Recently, a colleague called and asked for some help on a research project he was starting. He remembered that I had co-edited a book about the ethics and information technologies (The Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Information Technology, Information Science Press), and was looking for some guidance on search terms to use. His project was related to the implosion of the United States financial sector, and his contribution was to be on if/how people subrogated their oversight responsibilities to computers.
I knew the phenomenon he was describing, of course. In fact, it's a pet peeve of mine when, as a customer dealing with a service issue, I am told, "the computer won't let me do what you're asking." It makes me crazy when we blame the technology for our own shortcomings. Computers do what they are told to do.
The problem was, I couldn't remember what catchphrase was used to describe the phenomenon. "Anthropomorphizing computers" isn't likely to help in a literature review (although that will still lead to about 7,700 hits in Google). "Blaming technology" gets you closer to the point (over 18 million hits), but still doesn't have the scholarly patina.
While I don't keep every article I read or use for work, I do have some favorites, especially related to the impact on information technologies. As I shuffled through my files, I found what I was looking for: the text of a speech given by Dr. Richard De Georges at Bentley College's Center for Business Ethics in 1999. In it, he laments the "abdication of IT ethical responsibility," and describes "The Myth of Amoral Computing."
Amoral computing. Computers do not have morals. Yet society seems to unquestioning accept the application of information technologies, without considering the social and ethical implications. Just because you CAN do something, SHOULD you? Beyond that are the legal considerations when something goes wrong and the computer is the proximal cause. Are the agents accountable? In my opinion, they should be.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Taking Sides
In my course, "Contemporary Topics in Management," students are assigned issues to debate from Street and Street's (2007) book, TAKING SIDES: CLASHING VIEWS IN MANAGEMENT. Two of the debates took me down memory lane; one was on gender discrimination, and the other was about affirmative action's effectiveness.
While I have not paved the path the way women in an earlier generation had to do, I have certainly bumped my head on the proverbial "glass ceiling." I guess you could call the memories somewhat painful, in that regard.
Enjoying a relatively successful career in corporate America, I felt that I had mastered my current responsibilities, and proposed an increase in responsibilities (and a promotion) to my boss. He acknowledged that I was an "excellent manager," but thought I should go off and work in the Human Resources department. (I have nothing against HR professionals, but at this company, moving to that department was the "kiss of death" to careers.) Some time later, after I had left the company to pursue my doctorate, I stopped by to say hello to this boss (Career advice note: never burn bridges, no matter how much you want to blow them up). In the course of my visit, I learned that my he had hired a former (male) colleague into the department. When I asked, "so what is 'John Doe' doing for you," my former boss acknowledged, "It's basically the job you suggested." Ouch!
Then there was the time when I was a contract consultant for a management consulting group. After a very successful year-long engagement (where I accepted a lower wage because it was local so I didn't have to travel away from my toddler), the company started sending me on out-of-town assignments. After traveling to an assignment, which took 6-8 hours of travel time each way, and resulted in a satisfied client, I returned home and wrote a proposal to the company president. In it, I respectfully requested that they pay me at a higher rate, which I believe would have put me on parity with the rest of the Senior Associates. The president was so incensed that I would dare to ask for more money, he fired me (sort of -- it was a project-by-project relationship, so he really just didn't give me any more projects). Did I mention that I was the only female consultant? Ouch!
On the Affirmative Action front, as I completed my PhD at a top tier institution, and started interviewing for an academic position, I had two troubling site visits. In both cases, I met with only male colleagues -- and in both cases they hired someone who "was already teaching for them." I really felt that they interviewed me to go through the motions of considering a woman candidate. I may be wrong -- but I am not in doubt.
I also have no doubt that the status of women is improving. Gone are the days when, as a sales engineer representing computer-aided design software, I had a lunch meeting with customers while "enjoying" a lingerie show throughout the meal. Did I mention that I was the only (fully-dressed) female at the table?
These days, gender discrimination is more insidious, and I would like to think, mostly unconscious. Business golf is a classic example. I play at golf, and consider myself a social golfer, a 9-hole scrambler. I was at an executive retreat, where the guys were pulling together a golf outing. They invited me -- but there is no way I am able to play 18 holes (on a mountain course). Were they trying to leave me out? No, but I am confident that they don't know any working mothers who can play 18 holes of golf, because I sure don't know any!
Let me "tee up" another example: we have a local golf tournament and fund-raiser in our town. I used to look forward to playing with colleagues and would feel good about my contributions to our team (the occasional awesome shot and my handicap). They changed the format and don't include handicaps anymore -- so I'm out of the game. Were they trying to leave me out? No, but I bet they have far fewer women playing in the tournament.
Do I believe gender discrimination still exists? Yes. But I try to proactive and direct about it, now that I'm in the second half of my career (do NOT call me "over the hill"). Sometimes, when I think the discrimination isn't deliberate, I use humor to create awareness. More importantly I try very hard to mentor the generations of working women that follow me -- and create some understanding in the young men that I teach.
