Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D. AC360° Contributor The Ethics Guy®, BusinessWeek.com   The hot-button issues of politics can lead to inflamed tempers that can impede your productivity—and possibly, your progress. Who do you think should be the next President of the U.S.? John McCain? Barack Obama? Jon Stewart? Regardless of who gets elected, there is no question that this is the most diverse and exciting campaign in many years. Given what is at stake in the election and the historic nature of this year’s race, it is tempting to discuss the issue at work with those colleagues we’re accustomed to chatting with and hashing out so many things. Yet there are very good reasons why we shouldn’t. The Fearsome Foursome. Along with sex, money, and religion, politics is one of the most controversial topics of conversation that exists. I submit that money, more than sex, is the most personal aspect of our lives, and it is the one that opens us up to the greatest potential for embarrassment. Only the most boorish among us would ever think about asking a colleague, “So, how much did you make last year?” Thanks to reality television, cell phones, Facebook, MySpace, blogging, and other 21st century technological developments, we know far too much about people, but however thin the line between professional and personal is getting, many of us still value a modicum of privacy, particularly when it comes to what we earn. Sex, too, is still an off-limits topic for discussion at work and not merely for the legal reasons relating to sexual harassment. We talk about sex with our closest friends (with whom we probably would not even discuss our income), but this kind of conversation is wisely held after business hours. Neither your salary nor your sex life is anyone’s business at the office. Nor, for most professional settings, are your religious beliefs. Discussing the existence of God is fine for a college philosophy class or a third date but not at a company whose mission is banking, insurance, public relations, or just about any other field one can think of. Politics may not be as close to our hearts, minds, and souls as money, sex, or religion, but it’s not too far away, either. In its purest form, politics is to our country what ethics is to us as individuals or social groups. Ethics asks, “How should I live?” Politics asks, “How should we live?” It’s true, of course, that the term “politics” has come to be practically a slur word. When we are prevented from accomplishing a goal at work, we often say that what got in the way was “office politics.” If a less-qualified job candidate is hired over a more qualified one, we conclude that it was “politics” that somehow won the day. However, where I am using “politics” here, it is in its classical sense: the study of how our society should be ordered. When conversation at work turns to politics, it inevitably touches on the meaningful issues at stake in the election, and most of these issues are by their nature highly divisive. Among the questions now on the table are: • Should abortion continue to be legal? • Should same-sex marriage be legalized? • How relevant to holding public office is a person’s religion? • How much should the wealthy be taxed? • To what extent should the federal government be involved in social programs? No matter what your position on these issues is, it is clear that: • There is disagreement about them. • The passions raised by each question are strong. • In all but a few instances, where you stand on each issue has little or no bearing on the job you are doing or your ability to do it. In considering whether it is appropriate to have political discussions on the job, five fundamental ethical principles are at stake: Do No Harm, Make Things Better, Respect Others, Be Fair, and Be Loving. Here is an example of the very real danger of allowing free and unfettered discussions about Presidential politics at work: Let’s say that you and your boss are arguing the respective merits of your preferred candidates. Unbeknownst to you, your boss is very passionate about the abortion issue, but your candidate—and you—hold a view that is contrary to your boss’s. As much as your boss might strive to respect your right to have and express your opinion, can you be sure that s/he won’t hold your position against you when, say, your performance review comes around? If you are the boss in question, can you be certain that your subordinate’s political beliefs won’t affect your decision to give her a raise or even keep her on? Preferences about music, art, or food are three of the many areas in which reasonable people may disagree. Your co-worker likes Madonna and you like U2? No problem. However, when someone holds contrary political beliefs from us, do we say that he or she merely has a different opinion? No. We say, rightly or wrongly, that he or she is mistaken, and this has troubling implications in the workplace. If you believe in evolution, and you suddenly discovered that a colleague is a creationist, can you honestly say that your view of him or her would not then suffer? Might this not affect how well you work together on a project that has nothing to do with how the world came into existence? “But I’m not that way, and neither are my colleagues,” you argue. “We’re able to take the high road even when we talk about controversial subjects.” Even if this is the case, it is highly unlikely that the vast majority of other people will follow in your footsteps, as nice as that would be. “This is utter nonsense,” you claim. “I have a right to talk about politics if I want to.” Yes, of course you have a Constitutional right to free speech, and there may be no prohibitions in your workplace against discussing whatever you like, short of committing harassment or other hostile acts. But just because we have a right to do something doesn’t mean that we should do it.. When we reflect on how we ought to conduct ourselves, it is more important to ask, “Is this the right thing to do?” rather than, “Do I have a right to do it?” Simply put, we shouldn’t discuss politics in the workplace because, with very few exceptions, these discussions have nothing to do with our job and can only interfere with it. Toward a More Respectful Workplace. One might conclude that what I am calling for will lead to a chill in the workplace or, worse, a corporate police state in which speech is carefully monitored and wrongful talk is harshly punished. Rather than make a fetish out of what each individual should be allowed to do (or get away with), a more appropriate perspective to take here—and with all issues concerning conduct at work and beyond—is to consider how our actions might adversely affect others and fracture the community of which we are a part. Yes, in the best of circumstances, discussion with people who hold different points of view can lead to greater understanding of beliefs different from one’s own. Yes, it may be possible for you and your colleagues to have a civil, respectful conversation at work about the politics of abortion, euthanasia, creationism, the existence of God, your sex life, and your salary. Nevertheless, if you are able to have such polite repartee, you are in the minority. For most people, these kinds of discussions too often degenerate into loud arguments and the conclusion that those on the opposing side of the fence are “idiots.” In what sort of business would this kind of behavior promote doing one’s job effectively? As engaging as such conversations might be, to what extent will they enhance the ability to carry out one’s duties and meet the needs of customers and company alike? More to the point, won’t such conversations likely impede the performance of one’s assignments? Bottom line: the very real and important need for lively, informed, and vigorous debate is best met before and after one goes to work. Everyone in the body politic will be better off if this rule is treated with the respect it deserves. Editor’s Note: Dr. Weinstein will be discussing this column on Issue #1 on Wednesday at 12:24 p.m. ET and again on American Morning on Friday. You can read more from Bruce at TheEthicsGuy.com Less

