Applying the Golden Rule to Complex Business Decisions

The Power of Data

Prompt:

In the TED Talk linked in this lesson, Horowitz asked what we should do about the power we have, thanks to the data we can access. Specifically, he asked: “So, what should we be doing with that guy's data? Should we be collecting it, gathering it, so we can make his online experience better? So we can make money? So we can protect ourselves if he was up to no good? Or should we respect his privacy, protect his dignity, and leave him alone? Which one is it? How should we figure it out?”

In a discussion post, describe how you would answer these questions. What framework discussed in this lesson guided your decision-making? Refer back to the bottom of p. 73 and the top of p. 74 in Whetten and Cameron (2016). Which of the strategies for decision-making did you use? Which framework does it align with? Why?

Response:

During an era when the stigma of shame seems to have diminished in severity, it is reasonable to suggest that some decision-making strategies, such as the front-page test or good night’s sleep test are no longer relevant or appropriate. Indeed, growing numbers of public and private sector leaders seem to relish in breaking the rules in an effort to garner headlines and publicity even if it is negative. Absent a sense of shame or moral framework, these leaders likely sleep well at night despite the harm they are doing to others.

Nevertheless, these tests and the others listed all provide decision-makers who are interested in formulating appropriate decisions with some indication concerning the morality of their actions. Clearly, identifying the optimal decision-making strategy for determining how personal data should be used, though, is an enormously complex enterprise that would seem to defy an easy answer. It turns out that this is not necessarily the case when it comes to collecting, analyzing and using other people’s data. In fact, one test in particular stands out above the rest as a proof-positive way to gauge the morality of any type of decision that affects other people and that is the golden rule test: “Would I be willing to be treated in the same manner?” (Whetten & Cameron, 2016, p. 73). In most cases, the golden rule would “respect his privacy, protect his dignity, and leave him alone.”

In fact, the golden rule appears in some form in nearly every culture and religion worldwide and appears to be the “gut reaction” moral framework that is used by many people already. The golden rule would suggest that companies and organizations should only collect, use, and retain personal data in ways that they would be comfortable having done to themselves. This ethical guideline discourages excessive, non-consensual surveillance and data mining that infringes on privacy and autonomy. Instead, the use of the golden rule as a moral framework serves to promote transparent data policies, reasonable data security, and ethical usage that respects human dignity. Unfortunately, it is also reasonable to suggest that the golden rule is only the optimal decision-making strategy when everyone else plays by the same rules, but this harsh reality should not discourage practitioners from developing and applying this moral framework to their decision making since there will always be nefarious actors who seek to gain an unfair advantage regardless of the immorality that is involved.