Grappling with the Gray

Are we willing to confront the apparent inconsistencies of our own beliefs? If you don't think so, then this episode may not be for you.
Ethics requires us to ask ourselves difficult questions and consider answers that might make us uncomfortable.
Fortunately, I was able to find three guests who have the courage to do just that as the panel convenes to Grapple with the Gray.
Here is the scenario we’ll be discussing:
Two of the most contentious issues today are abortion rights and capital punishment. Abortion advocates are willing to take the life of unborn children to protect the well-being of the mother. Capital punishment advocates are willing to take the life of violent criminals to protect the well-being of society.
According to the Wall Street Journal, there is virtually no correlation between support for abortion rights and support for capital punishment, or vice versa. How can we understand two groups so deeply divided, with many endorsing the taking of life on the one hand while condemning it on the other?
A 2022 opinion piece in the Daily Iowan asserted that both pro-life and pro-capital punishment advocates suffer from a lack of empathy. Can this charge be defended more than the reverse?
One columnist in the Daily Beast argued that we should take into consideration the social and environmental causes that contribute to violent crime. Many argue that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, although one could argue back that incarceration among other violent criminals might be more so.
Is it hypocritical to hold these seemingly conflicting views on the sanctity of life? If so, does the hypocrisy flow in both directions?
Meet this week’s panelists:
🔆 Anne Nevel, CAE is the Vice President of Education for a trade association and enjoys connecting the right people to the right projects to promote successful collaboration and partnership.
🟦 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.
Annette Simmons is a speaker, trainer, consultant, and author of The Story Factor -- named one of the 100 Best Business Books of All Time.
#ethics #values #culture #politics #grappling

Are we making ourselves more cynical? If so, what is the cost?
Those are the questions the ethics panel takes up on this episode of Grappling with the Gray.
Here is our scenario:
The rapper known as Killer Mike walked out of the Grammy Awards in handcuffs earlier this week. Reportedly, he was charged with misdemeanor assault and released on zero bail.
The choice of LAPD to arrest him as he was leaving the award ceremony is curious. Did they use the knowledge of his attendance to make it easier to find him, or did they delay his arrest so he could enjoy his moment in the sun winning three Grammys?
The answer to that question may be less important than our motivation for asking it? Because the real story here might be the optics of Killer Mike’s arrest rather than the arrest itself.
As society becomes less ethical, we become less trustful of celebrities, leaders, and institutions. Recurring scandals, many of them egregious but many others overblown by the media, incline us to attribute nefarious motives to almost any story that makes headlines.
There’s no question that the perception of an unethical culture encourages people to act less ethically. But has our ethical default setting changed in recent times? Has it always been this challenging to internalize and act according to ethical principles, or does acting ethically demand a more herculean effort than it once did? And if current cultural norms are making it easy for us to defend and excuse unethical behavior, what can we do about it individually and collectively?
Meet this week’s panelists:
Mark Herschberg is Chief Technology Officer and Chief Product Officer of Zereo.ai. He is a professional speaker and creator of Brain Bump, a free app that helps consumers of non-fiction content better access and retain what they learn.
Dr. Robyn Odegaard is known as the Mental MacGyver. She provides luxury level, high performance support and coaching to executives, founders, celebrities and athletes. She is also the creator and facilitator of the Quick Hits podcast.
K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.

#ethics

#culture

#trust

#communication

#grappling

Do private sins outweigh public virtue, or vice versa?
Does the benefit of the many permit us to overlook the transgressions of the few?
Is it best to leave the past in the past, or does that compromise the integrity of the future?
These are some of the topics we address when this week's ethics panel Grapples with the Gray.
Here is our ethics challenge:
15 years after retirement, a prominent metropolitan city police commissioner passes away. He was highly effective during his long term of service as both the face of the department to the public and as an advocate for the welfare of his officers.
He was both admired and respected throughout the force and throughout much of the city. After his retirement, he recorded 60 hours a week as an administrator for a local charity.
However, behind the scenes he was guilty of misuse of power, misappropriation of funds, and other egregious instances of graft. Upon investigation, the current commissioner discovers that his involvement with the charity was nominal: he showed up infrequently, fulfilled few responsibilities, and used his office for extramarital activities.
Traditionally, former commissioners have always received large-scale funerals, not merely to honor the individual but to honor the office and the institution. The current commissioner finds himself caught between pressure from top brass to hold the traditional funeral ceremony with full regalia as a show of respect for the department on the one side and his own contempt for the man who abused the power of the office on the other.
What are the current commissioner’s options, and how should he decide what to do?
Meet this week’s panelists:
Laura Gray is a Passionate People Connector, Columnist, Author, and Development Director of The ALS Association Northern Ohio Chapter
Mark O'Brien O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, helping Companies Manage Their Brands, Solve Their Problems, and Simplify the Complex.
Peter Winick is the founder and CEO of Thought Leadership Leverage and host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast.