Dr. Lisa Boesky Psychologist, National Speaker & Author John Edwards…many of those who didn’t want him for president still viewed him as a “nice guy.” A politician cheating? Not shocking. But, John Edwards, the squeaky clean devoted husband who let his cancer-stricken wife stand at his side throughout his entire campaign? Devastating. Most of us have either cheated, been cheated on, or know someone who has been unfaithful. Yet, much of what we think about cheating is WRONG! Infidelity spells the end of a marriage: It definitely feels that way when you first find out—anger, depression, anxiety. There appears to be no way to work it out. But, with time (and a lot of work), it is possible to rebuild the trust. If couples seek professional help to deal with the aftermath of the affair, their chances of staying together are pretty good. People cheat because they’ve fallen out of love: Many unfaithful spouses report that they still love their wives or husbands. Whereas women often report being unhappy in their marriage, some men consider themselves in semi-happy, or even happy marriages—despite their affair. Cheating typically results from other relationship issues. Once a cheater, always a cheater: It depends. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. However, if someone cheats one time due to immaturity, poor judgment, impulsivity, intoxication or opportunity and receives tough consequences for their actions, they may learn from their mistake and never do it again. Spouses who are cheated on “know” at some level, but choose not to see the infidelity: Many spouses don’t have a clue that their husband or wife is cheating—especially if there is trust in the relationship and the cheater is a slick liar. Hindsight is 20/20–but during the actual affair, extra time at work, plans with friends, or weight-loss won’t automatically spark thoughts of infidelity. People cheat with someone younger, sexier, or better in bed than their partner: Many victims of infidelity are shocked that the “other” man or woman isn’t some young stud or hottie. It may be the other person’s witty banter, submissiveness, undying affection, heaps of attention, shared interests, unexplained chemistry, gifts/money or “understanding” that pulled at your spouses heartstrings. No sex = No affair: Deep and intense relationships are developing over the internet and as male and female co-workers spend hours upon hours together. Emotional affairs can be incredibly addictive due to their secretive and unconsummated nature. Commiserating about unhappy relationships can quickly turn into bonding, attraction, and desire. Women don’t cheat as much as men: The percentage of women cheaters is quickly catching up to men. Both genders report similar reasons for cheating, though some women in midlife feel they “deserve” to cheat after raising kids, being a supportive wife, and sacrificing their identify in a marriage. Women who marry young may feel trapped if they haven’t played the field—especially if their young husband doesn’t fit their idealized view of who she thought he was. A one-night stand is just as bad as a long-term affair: Long-term lying, betrayal, deception can have a much larger impact on marriages than a one-time mistake. Both can negatively affect the marriage and break the trust—but a one-night stand tends to have much less of an emotional component, which gives the relationship a greater chance of surviving. If you find yourself looking outside your marriage for what needs to be fixed inside your marriage, talk to your spouse or a professional NOT your opposite-sex neighbor, co-worker, or friend! Less

Jerry Trumbule, M.A., ABD and I engage in a discussion about the ethics of animal research, with a focus on his experiences working with chimpanzees. Jerry was inspired to go down memory lane by a recent episode on the Australian Broadcasting Company’s All In The Mind. titled, “Apes, legal personhood and the plight of Nim [...] Less

As the Beijing Olympics kick off in only a few days, we took to the street to see if people will be watching come August 8th, and to see if China's touchy human rights record will affect their decision. http://www.mahalo.com/Summer_Olympics_2008 http://www.mahalo.com/Olympic_Sports_List http://www.mahalo.com/China_Human_Rights http://www.mahalo.com/Beijing_Pollution http://www.mahalo.com/Beijing_Air_Quality http://www.mahalo.com/Beijing_Olympic_Boycott http://www.mahalo.com/U.S._Relations_with_China http://www.mahalo.com/China http://www.mahalo.com/Tibet for more visit: http://mahalodaily.com/ Less

