and was admitted for consultation.  Susan heard raised voices, after which the patient reappeared and quickly left the clinic in a state of apparent grief or anger.  Had there been some disagreement or misunderstanding?  Susan assumed so but couldn’t know for sure.

Under normal circumstances, Susan probably wouldn’t have thought twice.  But only a week earlier, a disgruntled client had left an office just down the street after a conflict, then returned with a gun and started shooting. 

Susan didn’t want to take the chance that her inaction might put others (and herself) at risk.  Perhaps with a simple check-in she might determine if there was any cause for genuine concern.

Because all visits were confidential, looking up the man’s identity would be a violation of privacy.  Susan tried to reach her supervisor for permission to open the database, but her supervisor was unavailable.

Susan took the initiative.  She looked up the man’s name and phone number, then gave him a call.

“Hello,” she said into the phone.  “I’m calling to check in… you seemed upset when you left our office.  Is there anything I can do to help?”

“Oh, no,” the man replied.  “I was a little distressed, but I’m fine now.  Thanks so much for calling.”

Subsequently, Susan found herself reprimanded by her supervisor.

Was she wrong to do what she did?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Sonia Funk is a corporate wellness strategist and speaker, a nutritional therapist, and an award winning singer and songwriter.

S. Scott Mason , aka the Myth Slayer, is a Transformational Coach for Executives, Entrepreneurs & Other Leaders, podcast host, and keynote speaker.

Heather R Younger is a keynoter and consultant on employee engagement and DEI, a TEDx speaker, podcast host, and author of the new book, The Art of Caring Leadership.

You can’t be ethical until you’ve fully examined and understood both sides of any issue.

Few things in life are black and white. That’s why we have to learn to Grapple with the Gray.

This episode's ethics challenge:

A writer in Psychology Today poses the following dilemma:

Coach Ted is a legendary figure in town. For 30 years, he’s coached the kids’ baseball league and promoted community values.

But now two women who work for the large accounting firm where Ted is CEO have come forward with serious complaints of sexual harassment by him. He denies everything.

The parents I’ve hung out with over the years at practices have always gushed about how much they love Ted’s way of dealing with the kids. But now some of the moms are saying they always thought there might be something fishy about him. He’s made what could be taken as suggestive remarks. The moms have caught him seeming to check out their bodies. And so forth.

All plausibly deniable by Coach Ted if they’d confronted him.

Instead, they've organized a petition to demand that Ted be removed as coach. They have asked me to sign it.

I don’t know what to do.

On the one hand, I want to support the women bringing the charges: Believe women. I also want to support the moms who feel betrayed and think themselves lucky to have escaped Ted’s predations.

On the other hand, I don’t know enough about what actually happened and I probably never will. And even if I knew everything, I’d still be confused by conflicting obligations.

The author begins the article with his conclusion:

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve found it harder and harder to apply moral reasoning to any situation that actually needs it. So I've pretty much given up on it.

Grapple with this:

1) What is the ethical response to the allegations against Coach Ted? Should the author sign the petition?
2) How should we evaluate the writer’s conclusion that he has “pretty much given up on moral reasoning”?

Thanks again to guest panelists Dave Bricker, Dr. Diane Hamilton, and Wayne Schoeneberg for a lively and thoughtful conversation. Our topic is presented below.

This episode's ethics challenge:

On an episode of House, a patient with a brain tumor suffered frontal lobe disinhibition, which caused him to say every thought that came into his head.  He ended up insulting everyone around him, including his wife who -- spoiler alert -- left him after discovering "what kind of person he really was."

Was the wife justified in her claim that her husband was not the man she thought he was?

Join me and my panelists, Nick Gallo, David E. Marlow, and Charlotte Wittenkamp, as we Grapple with the Gray.

You can’t be ethical until you’ve fully examined and understood both sides of any issue.

Few things in life are black and white. That’s why we have to learn to Grapple with the Gray.

This episode's ethics challenge:

I bumped into my neighbor, a doctor, one morning and asked him about a chronic problem that was flaring up. He suggested I try a couple of over-the-counter products and schedule an appointment with him in his office a month later in case the OTC medicines didn’t help.

I saw him again a couple of weeks later and told him that my symptoms had abated. In that case, he said, I didn’t need to come in to see him.

He then asked me not to cancel my appointment. He assured me that I wouldn’t be charged for missing the visit. However, his group required him to see a minimum number of patients each week, and if I kept my appointment scheduled that would lighten his workload.

His request put me in a quandary. Was it ethical of him to ask me not to cancel an appointment I no longer needed? If not, would it be ethical for me to become his conspirator in doing just that?

Join this week's panel: Dr. Adam Martin, Dr. Margarita Gurri, and Mariah Edgington, as we grapple with the gray.

You can’t be ethical until you’ve fully examined and understood both sides of any issue.

Few things in life are black and white.  That’s why we have to learn to Grapple with the Gray.

This episode's ethics challenge:

Benny was widely recognized as a whiz kid by his fellow economics students, asking all the right questions in class and coming up with smart answers that impressed even the professor. 

Over the summer, he arranged his notes into a short primer on economic theory, which he self-published in hope of making a few bucks by selling them to incoming freshmen at the start of the fall semester.  He left a couple of dozen copies with the owner of a popular off-campus bookstore.

A week later, the store owner called to tell Benny the books had sold out and he needed more copies.

“Wow,” said Benny, “I had no idea they would sell that fast.”

