Grappling with the Gray

If you get your work done in half the time, is the other half of your time really yours? Last week, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced that she would resign from her position amidst charges of chronic mismanagement and neglect of duty. Among other allegations, local reporters discovered that Ms. Gardner had been taking classes in a full time nursing program during a staffing crisis in her office. In general, is it ethical to hold two full-time jobs at once? With advances in artificial intelligence, some workers claim that they can easily handle the demands of two, three, or four jobs without compromising their performance in any of them. Is it proper for individual employees to make such an assessment themselves? Even if it’s true at any particular moment, are those employees likely to relinquish one of those jobs (and its paycheck) if their workload increases and they have to cut corners? And even if they are getting all their work done competently, are they unethical for deceiving employers who don’t know about those second or third jobs? Or, if they are doing all the work they are being paid to do, is the remaining time in their day theirs to do with as they please? Is using unallotted time for another job any different from playing Candy Crush or surfing TikTok? Tune in on LinkedIn Live at 5:00 pm ET this Wednesday when these guests join the ethics panel: Mark Brown, CSP is a world champion speaker, an executive coach, and an artificial intelligence software advisor. Deb Coviello 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. 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. #ethics #bestpractices #companyculture #integrity #grappling

Are we setting ourselves up for failure... or worse? In the wake of Jack Teixeira allegedly leaking classified information damaging to American security and embarrassing to American prestige, columnist Rob Henderson wonders if the lower standards and increasing incentives for military recruits has contributed to a less committed class of soldiers. It’s concerning, if not surprising, that patriotism and support for the military are in decline. Much worse, however, is the spirit of self-interest that may be motivating enlistment. Rather than focusing on the higher values of service and a sense of history, the military’s ever-increasing recruitment budget trumpets how you can serve yourself by acquiring skills and financial perks. Several years ago, my own son applied for a special forces division of the IDF. He described the process as three days of crawling in the dirt. Four of the 15 applicants in his group dropped out in the first 3 hours. The rest lasted to the end. They weren’t all accepted, but they all demonstrated a willingness to do what needed to be done because it needed to be done. As our generation becomes softer, do we need to relax standards to accommodate the current zeitgeist, or do we need to preserve standards to slow the relentless slide toward self-indulgent mediocrity? And what are the possible consequences of each? Join me and the panelists at 5:00 pm ET Wednesday on LinkedIn Live for this week's episode of Grappling with the Gray: Melissa Hughes, Ph.D. Hughes is Founder and Principal of the Andrick Group, applying recent brain research to improve employee engagement, company culture, team dynamics, and innovation. Dr. Jenna Ross, CMPC®, LAC. Jenna Ross is a doctor of performance psychology, a former Army National Guard Drill Sergeant, adjunct professor, mental health advocate, and podcast host. Hon. Charles Williams is a retired rear admiral and former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, as well as a fellow of Hudson Institute, a research organization promoting American leadership for a secure, free, and prosperous future. #ethics #culture #military #discipline #success

Whose side are the media on? In what appears to be a coincidence, news anchors Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon were fired over the weekend by Fox News and CNN respectively, despite both having huge followings. The reasons are not entirely clear, but are presumed to be a response to questions about journalistic ethics and combative style, especially coming in the wake of the huge settlement negotiated by Fox after reports of knowingly falsifying the news. Is this a reassuring sign that integrity and civility may be returning to news reporting, or is it more likely that networks feel the need to appear responsive to complaints about the behavior of their frontmen? And if we can’t say for sure, how can we as individuals respond to media giants’ irresponsible practices in pursuit of ratings? Is the system hopelessly out of control, or is there some way we can help the pendulum swing back toward corporate responsibility? Should we expect substantive change, or will new players most likely take up the old roles again? Meet this week’s panelists: Leslie Flowers is a certified business consultant and coach and author of eight books, guiding clients with a hybrid program of timeless business principles, universal law, and achievement mastery for fifteen years. Tresha Moreland, is an executive strategist and Principal Organizational and Leadership Consultant with HR-C Suite, LLC. Dr. Eric Zabiegalski is a technical and organization consultant, professor of HR management, and author of Unthink: All you have to do is Nothing. Join us on LinkedIn Live Wednesday at 5:00 pm ET. #ethics #media #cablenews #foxnews #CNN

