Jeffrey L. Seglin's Blog, page 56

A proclamation of faith has no place in a job interview

The owner of a small financial advisory firm has taken an interest in a young man after receiving his resume. He's asked the candidate to come in to for an interview with him and several key members of the staff.
The young man prepares for the meeting by reading up on the company and its key staff. The process starts off well. The owner of the company speaks with the candidate first, making clear that the young man will be his last interview of the day, over lunch, once the candidate has spoken with other staffers.
In one discussion after another, the young man feels like he's engaging well with the employees interviewing him. He gets excited about the prospects of working at the firm with these people. They seem to take a keen interest in him and how he might be a fit for the type of work they do.
Just before lunch, the candidate is scheduled to meet with the firm's chief financial officer. After he enters the room and sits down, however, the conversation quickly turns to personal matters. The young man is a bit surprised, but figures the line of questioning is all part of getting to know him better.
Then the CFO starts talking about his faith and the particular house of worship he attends. He never asks the young man about his own faith (such a question would likely violate all sorts of legalities), but it's clear that the CFO wants to share specifics of his faith.
The discussion makes the young man uncomfortable. He finds it inappropriate, but is unsure how to respond. He doesn't want to insult the CFO by telling him he finds the talk of faith irrelevant.
The candidate says nothing to the CFO, but over lunch, when the firm's owner asks him how the morning interviews went, the young man focuses almost entirely on discussions with staff members other than the CFO. Since it's clear he's left out any mention of his session with the CFO, the owner asks him about it.
"In all honesty, the discussion made me a bit uncomfortable," the young man says, recounting how the discussion turned to the CFO's faith.
"I've talked to him about that before," the owner responds. "I'm sorry that happened."
The young man is torn about whether he did the right thing by telling the owner about his discussion with the CFO.
The job candidate did indeed do the right thing. In doing so, he accomplished two things. He answered the owner's question forthrightly. He also gave the owner a chance to address the issue with the CFO. In doing so, the owner could potentially avoid a nasty legal situation if the CFO crossed a line in the interview process, as well as curtail such episodes during future interviews. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Am I my neighbor's dog keeper?

Almost every evening, weather permitting, a couple goes for a long walk in their neighborhood. They regularly stroll past several areas where neighbors walk their dogs -- a city park and a boardwalk along a harbor among them.
The city parks department has posted signs indicating that there are fines for not cleaning up after dogs. To assist with the latter, the city has provided free plastic bags that are attached to posts in both the park and along the boardwalk.
Increasingly, the couple has noticed that dog walkers are not always mindful of cleaning up. Most recently, the couple came upon a dog owner who standing by her pet along the boardwalk. They acknowledged one another by saying hello. Then the dog owner asked, "You wouldn't have any plastic bags on you, would you?"
The couple, who were not walking a dog and don't own a dog, were not in the habit of carrying plastic bags with them. They did point out to the dog owner that there were free plastic bags attached to a post about 100 yards down the boardwalk. They indicated exactly where the bags were located, then continued on their way, leaving the dog owner to retrieve her own bag.
When they circled back, they noticed that the dog owner was gone, but her pet's waste remained.
"What should we have done?" asks one member of the couple. "Should we have offered to go get her a bag?"
Knowing that the owner didn't clean up after her pet, they no wonder if they should report her to the city parks department at the address listed on the sign about fines for those who don't clean up. The challenge is they'd never seen the owner or her pet before, have no idea where the woman lives, and wouldn't know where to begin to find her in their densely-populated city neighborhood.
Some people living in apartment complexes have grown so tired of similar situations that they've begun to require that dog owners submit samples of their pets' DNA on file so culprits can be caught. But the strolling couple's neighborhood keeps no such records. As near as they can tell, no effort is made to enforce the city parks department's regulation about cleaning up pet waste. So what's the right thing to do?
It's certainly not the strolling couple's obligation to pick up after someone else's dog. They also should not be expected to carry a stash of plastic bags in their pockets to supply dog owners who forgot to bring their own.
The right thing is for dog owners to clean up after their own pets. The strollers were correct to point out where the city-supplied free bags were located. If they want to go a step further, they could notify the parks department and ask if it's possible to provide the bags at more locations.
Ultimately, though, the right thing is for the dog owners to be responsible and for the city to enforce its posted laws. Regardless of it not being their responsibility, from here on out, the couple plans to take a few plastic bags along on future walks, just in case! 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Being undercharged taught reader a lasting lesson