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D. AC360° Contributor The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek.com Which of the following statements is most accurate for you? A) I receive 15 days of paid vacation each year, and I take them—guilt-free. B) I receive 15 days of paid vacation each year, but I feel guilty if I take any of them. C) I haven’t had a vacation in years; I’m loyal to my company or business and am proud of this fact. D) I work for myself and don’t take vacations; if I don’t work, I don’t make money. Even if you chose “A,” you surely know people in the other three situations. We in the United States wear as a badge of honor the fact that we rarely, if ever, take time off from work. We need to earn a living, and many of us like what we do, so our reluctance to take vacations is justified, right? No, it isn’t. Leaving work behind for a period of time is not only acceptable; it is our ethical obligation. Here’s why. AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE With respect to the number of paid vacation days that employees get, the U.S. ranks toward the bottom of 49 counties, according to the human resource consulting firm Mercer. Among large firms in this country, employees are allotted an average of 15 days off with pay, aside from holidays. (Source: CNNMoney.com, June 13, 2007). This figure may sound impressive, but consider the situation in other countries: Australians, Italians, Latvians, and the Japanese get 20 days off; Swedes and Greeks get 25; Lithuanians get 28; and the Finnish and the French get 30. Imagine taking up to six weeks of paid vacation each year and not feeling the slightest bit of guilt in doing so. It’s not a fantasy; for many, it is a happy way of life. Many countries mandate paid vacation, but the U.S. is not one of them, so it’s quite possible that many firms here view vacation days as a perk, a benefit, something above and beyond the call of duty. But for ethical reasons, it is a serious mistake for employers to view vacations this way, and it is just as wrong for employees to feel that they are being disloyal to their employer or their colleagues when they take time off. WHAT DOES ETHICS HAVE TO DO WITH VACATIONS? These are the five fundamental principles of ethics: Do No Harm Make Things Better Respect Others Be Fair Be Loving Ethical responsibilities apply not just to how we treat others but to how we treat ourselves, too. Although ethics is fundamentally a guard against self-obsession, it is right and good to treat oneself with respect, fairness, and compassion and to avoid causing ourselves harm. Now consider two states of affairs: how you feel after working for a long time without a break, and how you feel during and after some restorative time at the beach. Can you really be at your best when you’re running on empty? Aren’t you more likely to do a good job when your batteries are recharged? Taking a vacation from time to time enables you to do your job to the best of your ability, and this is one reason why vacations are an ethical issue. Another reason why it is ethical to take time off periodically is because we simply owe it to ourselves to rest. The ethical arguments for taking vacations are in fact similar to those for staying home when you’re sick. Doing the right thing for yourself and your clients means that that when you’ve got a cold or the flu, you ought to stay home and get better. Being an ethical person also means cashing in those vacation days each year, out of respect for both yourself and those to whom you provide a service. OBSTACLES TO TAKING VACATIONS, AND HOW TO RESOLVE THEM Let’s look at some of the most common reasons for not taking time off, and how you can respond effectively to these challenges: I work for myself/My employer doesn’t give paid vacations/I’ve been laid off, and I need to work. The reluctance to give up some future revenue is understandable, particularly in our current economy. But how often is this an excuse, rather than an accurate reflection of one’s financial situation? Taking a vacation doesn’t have to mean gambling big in Vegas or flying first-class to Sydney, as fun as these trips may be. With “staycations” becoming more popular, time away from work can mean nothing more than sleeping late, watching DVD’s, and eating lots of comfort food at home. We budget for meals, clothing, and transportation. Shouldn’t we also budget for a vacation? Yes, there ought to be a law mandating paid vacations, but until that comes to pass, we’ll have to find creative ways on our own of taking off. I love my work, and I’m miserable when I’m away from it. Maybe it’s time to get a hobby! I’m reminded here of Godfrey Reggio’s astounding 1982 film, Koyaanisqatsi. The title is a Hopi term for “life out of balance.” It’s wonderful to get jazzed about one’s job—I feel the same way—but a rich, meaningful life involves things beyond work. Most of the people I work with aren’t taking vacations, so I don’t want to burden them with the extra work they’d have if I left for a while. It’s praiseworthy to want to avoiding causing undue stress on your colleagues, but you—and they—are entitled (ethically if not legally) to some time off. Ultimately, the fair distribution of labor is a management issue, and employees shouldn’t have to worry that a justifiable absence will result in an undue burden on the team. I’m the only one at work who can do my job. The company, and my clients, can’t afford for me to be away. It’s nice to feel wanted or needed, but few of us are truly indispensable, as much as we may hate to admit it. I submit that in most cases, the idea that you, and only you, can do your job is a delusion of grandeur rather than a reflection of reality. I feel guilty when I take vacations. If you’re not yet convinced that it’s ethical to take time off, perhaps it’s time to talk with a trusted advisor about why you feel you aren’t worthy of a trip to the mountains or the shore or even just some time to yourself. You have every reason to feel good about treating yourself right, and vacations, however you choose to spend them, are self-indulgent in the best possible way. TO EVERY THING, TURN, TURN, TURN Checking e-mail, taking work-related phone calls, and reading material related to one’s job are not the elements of a true vacation. A working vacation makes about as much sense as showing up for a corporate job in shorts and a tank top with a margarita in your hand. To the list of things for which there is a time—a time to be born, a time to die, a time to weep, a time to laugh—one might add, “a time to work, and a time to take a long break.” Editor’s Note: Dr. Weinstein will discuss this article on CNN’s “Issue #1” this Tuesday at 12 noon ET. You can read more from Bruce at TheEthicsGuy.com Less

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D. AC360° Contributor The Ethics Guy®, BusinessWeek.com Who should Senators Barack Obama and John McCain pick as their running mates? This is one of the most debated questions in the presidential campaign, but it shouldn’t be viewed as merely a strategic concern. Whenever we ask what someone should do, and the rights or well-being of others hangs in the balance, we are asking an ethical question. That’s why who our next vice president ought to be is an important ethical issue. The Vice Presidency: Much Ado About Nothing? The U.S. Constitution specifies two primary duties of the vice president: to be the first in the line of succession to the office of the Presidency and to preside over the Senate. Beyond these two responsibilities, however, the Constitution leaves the exact nature of the office open to the whims of the President, and up until the 20th century, vice presidents had little contact with the executive branch. However, nine occupants of this office have succeeded to the presidency… (eight of whom did so because the president died in office, and the ninth, Gerald Ford, became president after Richard Nixon’s resignation). The possibility of a vice president becoming commander-in-chief cannot be taken lightly, but vice presidents have also played a significant role in government over the past 30 years. Walter F. Mondale was given his own West Wing office and frequent access to Jimmy Carter, notes Joel K. Goldstein, author of The Modern American Vice Presidency: The Transformation of a Political Institution; Al Gore was a strong No. 2 to Bill Clinton; and Dick Cheney has had a profound impact on environmental, energy, budget, tax, and foreign policy. With so many critical issues before us now, including a flagging economy, rising food and energy prices, a housing crisis, almost 50 million citizens without health care insurance, and the ever-present danger of terrorism, it’s reasonable to think that the next president may follow in the tradition of having a vice president who plays a significant role in determining the direction of our country. “Who is Most Likely to Help Me Win?” Although the term “politics” used to refer to the study of how society should be structured, these days the focus seems to be on how to win delegates, which commercials are successful in appealing to various demographics, and other strategic concerns. Even the most idealistic among us, however, must realize that it would be foolish if not impossible to separate the practical from the philosophical. To paraphrase a comment CBS newsman Bob Schieffer once made: “To be a good president, you first have to become President.” Nevertheless, for ethical reasons, the question of how a vice presidential pick would affect their electability cannot be Obama and McCain’s sole concern. Leaders shouldn’t pander to ignorance, foolishness, or prejudice, so just because a potential running mate could bring about victory, it doesn’t follow that he or she should be on the ticket. Increasing the odds of winning the election is a necessary condition for any vice presidential candidate, but ethically it is not sufficient. What else matters, then? Let’s next consider another possibility from an ethical perspective. “Who Will Complement Me the Best?” There are many different leadership styles. Should Obama or McCain seek a future vice president whose leadership style is similar to his own? Not necessarily. Some of the best decisions are borne not of peace but of conflict, the kind of healthy conflict that can occur when the decision maker is respectfully challenged by others. Yes, it might be easier to have a yes-man or -woman as VP, but with so much at stake for the country and the world, such a person might allow a troublesome decision to go unchallenged. As I’ve noted in a previous column, criticizing a person’s position isn’t the same thing as criticizing that person, and the President of all people should not only accept criticism; he (or she) should welcome and encourage it. The mission of the President is a moral one: to make the best possible decision for the country, and having a vice president who will question the President and force him to do his best thinking is best for the country. With this in mind, it becomes clear what the ultimate standard ought to be for choosing a running mate. “Who Would Be Best for the Nation?” This is the first and last question that Obama and McCain ought to ask themselves when narrowing the field of vice presidential candidates. Yes, it’s important to win the race, and finding someone who won’t shirk from speaking his or her mind is all to the good, but both of these factors must be in the service of, well, being of service to the country. If McCain or Obama believes that a particular candidate is not going to be the best vice president and potential successor to him, that candidate should simply not be considered, no matter how appealing he or she might be on the ticket. What I’m proposing here may be radical, naïve, and out of touch with the way the modern world operates. But that’s OK. After all, ethics isn’t about describing the way the world is. It’s about considering how the world might be if we were to focus on the things that matter most. When thinking about filling the No. 2 spot, Obama and McCain should be thinking not only about victory for themselves in the short run, but about prosperity for the rest of us in the long run. Editor’s Note: Bruce Weinstein discusses ethics each Friday on “American Morning.” You can read more from Bruce at TheEthicsGuy.com Less

