Grappling with the Gray

Have we begun to embrace our own irrelevance?That's the question that drives the discussion when Sam Ardery, Brian Reisman, and • Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:More than a few years back, as my flight touched down on the runway, the pilot’s voice came over the intercom to inform us that we had just experienced the plane’s first fully automated landing. In the cabin, the passengers looked at one another wondering if we should applaud or scream in terror.For some reason, driverless cars don’t seem to evoke the same level of reaction. Maybe it's just the brave new world we live in. Maybe the stakes don’t seem as high on the road as they do in the skies. Maybe we know that, statistically, most auto accidents are caused by driver error.Or maybe it’s because, if we don’t like the idea, we’ll just call a taxi or book an Uber.Regardless of the reasoning, if the Minneapolis City Council has its way, we will be doubly safe. They recently passed legislation requiring drivers for all driverless cars.Needless to say, their motives are pure. After all, as one council member said, dogs and cats are getting squished, squished by driverless cars. Even worse, how many immigrant drivers may be losing income to robotic rideshares? Clearly, in their minds, it’s worth passing along the $31.50/ hour cost to passengers.In the end, the mayor thought differently and vetoed the bill.Anyone who has driven in New Jersey knows that in that state you can’t pump your own gas, a law that ensures some 7000 minimum-wage jobs are not going anywhere. But what about ATMS? Grocery store self-checkout? Self-operated elevators? Mechanical bowling alley pin-setters?Is there any logic behind allowing one type of automation over another? And, once the technology becomes reliable, is there any good reason not to let people make their own decisions whether or not to use it?Meet this week’s panel:Sam Ardery is a national mediator, trial lawyer, consultant, speaker, and author. He teaches negotiation at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law and is author of Positively Conflicted: Engaging with Courage, Compassion and Wisdom in a Combative World.Brian Reisman is a software engineer and tech maven. He is also a professional speaker who works with leaders to promote a culture of trust and trustworthiness in work and life.Kirsten Yurich is an Organizational Performance Management Consultant, Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and Adjunct Professor of Education at Felician University. 

Is unanimity cause for confidence?That's the question that drives the conversation when Paul Edwards, Diane Helbig, and Tamsen Webster, MA, MBA join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:Nobody seems happy about the Lindsay Clancy verdict. Many liberals are outraged that a single intransigent juror could cause a mistrial in place of acquittal. Many conservatives are outraged that a woman could be held unaccountable for the murder of her three children.Ancient Judean law seems to come down on both sides. “No one commits a crime,” the sages teach, “unless overtaken by a spirit of insanity.” Taken at face values, it might seem that we can all claim temporary insanity for any transgression. Given that the insanity defense is sometimes entirely just, how do we define where the boundaries lie, and how do we prevent it from being abused?If that isn’t enough food for thought, when deciding a capital case, a unanimous verdict of guilty resulted in the case being thrown out of court. Without at least one dissenting voice, the judges were forced to suspect themselves of unconscious bias, preferring to let a likely criminal go free rather than risk the slender possibility of putting an innocent man to death.Why does our system require a unanimous verdict? Do the pros really outweigh the cons? Is the Clancy case an example of where moral relativism can lead us, or does it characterize a judicial system that seeks to integrate compassion into its quest for true justice?Meet this week’s panel:Paul Edwards is a US Army veteran and former ghostwriter. He is currently a relapsed insurance agent favored by faith-based business leaders – when he’s not escaping the Arizona heat coaching ice-hockey.Diane Helbig is Chief Improvement Catalyzer at Helbig Enterprises, providing guidance and training to business owners and leaders around the world.Tamsen Webster is a keynote speaker, message strategist, and “Idea Whisperer.” She uses her proprietary Red Thread method to help audiences, organizations, and individuals build and tell their stories to promote real, transformative change.