"I confess," a reader writes. "I am a miserable person."
The reader takes great pride in trying to do what's right. Quite frequently, he's found himself being undercharged at a store or restaurant.
"Mostly, I tell the people and they correct the bill," he writes. But, "before I get too high and mighty," he confesses that he hasn't always made the effort to set things straight. About 31 years ago, when he was "young and poor" and living in Denver, the reader spent quite a bit of time hiking and camping. Living on a shoestring budget, he tried to stretch every dollar.
He'd saved enough money to buy a propane backpacking stove that sold for $19.90, the kind you can still pick up for about $25 at most sporting goods stores or discount retailers. At the checkout counter, the cashier placed the decimal point in the wrong place and erroneously charged him only $1.99.
Eying the receipt, the reader, who was unemployed at the time, contemplated whether to tell the cashier he'd made a mistake. He decided not to. "I was dishonest," he writes.
Granted, there are stores that might sell you an item at a lower price if it's mislabeled or scans wrong. But my reader's experience was in the days before scanners were in wide use. (The first item scanned at a checkout is reported to have been a pack of chewing gum at a grocery store in Ohio in 1974, the same year as the reader's propane stove purchase.)
That he didn't pay the correct amount has always nagged at the reader.
Last fall, he found himself with four friends at a restaurant in New York City. When the bill arrived, he discovered they hadn't been charged for a round of drinks. Without hesitation, he told his friends they needed to let the waiter know, and they did.
It wasn't the experience 31 years ago that taught the reader that correcting someone who undercharges you is the right thing to do, although it might have heightened his determination to set things right in similar situations. He knew as soon as he saw the receipt for the propane stove that he should have drawn attention to the error. The fact that he was nearly broke shouldn't have made a difference. He did, after all, go into the store expecting to pay $19.90.
Does this make the reader a miserable person? No.
We all make errors of judgment, and the reader recognizes that he made one 31 years ago. Ever since then, he's tried his best to do the right thing when faced with similar situations, as well as predicaments that could have had far more dire results.
I've written before that what should really drive us is to understand that in making choices, our actions define us. Only then can we consistently strive to do the right thing. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Spilled soup offers a lesson in effective human relations

Should you expect others to treat you well when you treat them well?
That's not something you can count on. Expecting something in return for civil behavior can be a frustrating game. The motivation for behaving well toward others should fall more in line with the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you.
But sometimes a good deed done can yield a good deed in response -- and even a healthy dose of mutual respect.
G.L., a reader from Boston, writes that he often buys his lunch at a burrito cart parked in the lobby of a nearby government building downtown. About a year-and-a-half ago, G.L. bought a bowl of chicken vegetable soup at the stand. Granted, this was an unorthodox choice at a burrito stand, but he had a hankering for a nice cup of soup.
G.L. paid for the soup, then walked back to his own office building. Unfortunately, when he got into the elevator, he dropped the soup and watched it spill all over the floor. He took care of getting the mess cleaned up, but was still hungry so headed back to the burrito stand. The owners expressed surprise at his quick return, wondering if something had been wrong with the first bowl of soup.
G.L. admitted what had happened and was surprised by their response. They handed him another bowl "for no charge," he writes.
Ever since then, G.L. makes a point of leaving a small tip -- anywhere from a quarter to $1 -- when he buys something at the burrito stand.
"I like the people who run the stand," he writes.
Last week, G.L. bought a chicken burrito for $6.75. Feeling particularly generous, he handed the cashier what he thought was a $10 bill and told her to keep the change.
As he started to walk away, he heard the cashier shout, "No!"
"You gave me $20," she said. She handed him his change, of which he took $10 and gave her the rest as a tip, thanking her profusely.
"I was touched by her doing this," he writes, "especially since I'd explicitly said, 'Keep the change,'"
G.L. writes that he believes the cashier's actions prove that "good deeds spur other good deeds and build relationships." Sometimes they do. And the cashier went above and beyond to do the right thing even when, given G.L.'s instructions to keep the change, she didn't have to.
Would G.L. have felt so generous had the elevator soup mishap not happened? Would the cashier have done the same thing for a customer who hadn't been such a good tipper and loyal customer? Perhaps not.
But the right thing is for both burrito stand buyers and sellers to treat each other well, regardless of whether they receive anything in return. The same goes for each of us. Do unto others and sometimes what others do unto you will warm your heart. Enjoy the soup. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Yard sale sellers and 'pickers' should both play by the rules