Today, Wayne Turmel talks to Clint Korver, one of the authors of Ethics for the Real World- Creating a Personal Code to Guide Decisions In Work and Life. We also look at a 2500 year old business book. Plus an offer to get one of the first free copies of my new book!!! Show Notes 0:00 Welcome to The Cranky Middle Manager. Today we’re talking ethics with no “yeah buts…”. Life is complicated but the rules are pretty simple. so simple, in fact we’ve known them for thousands of years. We dedicate the show to Tao Zhu Gong, business guru and still relevant 2500 years later. 2:43 Our quote of the week is from Tao Zhu Gong as well…. good advice is good advice. By the way, here’s an exciting opportunity to get a free copy of my new book “125 Quotes for Whacking Weasels- Wisdom, Motivation and Snappy Comeback from the Cranky Middle Manager Show”. Simply write and say why you listen to the Cranky Middle Manager, and what you like about the Quote of the Week. One answer will be chosen to go on the back cover of the book… and if it’s yours you’ll get a free copy. Just drop a line to wayne@crankymiddlemanager.com or post to the blog site. 4:00 Welcome Clint Korver, one of the authors of Ethics for the Real World- Creating a Personal Code to Guide Decisions in Work and Life. Ethics is a word that gets thrown around -and out- a lot. What is it and how is it different from morality? Ethics are your personal standards of right and wrong. Morality is the social code. 6:30 it’s the little things that try your soul…and your ethics. What harm can come from little white lies? Rationalization is the enemy, which is tough cause it’s also my best friend. How good are YOU at telling the truth? 15:00 There are three reasons we test our ethics: Prudentia (your self interest)l, Legal (letter of the law) and Ethical (spirit of the law). 17:50 What happens when your ethics and the situation don’t seem to coincide? You have to talk to your boss and lay it out. He gives us a good example from the consulting world….interesting choice. I have a horror story of my own. 22:50 Clint and Ronald suggest setting up a very explicit personal code.. how do we do that? Can you make ethical decisions with a matrix? Listen up. It’s one thing to have a rule like “tell the truth at all times” but then what are the exceptions? 29:30 Clint’s resources 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Steven Covey Don’t let the weasels get you down! Less

Bruce Weinstein AC360º contributor and The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek Angelina and Brad are the latest in a long line of celebrities clamoring to sell photos of their babies to the highest bidder.  Apparently, this is perfectly legal to do. But it’s still wrong.   Here’s why. First, the fact that we have a legal right to do something doesn’t mean that it’s right to do it.  For example, you wouldn’t be breaking the law if you routinely broke lunch dates with friends when something better came along, but it’s wrong to do such a thing.  Ethics holds us to a higher standard than the law does; it calls upon us to “live our best lives.” Second, a parent’s most important responsibility is to be concerned primarily with protecting the interests of his or her child. It is a severe violation of this responsibility to sell photos of one’s child to the highest bidder. “But what if that money goes to charity?,” some ask.  Ethically, this doesn’t matter, because evil must not be done so that good may come of it.  If the police randomly searched citizens without cause, they would probably find drugs, guns, and other contraband from time to time.  However, our society justifiably deplores this, because the rights of innocent people to be left alone takes precedence over whatever good might come from shaking down people at will.  Thus even if the proceeds from the sale of baby photos could lead to a cure for cancer, the elimination of famine in Africa, or other desirable goals, it is important to be concerned about how we achieve these ends. Third, infants are not capable of providing an informed consent to having their pictures taken and sold to the tabloids (or anywhere else, for that matter).  Because they don’t have the ability to weigh the pro’s and con’s of such an undertaking, society entrusts parents to make good decisions on their children’s behalf.  A child whose parents sell pictures of her for financial gain, or even to benefit a worthwhile cause, might grow up to feel that her parents violated a basic trust.  And it would be perfectly understandable for a child to feel this way. Of course, it’s not merely celebrities who are to blame for this deplorable practice.  Without a public whose appetite for such inanities seems to know no limits, the supply would soon dry up.  But the public has greater power to stop the practice than it might like to believe.  The outcry last year over the News Corporation’s decision to publish O.J. Simpson’s book, “If I Did It,” led that company to cancel the deal (although the book resurfaced later in altered form, which I have commented upon elsewhere). If the decision of celebrities to sell photos of their infants for astronomical sums offends your moral sensibilities, don’t just quietly seethe about it.  Refuse to purchase magazines containing these images.  Write a letter to the editor expressing your concerns.  Send an e-mail to the celebrities in question and respectfully take issue with the practice.  When we encounter something we believe is an injustice, we not only have a right to speak up.  We have an obligation to do so. www.TheEthicsGuy.com Less

