Comments on: Do the Ends Justify the Means? http://www.jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2007/09/do-the-ends-justify-the-means.html Management, especially good management, is hard to do. This blog is for people who want to think about how they manage people, projects, and risk. Fri, 18 May 2012 15:02:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Chris Morris http://www.jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2007/09/do-the-ends-justify-the-means.html/comment-page-1#comment-891 Chris Morris Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:42:20 +0000 http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/?p=7948#comment-891 What is the "end" here? Are you in a transaction where only this project matters to you, or are you in an ongoing relationship with this management? If you are in a job where you are required to deliver, but given constraints that make it impossible, and you don't think you can ever change that, then it's time to move on. Ethics isn't a set of rules that ties one hand behing your back; it is a reminder to remember the context. What is the “end” here? Are you in a transaction where only this project matters to you, or are you in an ongoing relationship with this management?

If you are in a job where you are required to deliver, but given constraints that make it impossible, and you don’t think you can ever change that, then it’s time to move on.

Ethics isn’t a set of rules that ties one hand behing your back; it is a reminder to remember the context.

]]> By: Kent Schnaith http://www.jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2007/09/do-the-ends-justify-the-means.html/comment-page-1#comment-595 Kent Schnaith Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:42:36 +0000 http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/?p=7948#comment-595 The end does not justify the means. Consider the mess in Iraq. “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?” -- Robert Fulghum The end does not justify the means.
Consider the mess in Iraq.
“What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?” — Robert Fulghum

]]> By: Michael Arnoldus http://www.jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2007/09/do-the-ends-justify-the-means.html/comment-page-1#comment-594 Michael Arnoldus Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:13:56 +0000 http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/?p=7948#comment-594 I think you have answered the question yourself. Integrity. If you look inside yourself you know. For me, when I'm in doubt I create a fantasy situation where I'm confronted by someone with everything I have done. Then I ask myself: Can I still stand by what I have done and take responsibility for every decision I have made, every action I have done? In me, I know at once. There is no doubt! Debating on the merits of who's harmed or thinking your know your boss or the organizations higher values can just as easily be used for doing something that's ok as for something that is not ok. Ultimately you take responsibility for your actions by knowing why you do this. Trying to use rules is just a way to not take personal responsibility (that is response-ability). You know if you do it beacuse it's easy and let you of some hook. Or if you do it because you truly believe you will help you manager/company even though they don't understand what you are doing. Maybe you are doing it because you want to take the easy road in this case so you can retain sufficient energy to take the difficult road in another much more important case. You know if it's ok for you to actually lie or not. In ethics there are no rules. But you know. Integrity!!! I think you have answered the question yourself. Integrity. If you look inside yourself you know.
For me, when I’m in doubt I create a fantasy situation where I’m confronted by someone with everything I have done. Then I ask myself: Can I still stand by what I have done and take responsibility for every decision I have made, every action I have done? In me, I know at once. There is no doubt!
Debating on the merits of who’s harmed or thinking your know your boss or the organizations higher values can just as easily be used for doing something that’s ok as for something that is not ok. Ultimately you take responsibility for your actions by knowing why you do this. Trying to use rules is just a way to not take personal responsibility (that is response-ability).
You know if you do it beacuse it’s easy and let you of some hook. Or if you do it because you truly believe you will help you manager/company even though they don’t understand what you are doing. Maybe you are doing it because you want to take the easy road in this case so you can retain sufficient energy to take the difficult road in another much more important case.
You know if it’s ok for you to actually lie or not.
In ethics there are no rules. But you know.
Integrity!!!

]]> By: Phil Haack http://www.jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2007/09/do-the-ends-justify-the-means.html/comment-page-1#comment-593 Phil Haack Tue, 18 Sep 2007 01:24:21 +0000 http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/?p=7948#comment-593 I think these situations beg the question, "Who is harmed?". In the Belichik case, the other team is potentially harmed. He's cheating in a competition that's a zero sum game. In your management scenario, if the desired results are produced, who is harmed? The situation in this case is that management ultimately *is* only concerned with results. Ultimately they don't care how they were achieved (assuming ethics and legal rules were not broken). However, they mistakenly believe that the serial approach will get them the results, so they impose that order. Ultimately, I think after a few wins, it is time to come clean so that "educating up" occurs. I think these situations beg the question, “Who is harmed?”.
In the Belichik case, the other team is potentially harmed. He’s cheating in a competition that’s a zero sum game.
In your management scenario, if the desired results are produced, who is harmed?
The situation in this case is that management ultimately *is* only concerned with results. Ultimately they don’t care how they were achieved (assuming ethics and legal rules were not broken).
However, they mistakenly believe that the serial approach will get them the results, so they impose that order.
Ultimately, I think after a few wins, it is time to come clean so that “educating up” occurs.

]]> By: David Christiansen http://www.jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2007/09/do-the-ends-justify-the-means.html/comment-page-1#comment-592 David Christiansen Tue, 18 Sep 2007 01:23:17 +0000 http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/?p=7948#comment-592 The answer: it depends. There are degrees of wrongness, and there is also the question of intent. Disregarding certain rules in order to make a project successful isn't "cheating" in the same way taping signals of the other team is. Here's how I break it down: Belichick's actions were not consistent with the overall objectives of the NFL - to place both teams on an equal footing and to promote football as a sport. Belichick's actions were damaging to both. Delivering projects successfully is in the best interest of the company, and is consistent with the "higher" objectives of the organization. Breaking rules in a way that doesn't violate the overall objectives of the group isn't the same. Also, football is an inherently different situation - it's a game. Games without rules are not fun, nor are they competitive. Therefore, adherence to the rules is considerably more important. There are no competitive games, including sports competitions, without rules. Project management does not depend on the existence of rules the way sports do. "Rules" in project management are simply expressions of someone's theory/bias regarding how a project should be run. Rules don't create or sustain project management, they way they create or sustain games. So, long story short - I think you're okay. Project managers are expected to deliver projects no matter what, sometimes even in spite of the organizations they deliver them for. The answer: it depends.
There are degrees of wrongness, and there is also the question of intent. Disregarding certain rules in order to make a project successful isn’t “cheating” in the same way taping signals of the other team is. Here’s how I break it down:
Belichick’s actions were not consistent with the overall objectives of the NFL – to place both teams on an equal footing and to promote football as a sport. Belichick’s actions were damaging to both.
Delivering projects successfully is in the best interest of the company, and is consistent with the “higher” objectives of the organization. Breaking rules in a way that doesn’t violate the overall objectives of the group isn’t the same.
Also, football is an inherently different situation – it’s a game. Games without rules are not fun, nor are they competitive. Therefore, adherence to the rules is considerably more important. There are no competitive games, including sports competitions, without rules.
Project management does not depend on the existence of rules the way sports do. “Rules” in project management are simply expressions of someone’s theory/bias regarding how a project should be run. Rules don’t create or sustain project management, they way they create or sustain games.
So, long story short – I think you’re okay. Project managers are expected to deliver projects no matter what, sometimes even in spite of the organizations they deliver them for.

]]>