As spring arrives, yard sale season can't be far behind. It's time for some people to clear out their unwanted "stuff" and others to go searching for bargains.
Several years ago, I wrote about my son-in-law finding a classic old fan made by Diehl at a yard sale in Somerville, Mass. He paid the owner 25 cents, took the fan home, cleaned it and fixed the motor. Years later, he sold the fan on eBay for $150.
My son-on-law had no idea what the fan was worth when he bought it; he just liked the look of it and figured a quarter was not too much to spend. Had he known the device was actually worth 600 times what he paid, was he obligated to tell the seller she'd woefully underpriced it?
A similar question arrived in my email this week from D.A., a reader in Ohio: "Occasionally, I come across a story about someone who found a treasure at a garage sale," D.A. writes. "If the person who's put an item up for sale doesn't have a clue as to the actual value, but the buyer knows it at a glance, what's the right thing (for the buyer) to do?"
For D.A., not saying something when you know an item is worth far more than what is being asked constitutes "stealing that treasure." It makes no difference, in his mind, if the seller is a child or adult, destitute or a millionaire.
My stance on yard sales remains the same as it's always been. The seller should try to get as much as possible for all items on sale, and the buyer should try to pay as little as possible. Generally, the seller and buyer meet somewhere in between.
Seasoned yard sale hunters have all sorts of bargain-hunting techniques. Some get to sales early in hopes of having first pick of the best items. Others like to wait until the sale is winding down and the seller might be willing to negotiate on price.
On television shows like American Pickers , buyers occasionally offer a few dollars more for an item than what a seller is asking. However, the responsibility of making sure the seller knows the real value of sale items doesn't fall on the buyer.
With easy access to online auction sites and other databases, it's simple enough for sellers to research what their items might have sold for elsewhere. Those concerned about underpricing should do the research.
If a seller asks a buyer if he or she knows what an item is worth, the buyer shouldn't lie. However, it's not a lie to simply suggest a price.
When it comes to yard sales, the right thing is to play by the rules. Sellers should try to get as much as they can, but price their merchandise well if their true objective is to sell everything. And buyers should go looking with a clear conscience for the best bargains they can find. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Crash test: Does driver deserve reimbursement for rental car costs?

"Thank goodness no one was hurt," was the first thing a reader said after reporting that her car was one of four vehicles hit by an oil truck earlier this month.
She learned of the accident after leaving work in the evening to walk to her car, parked on a city street. The car was gone. When she returning to the office, a receptionist told her about the accident. There were plenty of witnesses, so there was no question about who was at fault. No one was in any of the four cars when the oil truck slammed into them, causing varying levels of damage.
Instead of heading home, the reader walked to the closest police precinct to see where her car had been towed. Since it was after hours, she couldn't call her insurance company or local body shop until the following day. Police told her where her car had been taken, but their report wasn't ready yet, so she had to return for it the next day.
Because the reader's car had been hit by another insured vehicle, that vehicle's owner would be responsible for covering all the damage. Her insurance agent and body shop worker helped the reader figure out how to get the car from the tow lot to the body shop so it could be assessed and repaired. The body owner helped her arrange for a rental car.
The reader's insurance company agreed to cover up to $25 a day for a rental car. The rental company indicated this was adequate, but the reader later learned that the coverage would fall short by about $3 a day. Since her damaged car would be out of commission for 2-3 weeks, she would end paying between $50 and $75 out of pocket for the rental.
This was not a bad price for a rental car for that long, the reader figured, but then wondered why she should have to pay anything, given that the accident was not her fault. The oil truck company will be responsible for damage it caused, and because the reader wasn't at fault, she wouldn't have to pay the deductible on her insurance policy.
So what is the right thing to do? Should the reader let things lie, or see if the oil truck company will make up the difference on the cost of her rental car?
The right thing to do is first check with the rental car company to see if it will give her a break on the cost of the rental car, so she won't be out of pocket. The rental car company wasn't responsible for the accident, either, however, so it's reasonable to suspect it will hold to its price.
If there is a shortfall, the reader might not have any legal recourse after her insurance company and the oil truck company's insurance company settle on the cost of the repairs. But if she's out of pocket any cash at all, the right thing would be for the oil truck company to reimburse her for the difference, whether it's legally obligated to do so or not. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