Subscribe now to the weekly update email (fill in the below box) to get a weekly list of all of the new episodes on TPN in one easy-to-read format! Enter your email address: ====================================================== My guest today is Peter Singer. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. Outside academic circles, Singer is best known for his book Animal Liberation, widely regarded as the touchstone of the animal liberation movement. I invited him onto the show to talk about the recent news from Spain that they will soon probably extend basic legal rights to all non-human hominids, an idea that has been driven by an organization that Peter co-founded, The Great Ape Project. We also talk about the basic ethics of utilitarianism and how the best thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is to stop eating meat. The G’Day World theme music: Conquest “Secrets of Life” (mp3) from “End of Days” (Dark Star Records) More On This Album Less

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D. The Ethics Guy® BusinessWeek Online’s Ethics Columnist TheEthicsGuy.com Why does Hillary continue to run, when the odds against her winning the Democratic Party’s nomination are so slim? Perhaps it’s because she truly believes she is the best person to be the next President of the United States. Perhaps it’s because she is convinced that, with continued determination, she can succeed at this formidable task. But the reason could be much simpler. She may consider losing to be a form of personal failure. If so, she is clearly not alone in feeling this way. We live in a culture that celebrates winners and chastises losers. “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing” might well be the unofficial motto of this country. Indeed, everyone loves a winner, but losers are viewed with scorn and derision. This is more than unfortunate; it’s unfair. I will argue that we should rethink losing and that we ought to embrace our losses, rather than run from them. THE WINNING MENTALITY AND ITS DISCONTENTS UCLA football coach Henry “Red” Sanders (who, not Vince Lombardi, coined the expression) was mistaken in holding winning to be “the only thing.” No one would rationally want to live in a world in which winning is our sole objective. There are other considerations that are as, or more, important than winning, whether the subject is football, corporate management, dating, or any other social activity. The five fundamental principles of ethics are: • Do No Harm • Make Things Better • Respect Others: 1, 2 • Be Fair: 1, 2 • Be Compassionate If winning were truly “the only thing”, then there would be no problem with hurting other people, cheating, lying, or stealing to achieve this objective. As we’ve seen too often over the past several years, however, the politicians, CEO’s, and athletes who have made a fetish out of winning at all costs have lost their careers, their marriages, their reputations, and sometimes even their freedom. The outrage over steroid use in baseball is fueled by the recognition that winning at the expense of fairness is just plain wrong. Getting rich by destroying the pensions of one’s own employees is, as Enron’s Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling discovered, winning at its worst. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of winning, but if we ignore the ethical responsibilities of avoiding harm, being honest, and treating others fairly, we will forfeit the most important thing of all: our own integrity. HOW TO LOSE WITH GRACE AND DIGNITY With the above considerations in mind, I propose the following rules for rising to the challenge when you don’t reach a goal you’re trying to achieve: 1. BE ANGRY…BUT NOT FOR TOO LONG. It’s understandable to be upset when you lose, but dwelling on the loss, obsessing over it, or making it the focus of your life is more hurtful than helpful. As difficult as it may be to deal effectively with anger in every situation, it is in your own interest not to let anger get the best of you. 2. ACCEPT REALITY. We often tell ourselves, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Unfortunately, we have less control over our lives than we’d like to believe, and there is nothing we can do to alter this. There *is* such a thing as a zeitgeist (literally “spirit of the times”), and all the determination in the world cannot make other people do, say, or vote for something if they don’t want to. It should lessen the blow to realize that there is only so much we can do to affect the change we seek. 3. LOOK FOR THE LESSON. Yes, we learn by winning. (Think about how you surprised yourself the last time you accomplished something you thought would be too difficult to achieve.) But we also learn by losing, if we have the courage to pay attention. In looking honestly at a failed attempt to get a job or develop a romantic relationship, the lesson could be that we need to rethink our approach, or that we need to change something about ourselves. The best way to succeed next time, or to learn how to handle defeat better, is to find the lesson from our loss and take it to heart. 4. CUT YOURSELF SOME SLACK. The ethical responsibilities to be fair and compassionate apply to how we treat ourselves, not just others. Berating yourself for losing isn’t a kind or decent way to treat yourself, and doing so prevents you from getting back into action, which can lead to further losses. 5. KEEP ON THE SUNNY SIDE OF LIFE. How many successful people do you know who are burdened by the weight of their past failures? If you let losing get the best of you, it will be all but impossible to go forward. Allow yourself to feel angry, but accept reality, learn from the experience, don’t be too hard on yourself, and move on. These guidelines are intended to help you make the best of a losing situation. Let’s not forget, though, that the first order of business after losing is to congratulate the winner. Anyone can win. It takes a person of courage and grace to accept defeat and honor the victor. Such a person is will move beyond loss and emerge a stronger and better person…and be a true winner. This is an adaptation of an article that first appeared on BusinessWeek.com. Write to Bruce@TheEthicsGuy.com. Program note: Bruce Weinstein is a guest on CNN’s American Morning, Wednesday, June 4, beginning at 6a ET Less