People come in all shapes and sizes. So do countries. But which is more important?That's the question that drives the discussion when Deb Coviello, ☘️Mark O'Brien, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:Have you ever compared the way countries appear on a map with how they appear on a globe? When representing three dimensional space in two dimensions, you can preserve either actual shape or actual size, but not both.When the 16th century European cartographer Geert de Kremer, better known as Mercator, produced the map still in use today, he favored shape over size. That’s why equatorial regions, most notably Africa, appear smaller than they are, while other regions appear larger.In a recent United Nations vote, 164 countries voted to “correct” the map. Six nations abstained. Only the United States voted no.U.S. representative to the U.N. Yaryna Ferencevych declared: “Resolutions like this and the ideological agenda they promote, are… the reason this institution is losing its credibility. When the United Nations questions why it is losing legitimacy in the world, and is not taken seriously, time and again, we point to resolutions such as this.”Obviously, there are more pressing issues. But commitment to accuracy is also a value. A better question might have been whether accurate size is more important than accurate shape, and whether ideology is driving one view over the other.Is this really an issue worthy of discussion, or is it just another distracting skirmish in the culture wars that suck so much oxygen out of the global forum?Meet the panel:Deb Coviello, aka the Drop in CEO, is an author, speaker, podcast host, and silver medalist curler who coaches C-Suite leaders of today and tomorrow to navigate challenges with confidence.Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.

How far must we go to anticipate unintended consequences?That's the question that drives the conversation when Stewart Wiggins, Peter Winick, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:Have you ever watched a movie “based on a true story”? How about “inspired by true events”?Two Miami police officers were deeply uninspired by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s recent movie, The Rip. In fact, they are suing the actors' production company, Artists Equity.The film does not mention officers Jason Smith and Jonathan Santana by name. Nevertheless, they claim that colleagues and family members have recognized them from the film’s portrayal, and that they have suffered "substantial harm to their personal and professional reputations [from implied] misconduct, poor judgment, and unethical behavior in connection with a real law enforcement operation."The lawsuit claims that the "the film's use of unique, non-generic details” points clearly to the plaintiffs. By opening with text, “inspired by true events,” the producers become culpable for defamation by including a non-factual narrative of corruption, graft, and murder. The plaintiff’s claim intentional infliction of emotional distress as well.Whether the case has merit from a legal standpoint is not our discussion here. But to what extent are filmmakers responsible for implications and innuendo that might lead to reputational damage? If, as the plaintiffs claim, they have been identified from the film by colleagues and family members, is that not “defamation by implication” as the claim suggests? Or are they drawing more attention to themselves through the lawsuit, which many commenters see as frivolous and opportunistic?Meet this week’s panel:Stewart Wiggins joins us from Paris. He is Chief Advisor at Induna Advisors, working to significantly increase company revenue by developing positive client reports and establishing solid business relationships.Peter Winick works with individuals and organizations to build and grow revenue streams through their thought leadership platforms and is host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast.Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.

Can social justice warriors turn their campaign against their own cause?That's the question that drives the conversation when JC Glick, Sarah Kalmeta, and S. Scott Mason join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:By now you’ve probably heard about the notorious NY Times podcast in which progressive elites endorsed the practice of “microlooting” - a prettified euphemism for stealing. Their reasoning begins by positing that not all acts of theft are equal - which is absolutely true, and builds upon the presumption that some acts of theft can be justified - which is also true.What’s chilling is how those justifications are defined, and where they might take us as individuals and as a society.Using a friend’s Netflix account? No problem. Steal a library book? Never. Leave a restaurant without paying your bill? Unthinkable. Swipe a painting from the Louvre. Absolutely.Stealing from Whole Foods is okay because it’s an upscale store - especially if you’re going to give the stolen food to a homeless person. Stealing from a Walmart or Costco is not “very significant as a moral wrong.” Stealing from corporations is a virtue.This Robin Hood mentality extends beyond theft. A disgruntled employee sets fire to a Kimberly Clark warehouse? Tactically unwise, but morally defensible. And we can at least sympathize with the murder of Brian Thompson since, as United Healthcare C.E.O., he was guilty of social murder himself.But getting iced coffee in a plastic cup? “That is a profoundly selfish, immoral, collectively destructive action.” So is flying for pleasure. And “private schools should be mostly illegal.”Has our collective moral compass become utterly unwound? Or are these positions ethically defensible?Meet this week’s panel:JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as CEO of the Commit Foundation, an organization that helps high-performance veterans find their next adventure.Sarah Kalmeta is a speaker and executive facilitator who helps leaders make better decisions under pressure. She’s the founder of Pivot Point International, with nearly two decades in global aviation and operations.Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within.