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

A close friend shares with you her hurt and outrage. When the subject of the Holocaust came up in social studies class, a teacher told your friend’s teenage son that he should go back to Auschwitz. The boy, who had previously been proud and open about his Jewish identity, has now abandoned all outward signs of being Jewish. Your friend reported the incident to both the principal and to the school board, but there is no indication that any action was taken against the teacher. Although you are not Jewish yourself, or perhaps because you’re not Jewish, you feel duty-bound to speak out. You write an op-ed in the local paper outlining these events. You don’t mention any names, but you do mention the school district. Instead of being grateful for your support, your friend is furious with you. There are very few Jews in the school district, and her son is now terrified of being singled out and possibly targeted by other students. Your friend says that you had no right to publish the article, and that you have compromised her son’s safety and well-being. Were you wrong to publish the article? In general, how do we evaluate situations where upholding our principles may cause collateral damage to others, especially children? If it’s wrong to speak up and wrong to stay silent, what other options do we have? Meet this week’s panelists: Christopher Bauer, PhD, CSP, CFS is a Speaker, Author, and Consultant on Ethics, Compliance, and Accountability. 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. Catherine Fitzgerald is a writer, speaker, certified coach, and founder of Brass Tacks With Heart-executive coaching. She helps founders, owners, and C-Suite Executives and their teams to build businesses that fuel their lives, not consume them.

A close friend shares with you her hurt and outrage. When the subject of the Holocaust came up in social studies class, a teacher told your friend’s teenage son that he should go back to Auschwitz. The boy, who had previously been proud and open about his Jewish identity, has now abandoned all outward signs of being Jewish. Your friend reported the incident to both the principal and to the school board, but there is no indication that any action was taken against the teacher. Although you are not Jewish yourself, or perhaps because you’re not Jewish, you feel duty-bound to speak out. You write an op-ed in the local paper outlining these events. You don’t mention any names, but you do mention the school district. Instead of being grateful for your support, your friend is furious with you. There are very few Jews in the school district, and her son is now terrified of being singled out and possibly targeted by other students. Your friend says that you had no right to publish the article, and that you have compromised her son’s safety and well-being. Were you wrong to publish the article? In general, how do we evaluate situations where upholding our principles may cause collateral damage to others, especially children? If it’s wrong to speak up and wrong to stay silent, what other options do we have? Meet this week’s panelists: Christopher Bauer, PhD, CSP, CFS is a Speaker, Author, and Consultant on Ethics, Compliance, and Accountability. 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. Catherine Fitzgerald is a writer, speaker, certified coach, and founder of Brass Tacks With Heart-executive coaching. She helps founders, owners, and C-Suite Executives and their teams to build businesses that fuel their lives, not consume them.

"I can do what I want." That's true. But what do I really want? And what should I really want? Charity is a foundational value of civil society. The Bible mandates a tithe, which the sages interpret to mean between 10 and 20 percent of one’s income. The government gives tax breaks to encourage charitable donations; and wealthy philanthropists are known to give away billions of dollars. But what if I’m donating 20 percent or more of my income to charity and I have plenty left over: Is there anything wrong ethically about having a fleet of exotic cars, a private yacht costing hundreds of millions, or spending 2 million dollars on a birthday party? What about space tourism, custom designer clothes, or owning multiple 20-room estates around the world? Presumably, there’s nothing wrong with having nice things or taking vacations, but is there ever a limit? Is it defensible to argue that the luxury industry provides jobs, or is that a smokescreen -- especially in light of stories like the reported slave labor conditions where Fiji water is produced? We don’t want the government controlling the choices we make, but when we live a life of excess just because we can afford it, does that undermine the principle of self-discipline and responsible stewardship of the planet that should be part of our system of core values? Meet this week’s panelists: Jennifer H. Elder, is a CPA and Certified Speaking Professional who helps leaders future-proof their businesses by making smart decisions and staying ethical. Tim Hawkes is managing director of Unlimited Potential Coaching Specialists in the UK and director of global operations. He is an international speaker and works with organizations to develop organizational culture. Mark O'Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, helping companies add innovation to their mindsets and their operations to create discernible competitive advantage