Editor’s Note: Bruce Weinstein, “The Ethics Guy” will analyze the ethical issues at stake with former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and his new book, tonight on 360° 10p ET. Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D. “The Ethics Guy” BusinessWeek.com’s Ethics Columnist For the past several days, there has been a lot of discussion about Scott McClellan and why he has written his tell-all book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.” Much of the criticism has focused on McClellan’s motivation for writing this book. Is he disgruntled? Does he feel guilty? Is he simply trying to cash in on his former position in the Bush administration? As provocative as these questions may be, they are not nearly as important as the central ethical question raised by this story: was it right for McClellan to write such a book? Looking at the ethical issues at stake, I argue the following: McClellan not only had a right to pen this book. He had an ethical obligation to do so. Yes, it is important to be loyal to one’s friends, colleagues, and employer, but it is more important to tell the truth, particularly when lives are at stake, as they are in this case. Yes, it would have been better for McClellan to have spoken up earlier, but there is no statute of limitations on telling the truth. Ethics is the ultimate non-partisan issue. The above argument applies not just to Scott McClellan, but to everyone. Had Jody Powell, the press secretary in the Carter administration, or Dee Dee Myers, the press secretary in the Clinton administration, made similar revelations, these too would have been ethically justified. Of course, not all kiss-and-tell books are ethical. In 2004, I argued on AC360 that it was wrong for Michael Bergin to write “The Other Man,” which detailed his purported love affair with Carolyn Bessette Kennedy. Her untimely death prevented her from responding to the claims in the book. (On that program, Randy Cohen, who writes the ethics column for the New York Times Sunday magazine, argued against my position.) In recent columns for BusinessWeek.com, I’ve considered the ethics of talking politics at work, the ethical responsibilities of the presidential candidates, and the art of losing well. Less

Add to iTunes | Add to YouTube | Add to Google | RSS Feed Are Ethics important… especially in relation to Technology. I had an email from Justin, asking questions about Ethics on the Internet. How would you define the computer Ethics in today’s digital world? Honesty and Transparency. Those are likely the terms you’ll hear thrown about in relation to Ethics. You must be transparent and honest about the things you are doing. The tools to publish are easier to access, and more affordable these days. Ethics isn’t always inherent. It comes down to trusting the person who may be doing or saying something. If you’ve run across a blog post that’s a raving review of a new product… how do you know they have any credibility? How do you know it’s not a paid endorsement if it isn’t disclosed? That’s the point… it wasn’t disclosed. You just have to trust that the author is telling the truth. I tell people exactly what’s going on… I don’t hide anything, much to many people’s chagrin. Is it important for Social Networking sites to enforce Ethical behavior on said sites? If you’re promoting anything that may be considered illegal, then yes. Sites like YouTube must take care of those issues. Also keep in mind that each website you sign up for has Terms of Use. If you violate those, then the sites can and will pull your content from public view. I’m under the belief that a community will raise more red flags than a website itself. Thankfully, the general population cries “FOUL” when seeing illegal and unethical content. When it comes down to personal attacks… that is unethical behavior. If you don’t like someone because of something they believe in, respond to them appropriately. Attack the opinion, never the person. Is there a true code of Ethics regarding computer use and practices of it on the Web? You may have seen the movie “Office Space”. It was justified by the perpetrators of this white-collar crime that it’s “only pennies” that they were taking. However, it’s not Ethical behavior. They were stealing money that they weren’t entitled to have. The Code of Ethics that one might adhere to depends on the tool, the technology and the community in which they exist. If you’re going to try to enforce Ethics inside of a community who has none… you’re fighting a losing battle unfortunately. How do you feel when someone creates a piece of Malware? Does that person have Ethics? Maybe they have a different perspective. Where do you draw the line? Who are we to decide what someone else’s Code of Ethics should be? This is one thing that keeps me live streaming.. it keeps me honest. The Blogosphere keeps everyone honest. If I do or say something wrong… believe me, I hear about it. I get upset more than you would believe when someone accuses me of something I didn’t do. I have a hard time getting past that hurdle. I admit when I’m wrong. I will eat Crow when I need to be. If I made a mistake on the Web, the mistake is there. It’s done. It can’t be removed. I try my best to live my life by the Golden Rule. “Do unto others…” I give everyone that trust until it’s broken. It’s gotten me in trouble in the past. There are many people out there who can’t be trusted, unfortunately. But then again… there are so many who can be. Reaching 64.8% Internet Users You Miss! Rapid Research Papers - Write It Fast! How To Write Your Spiritual Ethical Will. Want to embed this video on your own site, blog, or forum? Use this code or download the video: <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jxfLdeu-3TU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jxfLdeu-3TU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/">Chris</a> | <a href="http://live.pirillo.com/">Live Tech Support</a> | <a href="http://media.pirillo.com/">Video Help</a> | <a href="http://feeds.pirillo.com/ChrisPirilloShow">Add to iTunes</a> Related Content: Summer Computer Camp Free eBooks for Gnomedex Attendees! Windows Vista Internet Problems Computer Basics Video Tod Maffin of CBC at Northern Voice Less

http://live.pirillo.com - Are Ethics important... especially in relation to Technology. I had an email from Justin, asking questions about Ethics on the Internet. Less

And to prove that ‘cluelessness’ is not just a corporate affliction, Ottawa’s Mayor Larry O’Brien has given us a spectacular example of how NOT to engage with the media. As Bob LeDrew comments, I’ve been interested in politics — as an observer — for a long time. And since buying a house here in Ottawa in 2000, my interest in civic politics has been keen. And I’m a flack. With all of that, I have to shake my head in disbelief at the utter hash that Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien has made of his public image. Bob goes on to describe how, in a moment of what can only be described as ’sheer genius’, Mayor O’Brien just ever so slightly over-reacted. To wit: Apparently, one of O’Brien’s two sons found some posts on a political blog, Apply Liberally, to be annoying, and left what the blogger says were “insulting” messages on the blog. When CBC reporter Alistair Steele asked O’Brien about his son’s behaviour during a previously scheduled interview, O’Brien seems to have gone just a teeny bit apes**t. He grabbed Steele’s audio recorder, tried to stop it, then tried to erase what had already been recorded, and then ordered Steele to leave, carrying on the interview with an Ottawa Sun reporter. Bob has a fantastic breakdown of Mayor O’Brien’s chequered political history, and as Bob says at the end of his article, So if he’s going to stay, he’s got to pull in his profile, get his office and his persona under control, and consolidate whatever support he has on council and within the city’s administration. Right now, he’s bobbing in the water and the journalists are humming the theme from Jaws. I bet they are! Great article, Bob! Technorati tags: bob ledrew, mayor larry o’brien, ottawa, pr, media, interview, press, insult, business communication, lee hopkins Less

