|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: September 24, 2002 Could YOU be a Police Officer? -- "So one of the things we'll look for in your Initial Recruitment Test is how carefully you can observe scenes and how accurately you can record details. " (Mac comments: I would not be involved in improving the usability of this site. Should principles and ethics play a part in usability, or am I just being silly? Where would you draw the line?)
Reader Comments...
I definitely agree that ethics should be involved in any career decision. If I had to repackage information I know to be unsavory, I'd quit. When I used to be in market research, I started at one outfit where the director actually altered a survey that was for a 40 year old male and said that it was a 19 year old female. My response was "I'm giving you notice as of today." Posted by: Lydia on September 24, 2002 07:35 AM
I don't understand, Mac - what principles and ethics do you have that would prevent you from improving the usability of a police website? I know that some police are corrupt (definitely a minority), but there are many, many more who are good people that are simply trying to earn a living. Posted by: Ryan on September 24, 2002 09:16 AM
Ryan, I have some friends who are police officers and I do not treat them badly because of that. But I know (from personal experience) the the British Police Force is a racist, oppressive, corrupt, anti-democratic organisation. Some would argue that you can only improve the situation by working with the police. I would argue that this 'reform' process does not work and any efforts that the police make to appear to be more 'ethnically aware' for example, is just part of a whitewash PR exercise. I also know (and like) people who are in the armed forces, but that doesn't mean that I would work on improving the usability of a battle command and control system. Some people might decide not to work for McDonalds for ethical reasons. Some might not work on a site for the KKK. I am interested to know how other people apply their ethical beliefs to the work they do and how this affects their choice of work. Posted by: Mac on September 24, 2002 09:30 AM
Tell me, Mac, you really think that organisations can't change? First thing I'd try to find out would be wether they are really interested in a fair process of recruitment. Why? Because oppressive organisations mostly survive due to a passive commitment of their members. A kind of silence that relies on complicities and dependances. An oppressive organisation may become even more dangerous if it's feeded by friends and relatives of other members. The more you make part of a "community" the more you have to comply with it's norms. That's why a fair recruitment process may lead to change. Independant new members may be successfully socialized or not. If not they will shake the organisation, so maybe in the medium term, PR strategies may result in unpredictable outcomes. I would help them with the website and I'm make it in a way that would call the most unexpected applicants. :) Posted by: Paulo on September 24, 2002 10:28 AM
I think survival may well determine ethics: If I were faced with the possibility of my children starving, I would be much more likely to work with/for an organization that I might otherwise shun. Given the luxury of choice, I would prefer to work with/for companies that matched my morals and ethics. Side note: Stereotyping a whole organization based on personal experience seems to me to be another form of discrimination. We tend to find what we're looking for. If you think you will find only corruption and racism, then that is what you will see. Certainly, there are corrupt and racist people, but there are also fair-minded, honest people. The trick is to work with the fair-minded, honest people to bring about change. Posted by: jan on September 24, 2002 10:43 AM
Tell me, Mac, you really think that organisations can't change? First thing I'd try to find out would be wether they are really interested in a fair process of recruitment. Why? Because oppressive organisations mostly survive due to a passive commitment of their members. A kind of silence that relies on complicities and dependances. An oppressive organisation may become even more dangerous if it's feeded by friends and relatives of other members. The more you make part of a "community" the more you have to comply with it's norms. That's why a fair recruitment process may lead to change. Independant new members may be successfully socialized or not. If not they will shake the organisation, so maybe in the medium term, PR strategies may result in unpredictable outcomes. I would help them with the website and I'm make it in a way that would call the most unexpected applicants. :) Posted by: Paulo on September 24, 2002 10:45 AM
I agree with you, Jan. We must be aware of our own prejudice. Posted by: Paulo on September 24, 2002 10:49 AM
Most reasonable people wouldn't consider making such a statement about a group of people if 'they' were black, jewish, gay, etc. Why is it acceptable to paint a group as 'all corrupt' or 'all violent' just because of their uniform, their job? We're still talking about a group of human beings, and like any group of human beings you will find a wide range of both positive and negative traits. I sincerely doubt most people would be happy if there were no police. Posted by: Deirdre on September 24, 2002 11:17 AM
Prejudice: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics I am not prejudiced and I am not talking about individuals within an organisation. Oganisations such as the police reflect the behaviour of the people who rule the society in which they operate, they are not just a random group of individuals. If I were to join the police in an attempt to change their behaviour I would soon come up against a situation where I would have to make a hard choice. For example during the miners strike a serving police officer would have to join in the politial attack on the trade union movement in a very direct way, no matter what their personal beliefs. Like it or not, the service had become embroiled in the politics of the situation. At this point a serving officer would have to decide whether to stay in the police and condone their behaviour, or to leave the force. It always comes down to these choices in the end, and pretending otherwise is just burying your head in the sand. The question I asked is Where would you draw the line?. If any company/organisation can be 'changed from within', then I should join the 'British Nationlist Party' and see if I can work with the fair-minded, honest people to bring about change. Posted by: Mac on September 24, 2002 11:37 AM