Should we expect objective truth in art, or does creative license allow ignoring facts in order to tell a more compelling story? 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: Popular movies are often introduced with the message, “Based on true events,” implying a reasonably accurate depiction of reality. We take it for granted that there may be a bit of poetic license, but we probably expect that the basic facts of the story will be authentically represented. But that’s not always the case. The movie Remember the Titans is about Herman Boone, a black football coach in the deep south in the 1970s. In the movie, his team was the only racially integrated team in the conference. In reality, all the teams were integrated by then. In the movie Cinderella Man, boxing champion James Braddock goes into the ring against Max Baer, who had killed another boxer in a previous fight. The movie portrays Baer as a vicious killer. In reality, he was horrified by his opponent's death and had to be convinced not to retire from boxing. In the movie Argo, the final scene shows Iranian security officials chasing the American plane down the tarmac as it carries the American escapees to safety. The scene was a Hollywood fabrication. What about historical fiction in general: does it bring history to life or does it blur the lines between fact and fiction? It’s been said that you shouldn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. What responsibility do storytellers have to be truthful? When do we cross the line from poetic license into the realm of fantasy or deception? What are the effects on society when the truth isn’t good enough to keep an audience engaged? Meet this week’s panelists: Sarah Elkins is a communication and leadership coach, using the power of storytelling to connect, engage, and inspire. Mark O'Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, helping Companies Manage Their Brands, Solve Their Problems, and Simplify the Complex. Matthew Rosenberg teaches communication, argumentation, and critical discourse at Oregon State University.

If no good deed goes unpunished, should we still risk doing the right thing? 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: True story: Susan was working in the back office of a neighborhood clinic one morning. A patient arrived and was admitted for consultation. Susan heard raised voices, after which the patient reappeared and quickly left the clinic in a state of apparent grief or anger. Had there been some disagreement or misunderstanding? Susan assumed so but couldn’t know for sure. Under normal circumstances, Susan probably wouldn’t have thought twice. But only a week earlier, a disgruntled client had left an office just down the street after a conflict, then returned with a gun and started shooting. Susan didn’t want to take the chance that her inaction might put others (and herself) at risk. Perhaps with a simple check-in she might determine if there was any cause for genuine concern. Because all visits were confidential, looking up the man’s identity would be a violation of privacy. Susan tried to reach her supervisor for permission to open the database, but her supervisor was unavailable. Susan took the initiative. She looked up the man’s name and phone number, then gave him a call. “Hello,” she said into the phone. “I’m calling to check in… you seemed upset when you left our office. Is there anything I can do to help?” “Oh, no,” the man replied. “I was a little distressed, but I’m fine now. Thanks so much for calling.” Subsequently, Susan found herself reprimanded by her supervisor. Was she wrong to do what she did? Meet this week’s panelists: Sonia Funk is a corporate wellness strategist and speaker, a nutritional therapist, and an award winning singer and songwriter. S. Scott Mason , aka the Myth Slayer, is a Transformational Coach for Executives, Entrepreneurs & Other Leaders, podcast host, and keynote speaker. Heather R Younger is a keynoter and consultant on employee engagement and DEI, a TEDx speaker, podcast host, and author of the new book, The Art of Caring Leadership.