I am stunned! Over at MyRagan there is a 20-something who writes that even she feels ‘overwhelmed’ sometimes by social media and struggles to keep up, which is why she attends conferences, seminars and workshops on the subject. After her post–and yes, I agree with Sue Johnston that the headline of the article was exceedingly cheap and misleading; shame on you Mark et al–there is a plethora of fellow business communicators whining about how they can’t cope. Give me a break!!! The whole point is not whether you feel swamped or not, the whole point is that you can no longer afford to be uninvolved. Drew Mendelson points to ongoing research by Universal McCann [pdf] that comes up with interesting stats and comments, some of which I repeat here: Social media is a global phenomenon happening in all markets regardless of wider economic, social and cultural development. If you are online you are using social media Asian markets are leading in terms of participation, creating more content than any other region All social media platforms have grown significantly  Video Clips are the quickest growing platform, up from 31% penetration in Wave 1 to 83% in Wave 3 57% have joined a Social Network, making it the number one platform for creating and sharing content 55% of users have uploaded photos 22% of users have uploaded videos Blogs are a mainstream media world-wide and as a collective rival any traditional media 73% have read a blog The blogosphere is becoming increasingly participatory, now 184m bloggers world-wide China has the largest blogging community in the world with 42m bloggers, more than the US and Western Europe combined As a business communicator you no longer have the luxury of burying your head in the sand and pretending that this will all go away. It won’t. And it will just get bigger and bigger and go faster and faster and if you don’t leap onboard now you will never catch up.    KPI your bottom, Mr BeanCounter As I explained to a client in Brisbane yesterday, Social Media doesn’t replace any of the more traditional channels of communication, instead it adds significantly to your burden. You need to throw resource at it and you need to forget about any dumb-arsed KPIs and ROIs. It is a set of ‘relationship’ tools, not easily shoe-horned into neatly fitting your CFO’s ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis’ metrics. Every businessperson worth their salt knows that taking clients out to lunch, or to golf, or the cricket, or whatever, is beneficial in the long term for the relationship betwixt company and client. No one stands with a clipboard and a calculator outside the CEO’s office when they return from a golfing day and grills them about the ROI of their golf. As Alex Manchester once said to me, “how much is a good relationship with your customer worth to you?” THAT is your bloomin’ ROI, Mr BeanCounter.    Social Media Burnout Yes, there is such a thing as Social Media burnout. My good friend Iwan Winoto at IBM pointed me to an interesting article from the New York Times. It seems that they are not alone in worrying about ‘blogger burnout’. Yes, the demands of this never-off Internet are incredible. I feel under pressure to blog something intelligent every day (Mrs BetterComms would argue that I rarely have one intelligent thought a week) less I lose my audience and subscriber numbers. I know that employees of companies equally feel under pressure to perform, to meet ever-tougher KPIs. Yes, there is a new ‘must see’ Social Media tool released every week (sometimes several a week). Yes, it can be an incredible drain on your time evaluating them, let alone joining them. But who says you have to do it all yourself? Doh!    Be uninvolved; be unemployed and unemployable I’ve had very legitimate concerns expressed to me about the whole Social Media thing; not in terms of whether it will stay, but where does one find the time to get up to speed on it? The answer is simple: how do you learn ANYTHING within a corporation? Answer: you go to a seminar, attend a workshop, invite a guest speaker in to your meeting, bring in a consultant to help you strategise and roll-out your strategy… Is it expensive? Yes. Well, at least I am, but then again I’m also one of the very few experts in Australia who understands this stuff and is available to help you grow. Laurel Papworth is another. Trevor Cook is another. So is Gary Hayes. So too is Stephen Collins. We don’t come cheap. After all, do you expect ‘bargain basement’ pricing from, say, PwC or McKinsey and at the same time expect the top level of intelligence and insight that they are able to bring to your company’s benefit? In business life you very much get what you pay for. But you already know that. What you probably don’t wish to acknowledge to yourself is that if you don’t keep your own skills current you will be unemployable within five years. Yes, unemployable. Second-rate. The business communication world is moving at such a pace that if you don’t have a few Social Media campaigns and successes under your belt you will be passed over for promotion/head-hunting/a new job by someone else who does. Survival of the fittest. Remember all that HR bumpf about ‘life long learning’? They were telling the truth. Says Anna: Just last Sept I attended some teaching workshops for working with students at the university level and social media issues were brought up several times. I was shocked when I was informed that I would most likely find it difficult to relate to new students as a recent graduate myself because the typical generation gap has now shrunk to about 4 years. The availability of cellphones, laptops, wireless internet, ipods, msn, facebook and basically social media in general is a major factor behind just how differently these students interact. Although I’m hardly older then these students, I am somehow now old. Just don’t be one of the whingers (that’s Aussie-speak for ‘whiners’) over at the MyRagan site who are whimpering about it all. Either be part of the problem or be part of the solution; either skill up or get out of the way. Tough love. Think that’s a bit harsh? As we say here in Australia, “build a bridge and get over it.” Technorati tags: myragan, mark ragan, pwc, mckinsey, roi, kpi, social media, drew mendelson, web2.0, sue johnston, iwan winoto, business communication, lee hopkins Less

Courtesy of the excellent MyRaganTV comes a video so unbelievable that if you saw it in a movie you’d think the writers had strayed too far from reality. Do you think there’s a bit of ‘kiss and make up’ to be done here, or is it too late and a move to another station is in order for the reporter? How would you, if you are a PR type, ‘fix’ the collateral damage from this one? Technorati Tags: myragantv , ragan , reporter , anchor , journalism , journalist , jealousy , bitchiness , professional , unprofessional conduct , live to air , broadcast , tv Less

