Jeffrey L. Seglin's Blog, page 66

Comparison pricing doesn't always mean leaving the store

About a year and a half ago, I wrote a column about how useful smartphone apps were to compare prices of goods when you were shopping. I concluded that there was nothing wrong with perusing an item somewhere and then shopping around for the best price.

Enough readers took issue with my conclusion that it seemed good to revisit the issue.

A veteran bookseller commented about how frustrating it is to work hard to offer a "better than expected experience" to her customers only to have them purchase the books she recommends online. "It is disheartening to work so hard only to have the store used as a showroom for online purchases."

Keith Bouldin, a reader from Santa Rosa, Calif., commented that "if you want bricks and mortar stores to be around to look at and try on products before you buy, then you need to buy things from them." Besides, he says, he finds the idea of buying wearable items online problematic if you expect to get the correct fit. So he buys his motorcycle helmets and gear from a local shop.

"There really is no substitute for hands-on personal service that you get at a bricks and mortar store, and the prices need to reflect that," writes Bouldin.

"If you value the services that the retailer provides and want to see them continue, then reward them with the sale, even if you end up paying a bit more," agrees William Jacobson of Anaheim, Calif. "After all, you have gotten more for your money." And, he points out, these retailers pay for rent, utilities, insurance, labor and inventory, all of which are designed to be repaid through sales.

But other customers who want to be loyal to their bricks and mortar stores sometimes find the price differential for the same product to be too great. A reader who regularly shopped the same auto parts store noted that a tie rod end he needed cost $49 at his regular store, while the same one cost $7 online. Another local shop sold it for $21. Since the reader didn't want to wait for it to be shipped, he bought the $21 rather than stay with his regular supplier. Even when you want to be loyal, "things are not always easy."

Chris MacDonald, a reader from Toronto who writes about and teaches business ethics, commented that "lots of information basically means that the market can be truly competitive, and that sellers aren't relying on customer ignorance."

MacDonald makes an excellent point. In my original column, I did not argue that we should never pay a little extra for the service and quicker availability we might receive at a bricks and mortar shop. I agree with Jacobson who argues that "good faith" from both the seller and buyer is essential, if we don't want our favorite local stores to close shop.

But being able to shop around and compare is, I still maintain, a good thing and it's the right thing for consumers to take advantage of comparison pricing apps that allow them to do this.

It's also great to see some independent retailers creatively compete with the trend. On a recent visit to the Strand Book Store in New York City, a table featured several physical books with a sign that read: "Lower Priced than E-books." We picked up a bag full.

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) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Should colleges pay athletes to play?

Should college athletes be paid to play sports at school? That's what a reader who is a student at a Division I NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) college in southwest Florida wants to know.
He's not alone in asking the question and it's a reasonable one to ask. As the reader points out, "universities pile up millions of dollars thanks to their athletic programs that are boosted by these student athletes with their talents. Yet the universities refuse to pay them."
If rewarding the students for bringing in cash to the university is not enough of a reason, my reader wonders how these student athletes can be expected to take on paying jobs outside of sports given that "their sports obligations and educational responsibilities keep them from having the time to do so."
The reader believes that instead of scrutinizing these student athletes to try to catch them doing wrong by taking a gift from a booster or cash as an incentive, "we should take the reasonable measure of giving them a modest salary so at least they can survive their time in college."
"When," he asks, "does this debate stop being ethical and instead become one about an essential need for their daily survival?"
Colleges whose athletic programs fall within Divisions I and II of the NCAA can offer scholarships to athletes, but NCAA rules forbid paying them a salary to play a sport. (Division III colleges, typically smaller schools, cannot offer athletic scholarships under NCAA rules.) So it's not as if all athletes at these schools are struggling for daily survival.
The question then really doesn't seem to be about "an essential need for their daily survival." If it is, then athletic scholarships can address that need for some athletes.
The question seems more about whether it's the right thing for student athletes to be paid to play, particularly given how much money is made off of their athletic performances.
Mark Emmert, the president of the NCAA, has made it clear where he stands on the issue by posting a comment on the organization's website. "As long as I'm president of the NCAA, we will not pay student-athletes to play sports. Compensation for students is just something I'm adamantly opposed to."
He goes on to draw a distinction between amateur athleticism on the college level and professional sports. "We're providing athletes with world-class educations and world-class opportunities. If they are one of the few that are going to move on to become a pro athlete, there's no better place in the world to refine their skills as a student-athlete."
It would indeed be unfair if some universities paid their college athletes salaries and others didn't. Adhering to the same set of guidelines -- agreeing on how it is they will behave when they play sports together -- is the right thing to do.
If enough of the member colleges and universities believe that not paying student athletes is wrong or unfair, they should lobby the NCAA to change. Until it does, there is nothing wrong with not paying accomplished college athletes. They might not get rich from their performances, but the likelihood that they'll go hungry is small. 
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: @jseglinhttps://twitter.com/jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net.  
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Send your ethics stories and questions...