How can we raise authentic concerns without being accused of political motivation or politically correctness? That's our topic when the ethics panel convenes to Grapple with the Gray. During his presidency, Ronald Reagan was often criticized for inaccuracies and misstatements. Sometime after he left the White House at age 77, it was revealed that he had been showing the first symptoms of Alzheimer's disease while still in office. Last week, presidential hopeful Nikki Haley called for mental competency tests for candidates over 75, clearly targeting President Joe Biden’s expected re-election bid. On the one hand, we want to encourage respect for both the wisdom and the challenges of the elderly. On the other hand, since impaired ability is a natural consequence of growing older, we want to protect the elderly and those around them from the potential dangers of diminishing function. This may include increased attention to issuing driver's licenses, operation of motorized wheelchairs, and addressing incapacity to perform their jobs. How do we balance respect for the elderly against safety concerns while ensuring that they do not become victims of agism? Meet this week’s panelists: Karl Ahlrichs works with Healthcare issues and Risk Management in all forms, building high performing teams and applying "uncommon sense" to a high risk world. Dave Bricker is a Speaker, Presentation Consultant, and sailing aficionado. He works with leaders and professionals to master the art of business storytelling—on the stage, on the page, or on the screen. Jolanta Pomiotlo is Vice President of Information Technology for EXSIF Worldwide who manages innovative initiatives aimed at reducing operating costs, improving profit, and growing revenue.

When do you cross the line from marketing to manipulating? When do you become complicit in other people's unethical behavior? How far do you have to go to correct other people's moral missteps? These are some of the questions the ethics panel takes up on this archive episode of Grappling with the Gray. This episode's ethics challenge: Benny was widely recognized as a whiz kid by his fellow economics students, asking all the right questions in class and coming up with smart answers that impressed even the professor. Over the summer, he arranged his notes into a short primer on economic theory, which he self-published in hope of making a few bucks by selling them to incoming freshmen at the start of the fall semester. He left a couple of dozen copies with the owner of a popular off-campus bookstore. A week later, the store owner called to tell Benny the books had sold out and he needed more copies. “Wow,” said Benny, “I had no idea they would sell that fast.” The shopkeeper grinned. “I have a secret system,” he said. “I post a preorder sign-up sheet in the school library. I write about 15 fake names on the sheet, which makes the book look like a hot item and gets more people to order it so they won’t miss out on something good.” Was the shopkeeper unethical? If so, what should Benny do? Meet this week’s panelists: Kimberly Davis is a coach, trainer, TEDx speaker, author of Brave Leadership and founder of the Brave Leadership University. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimberlyd... Kira Day is a passion-based coach specializing in innovation, leadership and professional transformation. She is CEO of The Passion Centre and Creator of The Passion-Based™ Incubator. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kiraday/ Peter Winick is the founder and CEO of Thought Leadership Leverage and host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast. https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterwinick/

True story: A couple went out to dinner together. They ordered a variety of appetizers and shared them. A couple of hours after returning home, the wife became extremely ill, vomiting so violently that the husband felt compelled to call 911. An ambulance arrived (together with a fire truck), and took them to the emergency room, where they spent six hours as the doctors attempted to treat the wife for what they believed to be food poisoning. In a state of agitation, the husband sent an email to the restaurant informing them that their food had made his wife seriously ill, and he identified the one appetizer his wife had eaten that he hadn’t. He also informed them that the cost of the ambulance was over $600 and implied that they should offer to pay the expense. 48 hours later, he had received no reply. So he sent the same message to the restaurant’s Instagram account. He never received a reply to the second communication, either. Subsequently, tests came back confirming that the wife had not been sick from food poisoning but from a virulent stomach flu. Considering that the doctors initially diagnosed the wife with food poisoning, was the husband wrong to send the initial email? Was the restaurant wrong to ignore the message? Considering that the restaurant did not reply, should the husband follow up with a note apologizing for his false accusation? Meet this week’s panelists: Stewart Wiggins is Chief Advisor at Induna Advisors, working to significantly increase company revenue by developing positive client reports and establishing solid business relationships. Ipek Williamson is an Insight Coach, Meditation Teacher, Speaker, Author, and Change Master who helps people initiate and navigate change in their personal and professional lives.