Few things in life are black and white. That’s why we have to learn to Grapple with the Gray.
This episode's ethics challenge:
A noted psychologist had just finished his address to a group of professionals when a member of the audience approached him and introduced himself. The psychologist immediately recognized the name. Before him stood a world-famous doctor, once featured on the cover of Time Magazine, whose medical innovations had transformed treatments and revolutionized curative procedures.
The esteemed doctor proceeded to confess that he had suffered his entire life from depression. As a boy, he loved to draw, and he had possessed a natural talent for artistic design. Growing up, he dreamt of one day becoming a successful architect.
But his parents had other ideas. “Architecture?” they asked. “No. You need to use your intelligence to support a family. You are going to medical school.”
And so he did, with almost unparalleled success. Nonetheless, despite his extraordinary contributions to medicine, the doctor felt unfulfilled in life for not having pursued his passion.
Sometime later, the psychologist lamented the insistence of the doctor’s parents, how they had deprived him of the life he had wanted and the sense of purpose that he had never realized. When he finished, the psychologist found himself confronted by several doctors from the audience.
“We know who you were talking about,” they said. “Do you have any idea how many lives were saved through his procedures and inventions? How dare you suggest that his own personal gratification outweighs the contribution he made to the world and the people he benefited.”
The psychologist later expressed his ambivalence. Were those other doctors right? Was the cost of personal satisfaction outweighed by the value to society? He admitted that he did not have an answer himself.
Meet this week’s panelists:
Kimberly Davis is an author, TEDx speaker, and founder of the Brave Leadership University, leading development programs world-wide, around authentic leadership, purpose, presence, and influence.
Lieutenant Colonel JC Glick, LTC (R), U.S. Army, MA Glick is a retired Army Ranger. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as an author and TEDx speaker.
Stewart McClain is a speaker, author, and president of All Hoods Unite, providing mentoring, mental health support, and advocacy for the homeless.

0 Comments
SORT BY

What happens when we sabotage our own efforts to promote values by sending contradictory messages?
That's the ethics challenge the panel takes up when Natalia Alvarez, Ph.D., JC Glick, and Lovelda Vincenzi join me to Grapple with the Gray.
A teacher at the private Girls’ Day School Trust in the UK was recently ordered to apologize and subsequently told her contract would not be renewed after her class of 11-year-old students protested that her comments were offensive.
Her crime: Addressing the class with the words, “Good Afternoon, Girls.” Apparently, the students complained that the teacher “misgendered” them, since not all of them identify as female.
The school website states the following:
“The Girls’ Day School Trust is the UK’s leading family of 25 independent girls’ schools including two academies. In all of our schools, academic excellence is a given – at the GDST we develop character beyond the curriculum.
“Ensuring our girls are confident and fearless, determined to show what they can do. Nothing holds our girls back – they’re encouraged to embrace every role and subject. This is the GDST Difference.”
Without getting into the topic of gender identity, is there something incongruous about a self-named girls day school referring to students as “girls” on its own website while disciplining a teacher for calling students “girls”? Is the school indulging a double standard that undermines its educational integrity, or is there some justification for the distinction?
If character development is an educational value, shouldn’t that involve addressing grievances in a non-confrontational and non-punitive way? Would the school serve its students better by modeling how to resolve differences of belief and opinion through civil discourse rather than combativeness?
Finally, how else might the school administration have addressed student complaints?
#ethics #education #culture #leadership #grappling