While I have not paved the path the way women in an earlier generation had to do, I have certainly bumped my head on the proverbial "glass ceiling." I guess you could call the memories somewhat painful, in that regard.
Enjoying a relatively successful career in corporate America, I felt that I had mastered my current responsibilities, and proposed an increase in responsibilities (and a promotion) to my boss. He acknowledged that I was an "excellent manager," but thought I should go off and work in the Human Resources department. (I have nothing against HR professionals, but at this company, moving to that department was the "kiss of death" to careers.) Some time later, after I had left the company to pursue my doctorate, I stopped by to say hello to this boss (Career advice note: never burn bridges, no matter how much you want to blow them up). In the course of my visit, I learned that my he had hired a former (male) colleague into the department. When I asked, "so what is 'John Doe' doing for you," my former boss acknowledged, "It's basically the job you suggested." Ouch!
Then there was the time when I was a contract consultant for a management consulting group. After a very successful year-long engagement (where I accepted a lower wage because it was local so I didn't have to travel away from my toddler), the company started sending me on out-of-town assignments. After traveling to an assignment, which took 6-8 hours of travel time each way, and resulted in a satisfied client, I returned home and wrote a proposal to the company president. In it, I respectfully requested that they pay me at a higher rate, which I believe would have put me on parity with the rest of the Senior Associates. The president was so incensed that I would dare to ask for more money, he fired me (sort of -- it was a project-by-project relationship, so he really just didn't give me any more projects). Did I mention that I was the only female consultant? Ouch!
On the Affirmative Action front, as I completed my PhD at a top tier institution, and started interviewing for an academic position, I had two troubling site visits. In both cases, I met with only male colleagues -- and in both cases they hired someone who "was already teaching for them." I really felt that they interviewed me to go through the motions of considering a woman candidate. I may be wrong -- but I am not in doubt.
I also have no doubt that the status of women is improving. Gone are the days when, as a sales engineer representing computer-aided design software, I had a lunch meeting with customers while "enjoying" a lingerie show throughout the meal. Did I mention that I was the only (fully-dressed) female at the table?
These days, gender discrimination is more insidious, and I would like to think, mostly unconscious. Business golf is a classic example. I play at golf, and consider myself a social golfer, a 9-hole scrambler. I was at an executive retreat, where the guys were pulling together a golf outing. They invited me -- but there is no way I am able to play 18 holes (on a mountain course). Were they trying to leave me out? No, but I am confident that they don't know any working mothers who can play 18 holes of golf, because I sure don't know any!
Let me "tee up" another example: we have a local golf tournament and fund-raiser in our town. I used to look forward to playing with colleagues and would feel good about my contributions to our team (the occasional awesome shot and my handicap). They changed the format and don't include handicaps anymore -- so I'm out of the game. Were they trying to leave me out? No, but I bet they have far fewer women playing in the tournament.
Do I believe gender discrimination still exists? Yes. But I try to proactive and direct about it, now that I'm in the second half of my career (do NOT call me "over the hill"). Sometimes, when I think the discrimination isn't deliberate, I use humor to create awareness. More importantly I try very hard to mentor the generations of working women that follow me -- and create some understanding in the young men that I teach.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
What were THEY thinking?
This week, I read that the Georgia Supreme Court deemed a motor vehicle law "unconstitutional," largely on the basis that the wording was vague and confusing. The law? Making a left turn into the near lane, when turning onto a multiple lane road. WHAT is confusing about that?
You want to talk about confusing? Why can't drivers turn their (power) steering wheels well enough to aim for the correct lane? Are they lazy? Inconsiderate? After all, this allows the oncoming traffic to go "right on red," safely. Or is that law too confusing, too?
Come to think of it, red lights DO seem to be confusing for Georgia drivers. The way I was taught to drive, a yellow traffic light meant "caution, the light is about to turn red." That meant I should continue through the intersection, if I was close enough, WITHOUT ACCELERATING. Around here, it seems to mean, "hurry up, so the next two vehicles behind you can make it through the red light before the people in the cross traffic notice." (Of course, those people are probably talking on their cell phones, so it will take them some time to notice.)
While we are on the subject of turning, I have to wonder why most people do not use their turn indicators around here. Are they lazy? Inconsiderate? Too busy talking on their cell phones?
Beyond my frustration with sloppy driving, there is a public health hazard. Ignoring laws that regulate the flow of traffic causes accidents. This is common sense -- and is validated by my personal experience. Both my husband and I -- in separate cars at separate times in separate places -- have been victims of accidents caused by someone running a red light. Note that, both times, our cars were stopped, and we were still hit! Thankfully, we (and our toddler child) were not hurt. We did, however, have the gross inconvenience of insurance claims and extensive car repairs.