Reinsurance, dishonest rules, and peer pressure don’t mix. For more of Mac, including important links, a full comments section, and a great price on his newest book BEAT THE SYSTEM: 11 SECRETS TO BUILDING AN ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE IN A BUREAUCRATIC WORLD visit www.BobMacOnBusiness.com. Less

Celia Heffernan, the Online Content Producer at the NSW Dept of Education and Training, recently asked me to write an article about virtual worlds for inclusion in a technology guide for parents. The guide has now been published and I’m very flattered to see my article in there alongside material from my colleague Ross Monaghan. Within its pages there is fabulous material, including a great refresher for even old hands like myself on the terms we use and what they mean. Sometimes we forget that not everyone knows what a blog is, or a tag. Doh! It’s not just about internet technology, either; Ross wrote a great piece on mobile phones and kids, ‘Mobile Safety’. The guide is entitled Click and you can download the full magazine or specific articles: Download Click magazine (pdf 1.7mb)   Download specific articles Minister’s foreword (pdf 88kb) A love of learning (pdf 106kb) The A to Z of technology (pdf 169kb) Staying safe online (pdf 100kb) Homework and the internet (pdf 224kb) Mobile safety (pdf 110kb) Second life for parents & Virtual worlds (pdf 94kb) [my article] Get in the game (pdf 122kb) Sending cyberbullies into space (pdf 98kb) Stranger danger (pdf 117kb) Tuned in and logged on (pdf 98kb) Netiquette (pdf 72kb) Mum and Dad’s guide to buying a computer (pdf 202kb) Connecting to the Internet (pdf 109kb) Fast Forward (pdf 105kb) Kids TV hits rural NSW (pdf 110kb) What’s hot in schools (pdf 121kb) Laptops chart pecking order (pdf 122kb) Online resources (pdf 142kb) Technorati tags: deakin, ross monaghan, nsw, det, virtual world, parents, parenting, business communication, lee hopkins, celia heffernan Less

Add to iTunes | Add to YouTube | Add to Google | RSS Feed I’ve owned and operated my own business for many years now. For the most part, it’s gone very well for me. Yes, of course I’ve made mistakes. But… I’ve also made some excellent business decisions. I don’t see myself ever working for anyone other than myself again. I love working with vendors, helping people save money by passing along savings. I love the interaction from my community. This is just something that I truly love. I received the following email the other day, regarding business. Recently, I saw the “Investment” video you posted, in which a 19 year old set up a business in Philippines. So i reckoned, now people know how to start up a business, why not teach them how to make it last. I’ve been looking into business since the age of 15. I have picked up tips and advice from businessman and women all over the world through different conferences. I have summed up ten values in which any organization should have in their organizational culture in order to last. I tried to do a top 5 list, but 5 just weren’t enough. Here are the 10 values: Loyalty Always be loyal to your organization, employees and employers. This can help you in the long run with relationships with your colleagues, bosses and family! Commitment This has always been one of the key values that drive a business. Recently, I’ve read your post on “How to Start (and KEEP) a Blog”. This also adds on to the facts on commitment to a certain task. Respect Always have healthy respect for your bosses (positioned above you), your peers (beside you), and your subordinates (below you). This is achieved by having humility in everything you do. Humility is shown in the actions you do, the words you say and most importantly, your attitude. Always guard against sedition (elevating yourself to the position of whom you are working under). Accountability Always be accountable! Whether to your bosses or colleagues. This is one of the things to watch out for in working in an organization. By being accountable, you are indirectly building up on your connectedness with others. Family Never neglect your family members. Your relationships you have with them means more than your job post in the long run! Take time off from work to spend quality time, if not some time, with your family. Whatever happens at home can clearly be reflected in work performance. Love Being a loving person is always beneficial to either yourself or others. Be forgiving, have mercy on the poor soul that just burst your blood vessels. It ain’t any good to yourself or the other party if there are any hatchets that aren’t buried yet. Having love in the organization results in better service in the case of service industries. Faithfulness This can also include trustworthiness. If your clients don’t trust you, and your subordinates don’t trust your business plan, what is there left in your organization? Trust is essential in any business. Here are 3 things you have to be faithful in: Little things (if you can’t be trusted with a small project, how can you ever expect to receive a huge project?) Other people’s belongings (if you can’t even be responsible for your neighbor’s things, how can you be with your company’s?) Finance Hard work/Diligence Where will you get your profits if you don’t work hard? A start-up will always have it’s hiccups. But if you work hard enough, you’ll get guaranteed results. Integrity Crucial! Always be truthful in your dealings and actions. No matter whatever losses you’ve made through truthful dealings, people will still trust you more. Generosity Generosity begets generosity. If you are generous, even in small amounts, you’ll eventually receive the same treatment. DimeClub Sports Picks- Nfl, Ncaa, Nba, M. The Internet Marketing Master Plan. Ultimate Time Management Programs. Guide To Making More Money. Wp Affiliate Pro - The #1 Plugin For WordPres Blogs. Want to embed this video on your own site, blog, or forum? Use this code or download the video: <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n6nmmeLggSg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n6nmmeLggSg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/">Chris</a> | <a href="http://live.pirillo.com/">Live Tech Support</a> | <a href="http://media.pirillo.com/">Video Help</a> | <a href="http://feeds.pirillo.com/ChrisPirilloShow">Add to iTunes</a> Related Content: Lands End Coupons Blog Business Paul Colligan on the Business of Podcasting Eric Sink on the Business of Software Find an Attorney Less

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson gets served. For more of Mac, including important links, a full comments section, and a great price on his newest book BEAT THE SYSTEM: 11 SECRETS TO BUILDING AN ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE IN A BUREAUCRATIC WORLD visit www.BobMacOnBusiness.com. Less