The shopkeeper grinned.  “I have a secret system,” he said.  “I post a preorder sign-up sheet in the school library.  I write about 15 fake names on the sheet, which makes the book look like a hot item and gets more people to order it so they won’t miss out on something good.”

Was the shopkeeper unethical?  If so, what should Benny do?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Kimberly Davis is a coach, trainer, TEDx speaker, author of Brave Leadership and founder of the Brave Leadership University.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimberlyd...

Kira Day is a passion-based coach specializing in innovation, leadership and professional transformation.  She is CEO of The Passion Centre and Creator of The Passion-Based™ Incubator.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kiraday/

Peter Winick is the founder and CEO of Thought Leadership Leverage and host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterwinick/

SHOW LESS

Welcome to Grappling with the Gray, a forum for promoting the development of an ethical mindset and ethical decision-making to help us clearly see both sides of complex issues and better navigate the moral challenges of everyday life.

Visit https://www.gwtg.live/Login#/ to join our community.

This episode's ethics challenge:

Last year, the inaugural "Dash for Cash" event at a junior hockey game in Sioux Falls featured 10 local teachers scrambling on their hands and knees on a rug at center ice, scooping up $5,000 in donated $1 bills and stuffing them into their shirts and pockets. The promotion encouraged teachers to collect as much money as they could to help fund their classroom projects.

Video of the teachers jostling to grab dollar bills quickly sparked outrage nationwide.  Some critics said the stunt turned schoolteachers' chronic funding shortages into a public spectacle. Others compared it to "Squid Game," the South Korean TV series about desperate people who compete in deadly children's games to win money.

The organizers apologized.

In an increasingly voyeuristic society, how do we weigh using spectacle in pursuit of noble causes against the loss of personal dignity?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Brooke Erol is an author, advisor and coach who supports leaders in their journey to catch up with our times, to grow their business without sacrificing the wellbeing of their people so profit becomes a natural by-product.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ozlemerol/

Mira Culic Griffiths is a transformational leadership coach, guiding her clients to mental clarity and helping them cast aside limiting beliefs.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mira-culi...

Peter Griffiths is a leadership and creativity coach.  He and his wife, Mira, are co-founders of the Mind Takeaway and co-hosts of the Mind Takeaway podcast.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-gri...

SHOW LESS

0 Comments



SORT BY

Welcome to Grappling with the Gray, a forum for promoting the development of an ethical mindset and ethical decision-making to help us clearly see both sides of complex issues and better navigate the moral challenges of everyday life.

This week's scenario:

You’re walking down the hallway of a corporate office building.  The elevator door opens in front of you, and out of the elevator steps your next-door neighbor – a nice young lady with whom you’re very friendly.

“What are you doing here?” you ask.

She replies, “I'm so excited; I have a great job opportunity.  I'm interviewing with a corporate law firm in this office right here, right now.  How do I look?”

You look her over and think: “O-M-G. No one should walk into the bathroom looking like that!  Did she look in the mirror before she left the house?”

How do you respond to her question? 

Meet this week's panelists:

Cordelia Gaffar is the world’s best joy-monger, author of multiple books, Host of the Free to Be Show, and Co-Host of the Unlearning Labels Podcast.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/cordelia-...

Diane Helbig is Chief Improvement Catalyzer at Helbig Enterprises, providing guidance and training to business owners and leaders around the world.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dhelbig/

April Shprintz is the Business Accelerator, creator of The Generosity Culture, author of Magic Blue Rocks, and host of the Pour into your Business podcast.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/aprilshpr...

SHOW LESS

This episode's ethics challenge:

Anyone even tangentially associated with education is familiar with the phenomenon of grade inflation.  Where a C used to stand for competent but uninspired work, it now stands in place of D or F, either of which is viewed as an academic nuclear button.  Participation trophies are the norm in baseball and soccer, lest some children feel less accomplished than others – even if they are.

To make matters worse, instructors are under pressure to not only inflate students’ grades but to write glowing recommendations, even if this forces their testimonials into the realm of fiction or fantasy.  In a few celebrated cases, disgruntled students and parents filed lawsuits against instructors who dared to issue a grade the student actually earned.

Many instructors have given up the fight and acquiesced to the new normal.  They simply don’t believe it’s worth subjecting themselves to angry calls, pressure from administrators, and the specter of litigation.  But more than that, they may rationalize that grade inflation is necessary for those good but unexceptional students who will find themselves competing with other good but unexceptional students.  If students from other schools enjoy the benefit of inflated grades and fancifully written recommendations, why should their own students appear lackluster because they were honestly evaluated?

What should a teacher do?  Provide an honest assessment, or go with the flow of inflated grades and hyperbolic reference letters?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Steve Epner is a serial entrepreneur who flunked retirement to become a business professor and mentor at Saint Louis University.  He is also the godfather of Grappling with the Gray, so we wouldn’t be here if not for him.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/steveepner/

Catherine Fitzgerald has survived her own harrowing leadership roles as CEO and mother of three boys.  She now works with organizational leaders as they navigate the choppy waters of aligning people, performance, and profits as owner of Catapult Leadership Group.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/catherine...

Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is the founder of KSP Partnership, developing and delivering project management and project leadership courses.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimihirot...

You can’t be ethical until you’ve fully examined and understood both sides of any issue.

Few things in life are black and white.  That’s why we have to learn to Grapple with the Gray.

Visit