Power

We studied the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments today in class.

The guards in the Stanford experiment were normal students became very perverse, abusive individuals.

These studies investigate the effects of a power superior/subordinate relationship. What comes to my mind is how even church relationships can be abused. Especially after we've discussed how Machiavelli's writings were influenced by the Medici family, who thought they were divinely appointed. How will regular people behave when they take on the role of "guard", flouting authority, or even "priest" or "bishop", granting pardon. Zimardo says it's likely that people will go bad if they're placed in positions of power.

We took a quiz on how Machiavellian we were. And I scored pretty high. Well that's because here is an example of a Machiavellian mindset "Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble". EVER SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH A SALESMAN? They've got the most information and therefore the most power. And it doesn't matter what the salesman can actually do, it's what he makes other people think he can do.

I am more cynical about people now after I've heard anecdotal evidence of salesmen totally working over the average person. Trust, but verify. And some for some groups, trust none of them.

So we're watching a video in class about the interview i mentioned a few posts ago -- Bill Gates Sr. and the heir of the Oscar Meyer fortune -- about fairness of the estate tax.

"We just don't look enough at the role society plays in helping people create wealth", so the government is entitled to tax those who made their success with the government's help.

I think this interview is so neat. Great food for thought.

Jason and I had a heated discussion about affirmative action when I said I'd admit a Hispanic kid over a white kid to BYU based on race. Jason would be willing to accept 100% white people if it meant it was totally fair that everyone got in. I think that's weird. I think that drives the wedge between whites and nonwhites further.

We had to stop talking about it because it was so uncomfortable.

corporate social responsibility

I won't go to Wal-Mart because it is a sad place.

The workers are underpaid.

The fluorescent lighting is taxing.

New term I learned: Social Darwinism

A normative principle (how the world SHOULD work), that we shouldn't waste our resources on the "losers" -- those that are less profitable in the industry.

I like supporting companies that are "green" or "do good". I found a WSJ article that says being "green" or philanthropic is profitable! The profit margins for products perceived as green are way better and greater in magnitude than the losses manufacturers suffer on products perceived as "not green".

Aid response to Szechuan earthquake

I'd like to know how the Chinese government and businesses have responded to the relief effort for the earthquake in China. Let's stick a barometer in China and take a look.

"the government responded to an earthquake by sending in thousands of soldiers and taking unusual steps to share the story with the outside world. History may eventually note that this disaster, coming so close upon the opening of the 2008 Olympics, forced a new openness in this once-secretive nation." "In praise of moral nuance"

Not bad, especially when China gets scalding criticism for selfishness. Why the difference now? Are they tired of the bad rap and want to clean it up a little before the summer games start?

Would China help anyone not of their own?

Affirmative Action

Today in class we discussed affirmative action, and I'm still totally for it. Even though the Supreme Court says race quotas violate the 14th amendment because it discriminates against race, I still think race quotas have a net benefit.

I think BYU should admit an underqualified Hispanic over a qualified Caucasian because the school needs more Hispanic representation (only 2.6% of population is Latino), and think of how many members of the Church are from South America! Fastest growing membership area.

Does it pay to be ethical?

From the Wall Street Journal:

The link can be found at the end of this entry.


Summary:

Article attempts to answer these questions:

Will buyers actually reward good corporate behavior by paying more for products -- and will they punish irresponsible behavior by paying less? If so, how much? And just how far does a company really need to go to win people over?

So the writers conducted a test. Two groups. One group was given information about if goods were made ethically or unethically. Second group (control group) -- no information was given.

Results:
...
consumer attitudes played a big part in shaping those results. People with high standards for corporate behavior rewarded the ethical companies with bigger premiums and punished the unethical ones with bigger discounts.

Finally, we discovered that companies don't necessarily need to go all-out with social responsibility to win over consumers. If a company invests in even a small degree of ethical production, buyers will reward it just as much as a company that goes much further in its efforts.

Strengths of the Article

Actually conducted an experiment! That is cool. I don't care much if it's statistically robust. Very cogent argument.

Weaknesses of the article:

Author inaccurately substitutes the term "social responsibility" for "ethics". The article title is misleading -- perhaps for sensationalism. He does, however, specify what category of ethics the scope of his study assesses

For our purposes, "ethically produced" goods are those manufactured under three conditions. First, the company is considered to have progressive stakeholder relations, such as a commitment to diversity in hiring and consumer safety. Second, it must follow progressive environmental practices, such as using eco-friendly technology. Finally, it must be seen to demonstrate respect for human rights -- no child labor or forced labor in overseas factories, for instance.

Also, the study only examines one industry: manufacturing.

Weakens the argument significantly, but still an interesting read. It's kind of like reading Consumer Reports.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121018735490274425.html

workplace discrimination

One of the most important aspects to keep in mind during the assessment of crises, and the avoidance or minimization of their impact, is the immediate and ongoing impact on the organization's reputation. Decisionmakers can make choices that benefit all stakeholders (at a high cost, though) and often enhance the organizations reputational capital or shorten the period of diminishment.

Texaco's discrimination against black worders ended up costing a $300 million fine and lost respect.

Texaco's response included six steps including visits by senior exectuives to company locations to apologize to employees, expansion of its Diversity club, and a renewed emphasis on company core values. Offending employees were cut off. (Good!)

But why did Lundwall say if he could do it all over again, he would "slip quietly into the night with his benefits and let the system stay as screwed up as it is"? This is why we need to protect our whistleblowers.