A recent article on Substack by Gurwinder outlines in horrifying detail how TikTok is intentionally designed in a way that promotes addiction, encourages irresponsible and antisocial behavior, erodes fundamental human values, accelerates mental impairment, and contributes to mass psychological illness. The China-based platform is now the most downloaded app on the web. At the same time, the Chinese Communist Party has banned its own children from access to it. Even the “spinach” version, which is primarily educational content, is only available to kids for 40 minutes a day, between 6 am and 10 pm. Evidence suggests that the Chinese government sees TikTok as a tool that will lead the United States to committing societal, intellectual, and cultural suicide, and there’s good reason to believe they might be right. If so, what is the ethical response individually and collectively? Can and should the government impose electronic warning labels, as it did on cigarettes? Should it ban the platform outright, or does the government restricting our freedoms provide the CCP with a different kind of victory? As individuals, should we boycott the platform, or can we rely on our self-discipline to choose beneficial content to manipulate the algorithm in our favor? Should creators attempt to produce beneficial content, or is contributing to the platform in any manner contributing to the problem? Meet this week’s panelists: Diane Helbig is Chief Improvement Catalyzer at Helbig Enterprises, providing guidance and training to business owners and leaders around the world. Dr. Robyn Odegaard is a Concierge High Performance Psychologist who works with people who have to keep it together because the stakes are too high for them to fall apart, and host of the Quick Hits Podcast. See less 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.

To how much collateral damage can we subject others in order to save ourselves? That's this week's topic on Grappling with the Gray. In the movie Passengers, a computer malfunction wakes up Chris Pratt out of hibernation too early, 90 years before his spaceship is going to reach its destination. He now faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life alone, with no one for company except the robot bartender. Within a year, he has grown so depressed that he comes close to committing suicide. After pulling back from the brink, he is walking among the hibernating passengers when he spots Jennifer Lawrence, asleep in her pod. He looks her up online and discovers that she is a talented writer. He reads her books, listens to her interviews, and falls in love with her. He becomes obsessed with the idea of waking her up so he’ll have someone for company to save his sanity. He tells himself that it’s wrong, but he can’t keep the idea from coming back to him again and again. Would he be wrong to wake her up, causing her to lose her future in order to save him from madness and possibly death? If he did, would he be obligated to tell her the truth, or would it be better to allow her to think they were both victims of a system failure? In general, is it ever acceptable to impose hardship on some to prevent disproportionate hardship on others, like stealing from the grocery store to feed starving children? If so, how do we calculate when we’re crossing the line? Meet this week’s panelists: Jennifer H. Elder, CSP, CPA is a CPA and Certified Speaking Professional who helps leaders future-proof their businesses by making smart decisions and staying ethical. S. Scott Mason 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 Lisa K. McDonald is the founder of Career Polish, an Executive Career Coach and Master Mindset Coach who helps successful professionals reach their next phase of career-happy and life-healthy.

Can we trust the whistleblowers? A video released last week by Project Veritas appears to show a Pfizer executive admitting that the company has at least considered producing mutations of the Covid virus in order to perpetuate its lucrative vaccine manufacturing business. If true, the video provides damning evidence of highly unethical and predatory practices. A columnist in Forbes claims to have found “no legitimate source” online to verify that the purported subject of the video, Jordan Trishton Walker, is indeed a Pfizer Director of Research and Development - Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning. The video clip also seems to be severely edited, raising questions of whether the comments are provided in full context. At one point in the conversation, the subject of the video says, “Don’t tell anyone about this.” Is this equivalent to telling a reporter something “off the record”? Is recording someone without their knowledge ethical, aside from being illegal in many states? Does Project Veritas have an ethical obligation to make the unedited video available to the public? Should they provide substantiation that the subject of the video is who they claim he is? Finally, if the video is authentic, what action should the government of the justice system take, particularly if these were merely musings by Pfizer executives without any actual implementation? 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. Mariah Edgington, BSN, RN Edgington is a Keynote Speaker and, together with her husband, Byron, Co-Author of Journey Well, You Are MORE Than Enough: (RE)Discover Your Passion, Purpose, & Love of Yourself & Life. Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, helping companies add innovation to their mindsets and their operations to create discernible competitive advantage.