When does too much sugar stop being sweet?That's the question that drives the conversation when David Fink, Monica Kreuger, and ☘️Mark O'Brien join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:After a recent visit to Urgent Care, I vented to my wife how annoyed I was by the doctor. It wasn’t that she was ill-mannered or curt. Just the opposite.“If it isn’t too much trouble, may I ask you to please remove your glasses?”That’s 15 words for what could have been said in four. And if it were too much trouble, what wouldn’t be?“Please lean back for these eye drops. I don’t want to stain your lovely shirt.” I was wearing the same shirt I’m wearing now. Plain white. Professional, but hardly lovely. She even repeated the comment.Within minutes I was grimacing the way you do when someone puts too much sugar in your coffee.“It’s better than being rude,” my wife replied. She’s right, of course. But is there a middle ground between being too polite and not polite enough? When politeness feels contrived or insincere, doesn’t it end up having an effect opposite to what’s intended? Or is it enough that someone is making the effort to be polite even if they may be doing it imperfectly?One of the principles of ethics is to presume positive intent. But is intent alone ever not enough?Meet this week’s panel:David Fink is a litigation attorney, rabbinic scholar, author, lecturer, educator, and moral philosopher.Monica Kreuger is founder and CEO of both Global Infobrokers Inc. and Praxis School of Entrepreneurship. She also chairs the board of Luthercare Community and is TEC Canada Chair in Saskatoon.Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.

Is unequal sometimes fair?That's the question that drives the conversation when Catherine Fitzgerald, 🟦 Dr. Melissa Hughes, and Machen MacDonald join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.And here is the topic we’ll be discussing:Recently, a couple’s 22-year-old daughter graduated from an Ivy League college. As a graduation present, her parents bought her a new car, while other relatives paid for her first month’s rent, furniture, and a trip to Europe.The 25-year-old sister is now resentful, claiming that she was denied a trip to Europe, and that the younger sister stole her college fund and will soon be earning a good salary. The parents respond that they refused to send her to Europe straight out of high school because she was too young, that she chose not to go to college, and that she lives at home rent free.Commenters on Reddit accuse the parents of spoiling their children, and supported the older daughter’s accusation of favoritism.Are these accusations justified? Or is this an example of the entitlement culture that seems to be growing increasingly pervasive? And how might the same kind of tension appear in the workplace and in society at large?Meet this week’s panel:Catherine Fitzgerald is a speaker, writer, certified coach, and founder of BrassTacksWithHeart - Executive Coaching. She works with founders and their leaders as they navigate the choppy waters of aligning people, performance, and profits.Melissa Hughes is Founder and Principal of the Andrick Group, applying recent brain research to improve employee engagement, company culture, team dynamics, and innovation.Machen MacDonald is President of the ProBrilliance Leadership Institute, elevating leaders’ mindsets to grow themselves and their organizations. He is also a Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc.