For the weekly newspaper ethics column I write for the Tribune Media Services Syndicate called "The Right Thing," I am always looking for stories of ethical challenges, dilemmas, and perplexing situations. If you have such a story or question based on an incident and would like it to be considered for the column, please email it to me at rightthing@comcast.net. 

Please make sure to include enough details about the story, the issue that you're wrestling with, and your name and the city and state or province where you are located. Include a way for me to contact you. 

If you know of others who might have interesting stories, please forward this on to them by clicking on the envelope below. 

Thanks in advance for your stories.

To give or not to give to student activities?

A couple of years ago, after I started teaching at a newcollege, a group of students asked if I would go to lunch with them. When the bill came, I assumed we'd be splitting the check, since I'm not in the habit of taking money or gifts from students currently enrolled in my class. One of my students quickly surmised that I wasn't aware that the school had a program that funded students to take their professors to lunch. The number of students who can attend each lunch, the amount each can spend and the number of lunches each student can engage in during the semester is limited. But professors can go as often as the invites come and their schedules allow.
It's fairly common for students to want to spend time with professors outside of class to discuss issues that go beyond the material being studied. How to do this over a meal without an awkward discussion of who pays is a challenge. Splitting the bill is a good option, but that puts professors and students in the position of having to pay out of their own pockets, which could get pricey.
The take-your-professor-to-lunch program is a good system. It gives cash-strapped students a free meal and allows for informal discussions outside of the classroom. More importantly, any perception that students are spending their own cash to curry favor with a professor is taken off the table.
Public grammar and secondary schools typically don't have such programs. But there are often strict restrictions on gift-giving from parents and students to public school teachers.
But what's appropriate when a professor wants to spend his or her own money on a student? Is that ever appropriate?
A reader from Boston recently began teaching as an adjunct professor at an area college. Toward the end of the semester the a capella singing group to which one of his students belonged, launched a campaign on Kickstarter.com to raise funds.
He would like to support the project, but he points out that the deadline for giving funds is three days earlier than the final date on which grades must be submitted for the class she is taking with him.
"Would it be a conflict of interest for me to donate to this group?" he asks.
I don't see the conflict of interest. The class is done and he's not seeking anything in return for his potential donation through Kickstarter. He could, of course, submit his grades earlier so that the donation occurs after that, but that doesn't make it any better or worse of a decision.
The right thing is for the reader to give to any cause he finds worthy as long as he's not trying to curry favor with any current students. The challenge, of course, comes in where to draw the line since it would likely be impossible to fund every student effort that arises. But again, making those choices is up to the reader. As long as the contribution doesn't affect the work in class and is not establishing an inappropriate relationship, it's up to him how to spend his money ... and he can do so with a clear conscience. 
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: @jseglinhttps://twitter.com/jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net.  
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Finders not always keepers