Does taking responsibility require micromanaging? Is it ever possible to expect too much oversight? Can due diligence erode the foundations of trust? These are some of the issues the ethics panel takes up in this week's ethics challenge: Recently, Alec Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez-Reed were charged with involuntary manslaughter in the accidental death of Halyna Hutchins by a prop gun that turned out to be loaded with live ammunition. We’re not going to discuss the legalities of the case, but how can we evaluate the ethics of diffused responsibility? Alec Baldwin was handed a gun and told it was a prop. As an actor, did he have a moral responsibility to check the gun, or was it proper to rely on the expertise of the armorer? On the other hand, he was also producer of the film. Does that make him ultimately responsible for underlings who fail in their responsibilities? How might these issues extend to other areas? Do I have to check my car’s brakes after I buy it, or can I rely on the responsibility of the manufacturer? Is the CEO of a corporation with 20,000 employees responsible if a junior executive misuses company resources to embezzle funds from clients or customers? To some degree, the smooth running of society demands that we trust those around us to do what they’re supposed to do. Is it healthy, or even realistic, for us to try to assume responsibility for others doing their jobs? If not, where does accountability lie? Meet this week’s panelists: Christopher Bauer is a Speaker, Author, and Consultant on Ethics, Compliance, and Accountability. 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. Catherine Fitzgerald is a speaker, writer, certified coach, and founder of BrassTacksWithHeart - Executive Coaching. She works with C-level leaders and their teams as they navigate the choppy waters of aligning people, performance, and profits.

Are the ethics between human beings different from the ethics between Man and Machine? That's what we'll be investigating in this week's episode of Grappling with the Gray. Here is our ethics challenge: In 1955, Walter M. Miller won the first ever Hugo Award for his science fiction novelette, The Darfsteller, the story of a former actor who had refused to let his persona be digitalized when robot actors replaced real ones. The unveiling of ChatGPT is the latest example of life imitating art. The new technology mimics human writing so perfectly that it may be impossible to tell the difference between the two. Consider the consequences: The entire writing profession may become extinct. High school teachers and college professors won’t be able to tell whether students did their own work. Source materials will be appropriated without regard for citation or copyright infringement. Then there’s the influence on lobbying. Comments submitted in the regulatory process might be computer generated. Anyone with the software could do from their kitchen table what the Russian Internet Research Agency did in its attempt to influence our 2016 elections, with far less overhead and far more precision. In the Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma, creators of Google, Facebook, and Apple recount how horrified they are at the creations they unleashed on society, but we don’t seem to be learning from their experience. What are some other ethical consequences of this technology? And once we release into the world technology that promotes, encourages, and even necessitates unethical behavior, what options do we have for preserving an ethical society? Meet this week’s panelists: Paul Edwards used to drive large military vehicles through the deserts of the Middle East, armed with an assault rifle. Today, his occupation of ghostwriting requires him to ask questions first, and shoot later.” K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications. Sarah Kalmeta aka Sara the Pivoter, is founder of Pivot Point, a career transition coach, author, and podcast host.