Will the common good prove the death of common sense?That's the question that drives the conversation when Mark Brown, CSP, Deb Coviello, and • Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic.Last year, world civilization teacher Sarah Inama at Idaho’s Lewis and Clark Middle School resigned rather than comply with orders to remove from her classroom a poster deemed inappropriate by administrators, who said the poster violated the school’s “content neutral” policy, which prohibits any speech or messaging that might reflect personal opinions, religious beliefs, or political ideologies.The sign read, “Everyone Is Welcome Here,” and it showed hands of different colors. That was it. The district’s chief academic officer Marcus Myers clarified that, “The political environment ebbs and flows, and what might be controversial now might not have been controversial three, six, nine months ago.”Ms. Inama received an outpouring of support from the community, but it wasn’t enough to change the district’s mind. In her resignation letter, she wrote:“I cannot align myself nor be complicit with the exclusionary views and decisions of the administration. It is deeply troubling that the people running this district and school have allowed a welcoming and inclusive message for my students to be considered controversial, political, and, worst of all, an opinion.“I hope for the sake of the students in your district that you can remember the core values of public education. To serve all citizens, foster an inclusive and safe learning environment, and protect your staff and students from discriminatory behavior.”Does the school administration have a point? If so, what is it? And is it better for a teacher like Sarah Inama to make a statement by publicly resigning or to remain in her job to serve her students while trying to change the system from within?Meet this week’s panel:Deb Coviello, aka the Drop in CEO, is an author, speaker, podcast host, and silver medalist curler who coaches C-Suite leaders of today and tomorrow to navigate challenges with confidence.Mark Brown is a world champion international speaker, executive coach and, most important, devoted husband of Andrea.Kirsten Yurich is an Organizational Performance Management Consultant, Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and Adjunct Professor of Education at Felician University.

Should "what do I deserve" ever take a back seat to "what can I give"?That's the question that drives the discussion when Lori Halverson, Allen Hauge, and Jeff Koziatek join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is the topic we’ll be discussing:An employee posted the following on Reddit:I lost a schedule bid at work recently to an employee with far less seniority. The reason given to me was, “He is a single father, and that schedule works better with his son’s school schedule.”Not to be insensitive, but so what? My time is not less valuable because I have no kids. I get the logic, but I could not give a care about his schedule or his problems. I have done my time, and I earned that bid, plain and simple.I have filed a grievance with HR. The crux of it is that I was discriminated against for not having kids, in an attempt to get the schedule I bid on. A few coworkers have mentioned off the cuff that I should let it go because he’s a single father. They’ve said I “don’t get it because I don’t have any kids.”Responses on Reddit were mixed. On the one hand, seniority should carry privilege. On the other hand, shouldn’t actual needs trump personal preferences?What’s the ethical approach to this kind of dilemma, and what can leaders do to navigate these kinds of conflicts?Meet this week’s panel:Lori Halverson is an executive coach, speaker, and Vistage chair, helping CEOs and top executives look forward to Mondays and flourish through positive intelligence.Allen Hauge is a master chair with Vistage International, Inc. He works with CEOs to devise strategies for success in business and in life.Jeff Koziatek is an executive coach and keynote speaker, helping professionals to navigate change, sharpen focus, avoid burnout, and make a difference. He is also one of St. Louis Business Monthly's 100 St. Louisans you should know.

Can we use "the greater good" as an excuse to exempt ourselves from personal responsibility?That's the question that drives the conversation when Sam Ardery, Shannon Lee, and David Marlow join me to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:An Alaska Airlines customer reported buying a first class ticket from Costa Rica to Seattle, an 8-hour international flight. Upon arriving at the gate, they were informed that they were being bumped down to economy class to make way for two pilots who were traveling to make a connecting flight.After the customer had paid for first class, the airline not only took away the seat but also the passenger’s breakfast, then failed to offer even a drink or a special snack. The anticipated luxury flight turned into a cramped, hungry ordeal.Apparently, a pilot shortage has compelled airlines to offer pilots the perk of first class travel when they “deadhead” to make connecting flights. But does that justify refusing passengers the seats they’ve paid for to solve their own logistics and personnel problems? And if it does, do the airlines have a responsibility to do more to offset the passenger’s inconvenience?Meet this week’s panel:Sam Ardery is a national mediator, trial lawyer, consultant, speaker, and author. He teaches negotiation at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law and is author of Positively Conflicted: Engaging with Courage, Compassion and Wisdom in a Combative World.Shannon Lee is a CEO coaching chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. She works with organizations and executive teams to improve execution by defining, measuring, and standardizing the leadership behaviors required for businesses to perform well.David Marlow, aka the Ikigai Guy and the Versatile Guru, is a coach, speaker, and author who helps people live into their purpose and helps companies bring their purpose to their products and their people.