Should you expect to be thanked when you do the right thing? And if you know someone has done the right thing when it directly relates to you, should you make sure to thank them?
A secretary who works in the main office of a large high school in the Midwest is the official tender of the high school's lost and found.
"I can't tell you how many students bring in cash they find in halls, doorways and parking lots," she writes. "Last school year, I was given over $200 by students who found cash on school grounds and wanted to do the right thing. Almost none of them asked if they could claim the found cash if no one asked for it."
The school secretary believes the finders were motivated by empathy, namely, "How would I feel if I lost this amount of cash?"
Some of the money gets returned, but some is loaned out to hungry students who have forgotten lunch money. They sign IOUs and most of them, the secretary reports, repay the loan within a few days. Some of the unclaimed money is used for an annual gift drive to buy holiday gifts for homeless children in the school district.
Students who turn in the found money don't do it for the thanks or a reward, the secretary says, but because they've built a culture at the school where they know it's the right thing to do.
Still, when someone's money is returned and he knows who returned it, what's the proper course of action?
Another reader from the Midwest dropped his wife off at the movie theater. He then handed her money to buy tickets from the bank envelope he was still carrying from the day before when he had made a withdrawal. Instead of putting the money back into his pants pocket, he put it in the chest pocket of his coat. The next day, when he went to get the money to go buy groceries, he realized it was gone.
Figuring it must have fallen out of his coat's chest pocket at the movie theater, he stopped by to ask if anyone had found the envelope. He told the manager what movie they had seen and that there had been approximately $450 in the envelope.
The manager checked and, sure enough, a young man had found the money and turned it in.
"He could have rejoiced at finding the money, but he turned it in," the reader writes. He left a $20 reward for the young man. "I could not imagine not thanking him in some way."
The young man may not have expected anything in return for doing the right thing. But the reader takes joy that the young man was not "so jaded or self-centered that he couldn't imagine what it might have been like to lose something valuable himself."
The students at the high school regularly do the right thing by turning in what is not theirs in hopes it will find its rightful owner. So did the young man at the theater. And the gentleman who had his lost $450 returned also did the right thing by graciously thanking the young man. They each behaved in a manner that suggests there is some agreement on the right thing to do, even when you don't have to do it. 
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: @jseglinhttps://twitter.com/jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net.  
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Grading students on the merits

A reader in Columbus, Ohio, drew my attention to a story about a high school English teacher in Denton, Texas, who gave his students an assignment to write about a topic of their choice. One student wrote about a gun show. The teacher reportedly threatened to give the student a zero for the assignment, if he did not change his topic.
As the local Fox News affiliate reported, that student's mother expressed her disapproval with the teacher's response to her son's essay. The teacher maintained that he found the paper unacceptable because of his concerns about school violence. The mother maintained that her son's paper made no mention of firing guns, it simply reported on his gun show attendance.
Ultimately, the school district issued a statement to Fox News that read: "The teacher has accepted the paper and apologized to the student for misperceptions. The teacher's intent was for guns not to be trivialized in any school situation because of recent events."
My reader in Columbus wants to know if the teacher was right to threaten to give the student a zero.
"Does a teacher grade on content, style, or personal feelings?" my reader asks.
Say a teacher wants students to write about gay marriage, my reader continues. One student writes that he is opposed to gays getting married, while the teacher is in favor of gay marriage. "How should the student be graded? If the student did an excellent job in presenting his argument, should the teacher give him an A for composition, and an F because the student is wrong due to prejudice?"
Some challenging situations in the classroom can be avoided by intelligent construction of assignments. If the Texas teacher wanted to put parameters around what his students could and couldn't write about, then giving such a broadly worded assignment as writing on a topic of your choice was not particularly effective. Once the assignment was worded that way, it was only fair for the teacher to grade the essay based on its merits as an essay.
There was no indication that the student wrote about issues that presented a danger to classmates, teachers, staff or the school. The right thing would have been for the teacher to grade the essay based on the strength of the writing rather than on the topic.
The same goes for an essay on gay marriage. If a teacher asks students to write essays on gay marriage, he should be prepared for essays that might take a stance for or against the issue, regardless of his position. The grading should be based on how well the position was argued and how well the essay was written.
There are times when it's appropriate for students to be graded based on the stance they take on an issue. In school debates, students often draw lots to decide who will take which side of an argument. In such cases, it's perfectly reasonable to grade a student based on his stance, for example, on background checks for gun owners or the legalization of gay marriage.
But barring such circumstances, if an English teacher assigns an essay to gauge how a student can write, then the right thing is for him to either be specific about the assignment or to be prepared to entertain a whole swath of examples if he isn't. The teacher's focus should be on strengthening the students' thinking and writing, not on getting him to think like he does. 
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: @jseglinhttps://twitter.com/jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net.  
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