How does this rant relate to a topic of management interest? Think about traffic flow as a process. If the process is not followed properly, what happens? At best, you have slower throughput in the process. In the case of the lazy left turns, instead of two people turning, one left and one right, only one can turn because the right turner cannot be sure of an open lane. The same is true when people don't use their signals -- this causes confusion and delays with other drivers. And with the cell phone talkers, their inattention to driving slows everyone down. Of course, when an accident occurs, throughput is further slowed, or stopped all together.
Throughput is a critical success factor in managing processes. If you have consistent processes, you can maximize your throughput, improve your quality, and reduce your costs.
What is confusing about THAT?
You want to talk about confusing? Why can't drivers turn their (power) steering wheels well enough to aim for the correct lane? Are they lazy? Inconsiderate? After all, this allows the oncoming traffic to go "right on red," safely. Or is that law too confusing, too?
Come to think of it, red lights DO seem to be confusing for Georgia drivers. The way I was taught to drive, a yellow traffic light meant "caution, the light is about to turn red." That meant I should continue through the intersection, if I was close enough, WITHOUT ACCELERATING. Around here, it seems to mean, "hurry up, so the next two vehicles behind you can make it through the red light before the people in the cross traffic notice." (Of course, those people are probably talking on their cell phones, so it will take them some time to notice.)
While we are on the subject of turning, I have to wonder why most people do not use their turn indicators around here. Are they lazy? Inconsiderate? Too busy talking on their cell phones?
Beyond my frustration with sloppy driving, there is a public health hazard. Ignoring laws that regulate the flow of traffic causes accidents. This is common sense -- and is validated by my personal experience. Both my husband and I -- in separate cars at separate times in separate places -- have been victims of accidents caused by someone running a red light. Note that, both times, our cars were stopped, and we were still hit! Thankfully, we (and our toddler child) were not hurt. We did, however, have the gross inconvenience of insurance claims and extensive car repairs.
How does this rant relate to a topic of management interest? Think about traffic flow as a process. If the process is not followed properly, what happens? At best, you have slower throughput in the process. In the case of the lazy left turns, instead of two people turning, one left and one right, only one can turn because the right turner cannot be sure of an open lane. The same is true when people don't use their signals -- this causes confusion and delays with other drivers. And with the cell phone talkers, their inattention to driving slows everyone down. Of course, when an accident occurs, throughput is further slowed, or stopped all together.
Throughput is a critical success factor in managing processes. If you have consistent processes, you can maximize your throughput, improve your quality, and reduce your costs.
What is confusing about THAT?
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
What was I thinking?
Argh! It's happened again.
I'm working on a textbook to use in my MBA Operations Management course. I am just picking it up again, after some work on it last fall. In my draft of Chapter 4, "Organizational Effectiveness," I had written:
"This is the essence of any decision-making: balancing between trade offs, e.g., which is more beneficial, something that is lightweight or sturdy? Is being flexible or efficient more important? Good decision making considers those parameters. For example, my son in the marching band... It is also important to understand the factors that impact the potential benefits and the risks in realizing them. For example, my apartment in Altamonte Springs..."
I put those examples in as place holders and reminders to come back to and finish.
OK, so my son in marching band was supposed to be an example. Well, I remember when he came home in 6th grade and asked if he could be in the marching band at school. I said that he could, since he was avidly playing his trumpet. Having grown up in the Northeast, where high school football is played on Saturday mornings, with little fanfare, little did I realize:
So, how did I view that as a trade off? Was it band for soccer? His enrichment for my comfort zone around his safety? Giving up Friday nights, instead of enjoying them? (For the record, I do enjoy going to the games, now -- and have even ridden the bus (which I do not enjoy) to some of the away games.)
Or was I just offering this as a bad decision, from the standpoint of being ill-informed about the trade offs? This will take some mulling, if not more blogging.
As for the potential benefits and risks for my apartment in Altamonte Springs, I am stymied. This was my first home, post-college, when I had first started working for IBM in Orlando, Florida. I definitely traded off an easy commute (being close to the interstate highway) for a quiet balcony (being close to the interstate highway). But benefits and risks? The only thing I can think of is that one of the reasons I chose this apartment complex is that it had a pub and a pool. Since I did not know a soul in Orlando, and am not one to go "clubbing," much less by myself, I thought this would be a safe way to meet people. So the potential benefit was a social life. But what was the risk? Too much of a social life? Too much sun at the pool?
I don't know -- but I DO know I'll need to come up with a better example for my class!
I'm working on a textbook to use in my MBA Operations Management course. I am just picking it up again, after some work on it last fall. In my draft of Chapter 4, "Organizational Effectiveness," I had written:
"This is the essence of any decision-making: balancing between trade offs, e.g., which is more beneficial, something that is lightweight or sturdy? Is being flexible or efficient more important? Good decision making considers those parameters. For example, my son in the marching band... It is also important to understand the factors that impact the potential benefits and the risks in realizing them. For example, my apartment in Altamonte Springs..."
