Ethics Bistro

“Hey Peter, here’s my submission. Apologies for the delay but had to do some research to get the algorithms working the right way”. Maya rushed into Peter’s cabin.

“Thanks. What took you so long?” Peter wanted to know.

“Oh! I needed time to check on the output. That took some time. The logic behind these algorithms was present on a website and I used that material” Maya continued.

Peter was a new project manager to the organization and had been recently deputed to a project related to Innovation in the information technology domain. He was a product of an elite business school and was chosen for this project for his innovative ideation and a drive to succeed.

Peter knew this work wasn’t Maya’s original work and it needed to be called out by providing an appropriate citation.  However Peter also knew if she did that, his project would not be considered for Innovation and that he and his team would lose out on the award.

“Well we need to make the appropriate attributions to the original document that had the logic. That would be an appropriate next step” Maya wanted to check with Peter.

“I guess so but the process of deriving output is your work and so I don’t think we need to call an attribution separately.  I have noted that the so called “original” works that are out there are actually ideas from other sources. I guess it is fine to be “inspired” by such ideas as there is always someone who would have said it before you do. I would focus on our part of the work and in this case our original work is in processing the output or the effort that has gone in deriving the research outcome. Your part of the activity is quite complex and important for the eventual objective of our project” – Peter.

“Well I don’t agree with you. After all the output is the function of the original algorithms and those are not my original scripts” Maya continued to debate.

“Well, I guess I differ with your thought. Also remember that if we do so we are likely to be disqualified and will probably be out of the Innovation contest. Do you really believe that all original work out there is truly "original"? Well we are inspired by someone's ideas and that fuels the creativity in us. Well, give it a thought and let me know what you think” – Peter seemed disappointed.

Given the easy availability of information on internet for most of the research papers today, these instances are not uncommon. This dilemma cuts across domains. It’s a belief that the scope for original thinking has reduced and that most of the works are a “copy-paste” or a derivation of someone’s original work. Blatant copying of original works and passing it off without an appropriate attribution is a common complaint. Resorting to these tricks is perceived as means for a quick success. The publishing community is quite aware of this and has set appropriate check points (created software applications for plagiarism check) to flag such instances.

What can be done in such situations? How do we drive inspiration to write original articles? How can project managers work towards an appropriate balance of creativity and derivation? Applying originality of thoughts with the right attributions builds on the credibility of the author and ensures their authenticity and appropriate processing of guidelines.

Your thoughts on this ethical dilemma are welcome….

Disclaimer: all characters, names and incidents in this story are fictional. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.

Have you ever had an ah-ha moment because of something that just happens to you?

As I sat at my desk preparing for a Skype call with a colleague from across the globe,  I watched the sun rise as it kissed and glistened the morning dew.  While sitting in front of a pair of windows, I noticed the one on my right had taken on cloudiness in the glass, and the window on the left is perfectly clear. And yes, the azaleas are still blooming, and the mock cherry is starting to light up!

Since I sit right in the middle, and with a slight turn of my head I could go from a crispy clear view to a not so clear view. 

As the phone rang, a multitude of thoughts were racing through  my head, including several  quotes, “if you change the way you look at things the things you look at change!” – Wayne Dyer.

“Good leadership requires the ability to imagine life through another’s eyes”- Seth Godin.

And then I checked on a definition of Empathy- “Being able to appreciate and experience emotion from another person’s perspective.”

This led me to think about the many ways we view the world, and how often we have differing interpretations or views of the same idea or situation, whether it be a problem, an opportunity or a solution.  We tend to view the world and our impact through our own lenses.  I wondered how much we could benefit and learn from other perspectives  and how my   friend was seeing the world today.  

So, I asked…., and here is a small portion of our conversation. 

Although we did not achieve the intended purpose of our call, what we did accomplish by better understanding each other and growing our relationship was much more valuable.   

While this happened by accident, we imagined how many of our  relationships that would  benefit from having more of these types of conversations, intentionally! 

We discussed the critical importance of clarity.  What is crystal  clear to one person may not be so clear to the next person.  And within that difference, with its presence or absence, therein lies the opportunity for conflict, creativity, and growth.  And among other things, also the breakdown or building of Trust!

What is the difference between those two outcomes?

If we can so easily  become  vulnerable to see things differently, how often do we  understand the things we hear differently from intended?   Or how often do  two or more of us  hear   the same things, and walk away with a different understanding of what was said?

How often do we take the time to look at things through the other person’s lenses, and make a sincere effort to try and understand what, why or how they see things? 

Empathy is a leadership competency.  Practice putting yourself in the other persons shoes, see it and hear it from where they stand, and see if you can find a common ground to build on.

Discovering clarity on our different perspectives increases our understanding, capacity and ability to find the best solutions and outcomes for whatever we are trying to do.

If you think that is important, how might we make achieving clarity a shared responsibility?

Please join our conversation, we welcome your perspective. Where do you stand on this?

If yes, then what other values or attributes should we include when exercising this responsibility?

Recent articles and discussion questions on pm.com were about lying and cheating and the difficulty in talking about ethical issues.  Research indicates there is an increase in unethical conduct and a decline in the reporting of it. The evidence indicates there is a correlation to an absence of speaking up.
Speaking up goes beyond ethics.
Would you agree this could include but is not limited to things that need to be said to stakeholders about your projects and with your relationships, personally and professionally?
Another source  indicates there is an increase in complaints over ethical issues which are not based on unethical conduct. There often seems to be a rush to a misguided judgement and action taken on perceived ethical infractions, when it may be a personal issue, a disagreement over a decision, or a simple misunderstanding, only to mention a few of the possible reasons.

Have you ever had a colleague or friend, speak up in detail with you regarding an ongoing problem they are having, only to learn they have not shared any portion of their concerns with the people involved or the source of the dilemma?

There are at least two sides of seeing something and saying something.
If you see something good, how often do you show your appreciation and gratitude?
If you see something that gives you concerns, how do you validate your observation?
Do you become curious of one’s intent or possible consequences before you speak?
How well are you listening? Does it give you an awareness of when to speak or when not to speak?
What is your listening style, apathetic, empathic, sympathetic, or pathetic?

Speaking up is not just telling, it could be asking and perhaps that is the better way through respectful questioning and curiosity. It can provide you clarity and a better understanding. It helps to acknowledge what is known and identify what may be missing.
Are you sparking the fire of fury or creativity?

Speaking up is not just saying something. Do you really make your words count?
Do you think complaining or criticizing without data is whining?
When is the point it becomes important enough for you to say something?
Does it have to threaten one’s wellbeing or safety, your values or your principles?
Why and when do we speak up, and why and when don’t we?
When does this happen to you?
What is your level of intolerance?
What is your tolerance of silence?
Understanding that in certain cultures, it is disrespectful to speak up. What examples or recommendations do you have for this situation?

If you don’t think it is your responsibility to speak up, who should?

If you do think speaking up is your responsibility, speak up, speak out, and speak well!
Pick the right time, the right reason and do it with fairness, honesty, and respect!

Is there anything you want to say!?!