When the boss believes the rules don't apply to him

Many of us regularly face situations where we know we should do something, but we find ourselves stumped on how to proceed.
A reader from the Midwest is facing such a situation. She works for a public organization that regularly hires independent contractors. One of these contractors owns an excavation company that does a substantial amount of work for the reader's organization, work he acquires through an appropriately conducted bidding process.
But the reader has recently discovered that the head of the public organization, the boss, has used this same contractor a few times to grade the driveway at the boss's home.
"I know this is a conflict of interest at best," she writes. "Worse, I understand that the contractor is not paid for his work, making the situation even more untenable."
The reader finds the situation more troubling because, she writes, "the contractor is a good, honest man who would legitimately get the jobs." She believes he might be grading the boss's driveway to be nice. "I would not want him to get in trouble."
The reader is sure that the boss knows that what he is doing is unethical and, she imagines, illegal. "He is a smart person," she writes, "but he often seems to think rules don't apply to him. He is also vindictive to anyone who questions anything he does."
She's torn about what to do.
"Is there any way to draw attention to this problem without getting the contractor in trouble?" she asks. "Part of me wants to just ignore it because the boss intends to retire within the next year, but the other part of me knows that it is not the right thing to do."
If the situation is as the reader describes it and the excavator is providing free personal services to the boss, there is little chance of drawing attention to the situation without getting the excavator in trouble. But then, the observation that the excavator is "an honest man" seems dubious given that he must also know that what he is doing is wrong. Granted the boss is presumably in a position of greater power here, but as soon as the excavator began doing personal favors that could be construed as buying favor with the public organization's decision maker, he crossed a line.
The fact that the boss is retiring soon could be an opportunity to call attention to the issue without giving him the opportunity to exhibit long-term vindictiveness.
In a public organization, the focus of that organization should be on fulfilling what the mission of the organization is to the public, not enabling a rules-challenged boss to feather his own nest at others' expense. Giving him what he wants or turning a blind eye to go along to get along sends a message that such behavior is allowed.
Others in the organization who drew the reader's attention to the pavement problem must know what's at stake as well. The right thing would be for the reader to make sure she has all the facts and then, if they hold up, to talk with these others and then report their concerns to other officers within the organization or to the board. If neither takes action or responds, they should consider reporting their concerns more widely. 
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: @jseglinhttps://twitter.com/jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net.  
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Like pulling teeth to settle a bill

A dentist in Columbus, Ohio, has noticed that dental insurance companies have begun to carefully review insurance claims for a second time, months after the initial benefit check has been sent. Sometimes, overpayments are discovered, so the insurance company sends a letter to dentists informing them of the overpayment -- usually a nominal amount -- and requests repayment within 30 days.
The amounts are normally too small to dispute, and specific details are not given, only the amount requested," the Columbus dentist writes.
But when he or other dentists refund the money, they face a tough choice -- "either eat the loss or re-bill their patients, who think they already paid in full."
It strikes the Columbus dentist as unlikely that the insurance companies would never encounter any claims where the dentist was underpaid, but he's yet to hear of a dentist receiving an underpayment check. "If the company is sloppy enough to make so many overpayments, it probably makes occasional underpayments," he writes.
He believes the right thing would be for insurance companies to look for underpayments as well as overpayments, and reimburse the dentists (or patients) the difference.
Recently, he received a letter requesting $23.55 for a claim that was processed and settled last fall. He sent a check, including the group number and claim number, but, he writes that he "also gave them a taste of their own medicine. I made the amount for $25.53. If or when the check clears, I will inform the insurance company that records show they were overpaid by $1.98, and give them 30 days to repay me."
He indicates that he's a little bit uncomfortable having pulled this tactic since it will result in further paperwork and wasted time for the insurance company.
"Is it wrong to alter my ethics to the level practiced by this particular insurance company?" he asks. "Is there a better way to respond? I know many dentists in the same boat."
In the phrasing of the Columbus dentist's question, he may have his answer. By "altering" his ethics, he's implying that he finds the insurance company's after-the-fact selective re-billing to make up for a previous error ethically questionable. If he then sees himself doing something that he holds to be equally ethically questionable just to make life troublesome for the insurance company, then he's likely going against his own values to do so.
While he might take some joy in seeing a company that frustrates him suffer just a little bit in return, more paperwork and more time on the part of the insurance company might only result in those costs being passed onto him and his fellow dentists and patients.
The best thing would be for the insurance companies to try to get the billing correct the first time around so later rebilling would be unnecessary. But short of that, the Columbus dentist is correct: The right thing is for the insurance company to notify doctors and patients of underpayments as well as overpayments and to refund any money that a patient may have overpaid. It still will be a nuisance to have to deal with the inefficiencies, but at the very least dentists and patients will know they are being treated fairly. 
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: @jseglinhttps://twitter.com/jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net.  
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Do you hear what I hear?