All workers should pull their weight

February was a good month for jobs. The U.S. reportedthat 295,000 jobs were added that month, and the national unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent. That's the lowest it's been since the economic downturn hit in 2008.
But while more people continue to be added to payrolls, wages don't seem to be increasing quite as well. In February, wages rose just 0.1 percent, less than the 0.5 percent they'd risen in January. Many workers still find themselves challenged to make ends meet on salaries that might not have caught up to where they were before the economic downturn began.
One of these workers is a reader in California. The professional firm where she works suffered greatly during the recession, cutting roughly 75 percent of its staff. The reader considers herself one of "the lucky ones" who survived, but notes that she and other remaining staff suffered major cuts to their salaries and benefits.
She's grateful that things seem to be on the upswing now, with her company hiring three new employees recently. However, salaries and benefits have not been restored to their pre-recession levels.
The reader is working hard for less money, as are many of her colleagues -- except for one "junior" employee who also survived the layoffs but is now "slacking off," she claims. He seems "to be having a hard time getting back into production mode. ... Every time I pass his desk, he has his eyes down on his smart phone."
The problem became even more apparent when the reader and her low-performing colleague were assigned to work on a project together.
"His non-participation negatively affected my work load and my patience," she writes. She alerted the worker's supervisor, who talked to him, but nothing has changed.
"He continues to waste hours every day looking down at that phone," the reader wrote.
She figures that the less efficient they are on the project adversely impacts the bottom line. And the less money the company makes, the longer it will take for salaries to be restored.
"I'm tired of making less than I was when he was in diapers," she writes. "Should I talk to him myself? Write him an email expressing my opinion? Take it to Human Resources, or speak to his supervisor again?"
If the reader's colleague is not pulling his wait, the right thing is to let his supervisor know. The reader might have tried talking to the employee before she reported him, but if he doesn't report to her, then she was right to go to his supervisor first. If his performance is still affecting her own work, she'd be right to talk to the supervisor again.
It's one thing to turn a blind eye to coworkers who occasionally check personal email or social media on work time. But when those workers' actions result in loss of productivity for everyone, the right thing is for coworkers to make clear that theirs is a culture that does not accept such behavior. If the slacker feels slighted by the criticism, he should find work elsewhere. Until then, he should do his job. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Does seeing spots obligate you to point them out?