If there's a time for every season, how do we determine which season we're currently in? Join this week's panelists on LinkedIn Live as they grapple with this ethical challenge: The entire country has followed the story of Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin, his dramatic collapse during a game against the Cincinnati Bengals, his suspension between life and death, and his remarkable path toward recovery. Our collective obsession with these events raises a number of points for reflection. As Mr. Hamlin was being resuscitated on the field, FOX Sports pundit Skip Bayless tweeted: “No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.” Mr. Bayless was attacked from all sides for his “inhumanity,” but his observation opens the door for further discussion. Rockies pitcher Juan Nicasio was carried off the field after being hit in the head by a line drive in 2011. The Rockies went on to lose to the Washington Nationals. In 2008, St. Louis Cardinal Juan Encarnacion was hit by a foul ball that ended his career and may have cost him his vision. But the game went on. How do we decide when life goes on and when respect requires us to suspend normal activity? Furthermore, why did this incident capture national attention, overshadowing objectively more profound tragedies that fill the headlines? Should we be reexamining our priorities, or is there something exceptional about this story? Finally, a WSJ editorial contrasted past incidents of coaches fired for leading team prayers with the midfield prayers offered up for Damar Hamlin’s recovery. If public prayer is wrong sometimes, shouldn’t it be wrong all the time? What are we to make of these apparent inconsistencies, and what should our approach be to individual tragedy that mars public events? Meet this week’s panelists: Mark Brown, CSP Brown is a world champion speaker, an executive coach, and an artificial intelligence software advisor. Lieutenant Colonel JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as an author and TEDx speaker. Nick Sternberg is Interim CEO of Hope and Change. He is a writer, creativity consultant, and LinkedIn provocateur.

Is misrepresentation ever justified if it motivates beneficial action? Can the greater good or a higher truth provide an excuse for lying? What are the unintended consequences of the ends justifying the means? These are some of the topics addressed when the panelists grapple with the gray. This week's ethics challenge: In February, 2017, Dr. John Bates made headlines by claiming that his former boss, Thomas Karl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, had knowingly misrepresented data to influence government policy on global warming. Predictably, climate change skeptics railed against the corruption of the scientific community, while climate change advocates charged Dr. Bates with exaggerating his claims. For the sake of our discussion, let’s assume that the charges are true. If so, it’s likely that Dr. Karl was motivated by the purest intentions, that he wanted to spur action to prevent what he genuinely believed to be the devastating effects of global warming, and that he viewed the data as representing an anomaly rather than a larger global trend. Aside from the climate change debate, could it ever be justified to doctor facts or embellish the “story” told by the data to motivate public action in a way that serves the greater good? Meet this week’s panelists: Laura Elizabeth Gray is a Passionate People Connector, Columnist, Author, and Development Director of The ALS Association Northern Ohio Chapter Jonathan Ross is an executive for a defense manufacturing company, writer, and management and communications consultant as time allows. Annette Simmons is a speaker, trainer, consultant, and author of The Story Factor -- named one of the 100 Best Business Books of All Time.

Is a crime ever victimless, even where there really are no victims? If I take someone else's idea but then make it my own, how much have I actually stolen? If pursing the right course demands an act of piracy, can piracy itself be the right course? These are some of the topics addressed when this week's panel grapples with the gray. This episode's ethics challenge: In the 2019 movie “Yesterday,” struggling musician Jack Malik wakes up one morning to discover that the entire world has forgotten that the Beatles and their music ever existed. He records their classic hits as his own and becomes a sensation, but eventually he begins to question whether he is entitled to claim the music as his own. In Jane Hanff Korelitz’s novel The Plot, Jacob Bonner is teaching creative writing at a third-rate MFA program. One of his students submits a manuscript draft with the most brilliant plot Jacob has ever read. When he later learns that the student died without completing the manuscript and apparently without heirs. Jacob steals the plot, publishes the story as his own, and becomes a celebrated author. In both cases, creative works would have been lost to the world if not for the person who appropriated them. Since no one lost through their appropriation, did they do anything wrong? Meet this week’s panelists: Professor Pete Alexander is Adjunct Marketing Professor at Antioch University, as well as a professional speaker and author on reducing stress in everyday life. Rosemary Ravinal 🎤 is a public relations expert, C-Suite presentation coach. and creator of the ZoomScore™, a yardstick for measuring the essential elements of success. Kathryn Woods is a Communications expert, confidence and voice coach, speaker, and speech pathologist.