When you hear people talking about you when you know you were not meant to hear them, is it OK to keep listening? That's what a reader from Utah wants to know.
The reader is an employee of a publicly funded institution whose board is required to hold open and public meetings. She was attending one such meeting when the board decided to go into closed session.
The reader left the room where the board was meeting and moved about 10 feet down the hall with others to wait until the end of the closed session. The door to the boardroom was closed.
"I was chatting in the hallway with another employee," she writes. "After a while, because of raised voices, I became aware that they were talking about me and my performance."
At the end of the board meeting, the reader told the members of the board that she was aware of the general topics they discussed because she had overhead parts of their conversation.
Several days later she was told by a board member that it had been unethical for her to stay in the hallway where she was standing because she could overhear.
She disagrees.
 "Under normal circumstances, I would not have been able to hear the conversation if they had been talking in normal tones," she writes. "I don't feel I have an ethical obligation to move away from a conversation if the conversation becomes loud enough for me to hear when I have taken normal precautions not to hear."
She makes clear that she was not able to hear all of the conversation, just bits and pieces.
Because other members of the public could have just as easily been in the hallway with the reader, she believes that they would "certainly not have had any obligation to move."
"Was it unethical for me to stay where I was knowing they were talking about me?" she asks.
My reader shouldn't be held accountable for board members who chose to go into closed session and lacked the judgment to keep overheated and loud conversations in check. Because they went into the closed session presumably to protect the privacy of whomever it was they were discussing, they should have made sure that their discussion did not result in violating that privacy.
Was it wrong for the reader to stand 10 feet down the hall and not move when she realized she and others could hear? Not exactly.
But given that it was clear to those in attendance that the closed session was intended to be among the board members and no one else, once it became clear that the board's conversation was emanating into the hallway, the right thing would have been for someone to interrupt them and tell them that they were talking loudly enough that their voices were carrying through the closed door and well down the hall.
It might have been embarrassing for the reader to be the one reminding them of this since it became clear she was the subject of their discussion. But she could have encouraged someone else to inform the board. And that would have allowed the board members to show the judgment and discretion they should have shown when they entered the closed session in the first place. 
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 at https://www.twitter.com/jseglin or facebook at https://www.facebook.com/seglin

Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net.   (c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

The homeless at the door

Every day, a man who appears to be homeless sits on a curb near a retail store in a strip mall, holding a sign that reads "help needed." The mall is in a mid-size town in the San Francisco Bay Area. The man has been appearing for more than a year. He also makes daily rounds to other spots in town.
An owner of a retail store in the mall is conflicted in her attitude toward the man.
"I feel that his presence may cause people not to come into my store," she writes. Several times a day she walks by him as he sits on the curb -- and ignores him.
She has spoken about the situation to her landlord, who has called police. However, the police say the man has a right to be there.
"He is very intelligent," my reader writes. She's heard him debate with others quite articulately over his right to be there. She has also heard him tell people about the abuse he suffered as a boy. She indicates that he also "displays symptoms of mental illness."
"As a human being, I want to have compassion, but can't find it in my heart," she writes -- adding that as a Christian, her faith is important to her and causes her to struggle with her attitude toward the man. "It makes me feel mean when I walk by him several times a day and ignore him."
When situations arise that test the multiple values we hold, it can indeed be trying. The reader who owns the store would like to run a successful business that attracts customers so she can provide for herself and her family. For many people, the value placed on the health and well-being of their families tops their priorities.
Does this mean that their other values -- such as caring for others in need -- are somehow diminished because they come second? Not necessarily, although such situations as the store owner's do seem to be a test of how far she will go to honor her values.
It's understandable not to want someone who might make customers anxious loitering outside the door of a retailer. Still, we always have a right to choose whether and when to give to those asking for money.
This fellow, though, seems to be asking for "help." Presumably, the assumption is that he wants money. But if he is indeed homeless and mentally ill, perhaps there are other forms of help that the store owner might seek advice about in an effort to serve both the man's needs and her own. I'm not sure she can determine the state of his mental capacity on her own, but she should certainly be able to consult with public health officials about this issue.
If it's truly not the time it would take to address the issue, but instead the desire not to have the man scare off existing or potential customers with his presence, then to preserve her values of earning a livelihood and also helping those in need, the right thing could be to see if there's a way to help this fellow that in turn might result in helping herself. 
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: @jseglinhttps://twitter.com/jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net.  
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.