How obligated are you to alert someone about your concern that they might have a health problem?
A.C., a reader from the Midwest, was vacationing at a resort in the Dominican Republic with her husband and another couple. Both of their friends were general practice physicians.
One day, as the couples were sitting on the beach, a young woman who appeared to be about 18 to 20 years old walked by them. The husband of the physician couple noticed that the woman had a large dark spot on her skin, about the size of a large screw head. He commented to the group "that you'd think someone with a spot like that might not want to be wearing such skimpy swimwear that exposed her skin to the sun even more."
A.C. asked his doctor friend if he thought the spot was cancerous. He didn't, but said that given the young woman's age and the location of the spot, he thought it was most likely pre-cancerous. His wife agreed with him, but said she wouldn't be able to make a clear diagnosis without examining the spot more closely.
Neither physician felt that they should approach the woman and share their concerns about her health. Instead, they went for a walk along the beach.
"I was willing to tell her," writes A.C., but when the young lady passed by again, she was with her family and no one in the group was speaking English.
"Given the fact that I didn't want to give the wrong impression and put them in a panic, I let it pass," A.C. writes. "They left by the time our friends got back and we never saw them again."
Her decision not to approach the young lady still bothers A.C.
"Did I do the right thing by not bringing the spot to her attention?" she asks. "It is possible she was already aware of the spot and is having it looked at, but my conscience doesn't know that."
Whether or not the young woman and members of her family were speaking English at the resort is beside the point, since they may also have been fluent in English. The prospect of a language barrier was not enough to warrant not speaking to the woman.
Not wanting to throw the family into a panic seems a more reasonable response, since A.C. was not a doctor and had no idea if the spot was a health risk. If the trained physicians who were with her didn't believe it was their medical responsibility to alert the young woman, then it seems reasonable for A.C. to refrain from alerting her, as well.
Approaching a stranger and telling her she should have a spot on her skin checked out when you're not qualified to make that determination doesn't seem helpful. The right thing was for A.C. to consult with those who knew more about any potential health threat, seek their counsel, and then let it the matter lie. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Is cheating better than divorce?

On the CBS TV show "Sunday Morning" recently, advice columnist Dan Savage repeated his view of monogamy, which he's shared before in his syndicated column, Savage Love.
He told the interviewer, Erin Moriarty, that he thought "there are times and circumstances under which adultery is OK. ... And cheating may be the more loving thing to do."
During the interview, Savage's argument was that the "standard advice" to a married partner who wants to have a sexual relationship outside of the marriage is to seek a divorce. He noted, however, that divorce can "traumatize your children," and that "between divorce and cheating," he thought "cheating is the least worst option."
A few days after viewing the interview, a reader wrote to tell me about a disagreement he and his wife were having about a book they were both reading. In the story, long-lost loves find each other again and, now in their 70s, decide to have an affair. One is widowed and the other's spouse is still living.
The reader's wife believed the fellow who was still married had an obligation to tell his wife about the affair. My reader wasn't so sure.
What was the right thing for the reunited pair to do?
In the interview with Moriarty, Savage observed that part of his issue with monogamy is that "we're told that if we're in love, we won't want to sleep with anybody else." But he doesn't believe that's quite accurate. "The truth is, if we're in love and make a monogamous commitment, that means we will refrain from sleeping with other people. (However), we (may) still want to sleep with other people."
I'm not convinced that Savage truly knows what all people want once they commit to a monogamous marriage. But for years, research has seemed to support his observation that some people still want to sleep with other people and do so after marriage. In a journal article written 40 years ago, Shirley Glass and Thomas Wright, of the Catholic University of America, reported their findings that 34 percent of women and 56 percent of men who'd had affairs said they were happy in their marriages.
However, such findings don't tell us much about the happiness of the partner who finds out his or her spouse has been having an affair.
I'm not a relationship counselor, so I don't delve into issues of what may drive someone's desires to remain faithful in a relationship or not. From an ethical standpoint, though, if someone enters into a relationship agreeing to be monogamous, then the right thing to do is to be monogamous.
Savage may be correct that there are times when divorce is worse than infidelity, but if that's the case, I believe the partners owe it to one another not to "cheat," but instead to be forthcoming, preferably before the union begins. Such honesty might result in the other partner feeling betrayed or wanting out of the relationship -- or it might not.
For a relationship to last, it strikes me that trust should be at its heart. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

HKS PolicyCast on Brian Williams and NBC

HKS PolicyCast describes itself as a "weekly podcast on public policy, politics and global issues hosted by Matt Cadwallader and featuring leading voices from Harvard Kennedy School and beyond." In this episode, Cadwallader writes that "HKS Lecturer Jeffrey Seglin of the Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy discusses the ethical hot water Brian Williams has recently found himself in. He breaks down the reputational harm that has been done to both Williams and NBC, the steps NBC needs to take to restore its viewers’ faith and the growing similarity between journalists and politicians in the ways they seek to connect with audiences through celebrity."