What WAS I thinking?
I put those examples in as place holders and reminders to come back to and finish.
OK, so my son in marching band was supposed to be an example. Well, I remember when he came home in 6th grade and asked if he could be in the marching band at school. I said that he could, since he was avidly playing his trumpet. Having grown up in the Northeast, where high school football is played on Saturday mornings, with little fanfare, little did I realize:
- High school football games in Georgia start in mid-August and continue through Thanksgiving, EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT.
- Away games, since he attends a private school, are FAR AWAY. My pre-teen was traveling on a school bus, at night, to small towns that I have never heard of, without a cell phone or ME.
- He would not be able to play soccer for the school in the fall.
- I would be expected to attend all of the home football games.
So, how did I view that as a trade off? Was it band for soccer? His enrichment for my comfort zone around his safety? Giving up Friday nights, instead of enjoying them? (For the record, I do enjoy going to the games, now -- and have even ridden the bus (which I do not enjoy) to some of the away games.)
Or was I just offering this as a bad decision, from the standpoint of being ill-informed about the trade offs? This will take some mulling, if not more blogging.
As for the potential benefits and risks for my apartment in Altamonte Springs, I am stymied. This was my first home, post-college, when I had first started working for IBM in Orlando, Florida. I definitely traded off an easy commute (being close to the interstate highway) for a quiet balcony (being close to the interstate highway). But benefits and risks? The only thing I can think of is that one of the reasons I chose this apartment complex is that it had a pub and a pool. Since I did not know a soul in Orlando, and am not one to go "clubbing," much less by myself, I thought this would be a safe way to meet people. So the potential benefit was a social life. But what was the risk? Too much of a social life? Too much sun at the pool?
I don't know -- but I DO know I'll need to come up with a better example for my class!
Monday, June 1, 2009
Case in Point
A year or so ago, I read an interesting story about how India was resisting the entrenchment of Burger King by using the force of popular opinion... or so I thought! I was trying to use the example in class, to illustrate the subtle political challenges a company might face when trying to enter a new country. As I was telling the story, though, I knew I didn't have the details quite right.
After searching Google and going through my paper resources, I found the source article -- I'm pretty proud of that. What I'm not so proud of, though, is that the story was about Kentucky Fried Chicken!
In Global Marketing Management by Masaaki Kotabe and Kristiaan Helsen (p. 173), they explain that some consumer activists warned that KFC would promote a junk-food culture, and some went so far as to proclaim "that this was the 'return of imperialistic powers' and was an attempt to 'Westernize the eating habits' of Indians. Overzealous local authorities in the city of Bangalore used a city law restricting the use of MSG... over a certain amount... for temporarily closing down the outlet, despite the fact that the authorities did not have the equipment to measure the MSG content... In... New Dehli, a KFC outlet was temporarily closed down because the food inspector found a 'house fly' in the restaurant." Ultimately, KFC was able to reopen these locations, but not without a lot of trouble.
A related story about protests organized by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), "Crippled Chicken Alleges Cruelty, Asks KFC to Quit India," is available at http://www.newindpress.com, August 20, 2003.
These protests illustrate that, as much as you might study the culture of a country (e.g., Indian Hindus' view of the cow as sacred) and work within the legal environment's boundaries, you can still be blind-sided. These relatively small -- but active and vocal -- consumer groups are stakeholders to be considered.
After searching Google and going through my paper resources, I found the source article -- I'm pretty proud of that. What I'm not so proud of, though, is that the story was about Kentucky Fried Chicken!
In Global Marketing Management by Masaaki Kotabe and Kristiaan Helsen (p. 173), they explain that some consumer activists warned that KFC would promote a junk-food culture, and some went so far as to proclaim "that this was the 'return of imperialistic powers' and was an attempt to 'Westernize the eating habits' of Indians. Overzealous local authorities in the city of Bangalore used a city law restricting the use of MSG... over a certain amount... for temporarily closing down the outlet, despite the fact that the authorities did not have the equipment to measure the MSG content... In... New Dehli, a KFC outlet was temporarily closed down because the food inspector found a 'house fly' in the restaurant." Ultimately, KFC was able to reopen these locations, but not without a lot of trouble.
A related story about protests organized by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), "Crippled Chicken Alleges Cruelty, Asks KFC to Quit India," is available at http://www.newindpress.com, August 20, 2003.
These protests illustrate that, as much as you might study the culture of a country (e.g., Indian Hindus' view of the cow as sacred) and work within the legal environment's boundaries, you can still be blind-sided. These relatively small -- but active and vocal -- consumer groups are stakeholders to be considered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