I have a problem working for any organization that, when a whistleblower calls attention to a problem, the whistleblower is punished, and the problem is covered up. That pretty much eliminates any government jobs in my future. Read the myth page. Apparently, if you can't swim, can't drive, are visually impaired, have tattoos, have a prior criminal record, and have prior debt -- you are a fine candidate to be among Britain's best and brightest. What worries me is the focus of the web site. It's stressing that the minimum requirements -- age -- fitness -- education -- height -- are easy to overcome. I'm sorry, but if someone is doubting that they could be a police officer, I don't want them being a police officer. What's a GCSES? I would feel more comfortable being approached by a cop with a college degree -- any degree -- than a cop who barely finished high school. Posted by: Jack on September 24, 2002 11:38 AM
Jack, GCSEs are the examinations sat by 16 year-olds in the UK (or most of the UK - Scotland has a different system). Typically, students will sit around 10 or 12 GCSEs, with basic subjects such as English, Maths, Science being compulsory and schools offering a host of other subjects according to their preferences. For students who aren't academically motivated or able, other examinations are available in more manual pursuits - car mechanics etc. The GCSE system covers a fairly wide range of abilities, but like you I would rather recruits to the police force had additional qualifications. The next stage of education in the UK are A Levels, which students sit at 18 before embarking on a university education (or not, in many cases). Perhaps A Levels should be the minimum requirement, although the numbers of applicants would probably be much lower. On the other hand, we might see a lower degree of institutionalised racism, which many UK police forces are accused of, and to which Mac refers. Posted by: Alan Fisher on September 24, 2002 11:59 AM
Well, Jack, I can't agree with you. First, I only doubt of an applicant that doesn't have any doubt about being a police officer. Serious and mindfull decisions frequently involve many questions. About "Prejudice" definition, well Mac, I'm sorry to tell you that you really have prejudice against an organisation and against the institutions that rule our society. Prejudice doesn't apply only to individuals as you also transcribed. Whether you discriminate or not individuals of those groups depends on whether you relate to them as individuals or members of that group. I don't have any doubt that you deal quite well with your police friends but that's only because you see them maily as persons. That's a good thing and that's how we all do. Same happens to the police officer in a strike. For him/her to follow orders is important that he/she looks at each strike participant as a member of an undiferentiated group. It would be very painfull for him/her to act if he/she sees every single participant as an individual.
Jack The ultimate irony is that most police officers end up being overweight and stuck behind a desk. So the minimum requirements, I guess, are put in place to hold back the ravages of time and duty. Posted by: JB on September 24, 2002 12:35 PM
Alan, by "sit" and "sat" do you mean "take" and/or "complete?" For example, you used the phrase "sit at 18" -- does that mean "take the exam at 18-years-of-age?" So is the GCSE system just a series of tests you can take to prove competency is a particular subject matter? Or are you required to take certain GCSE tests before you leave the educational system? I presume GCSE exams are required to attend a university. I guess my real question is, why would I take the GCSE exams? What do I get from the experience?
Change doesn't happen overnight. And it will never happen at all if someone doesn't make the effort to bring it about. Where do I draw the line? I like to be able to look at myself in the mirror without cringing (appearance notwithstanding), so I guess I'd have to say that if I were asked to do something unethical, I'd be looking for a new job. I am fortunate to be working for an ethical company, though, so that's easy for me to say. Bottom line: You'll tolerate a situation until you get too frustrated, then you'll find a way to change it or you'll move on. I guess there's usability in life, too. :) Posted by: jan on September 24, 2002 01:01 PM
Regardless of the example Mac used, the question was "would your ethics and principals determine whether you worked on a website." This is a very meaty issue and I would love to see some discussion of that rather than the example used. Could we refocus on that? (If it helps, imagine the example is a website for the KKK, an organization known to promote oppression of minority races, among other things.) I like the point Jan brought up about having to choose between letting children starve or gritting your teeth and carrying on. That's a really hard one. It's easy for me to say "I'd quit" because I don't have children to be responsible for, but what would I do if I did and there were no options? I guess then it probably would depend on the severity. For example, I might work for McDonalds, but I would NOT work for the KKK. That would be unconscionable and I couldn't look my family in the face if I did it. Posted by: Lydia on September 24, 2002 07:58 PM
I believe that design can be a powerful force, for scultping people's conscious and unconscious reactions to products, ideas, and even organisations. When this is done to "tart up" an unsavoury product or organisation, it is of dubious value: "See these new cigarettes? They're cooler! Checked out the new Police Force? It's less prejudiced and more helpful!" But in this instance, design is not being used to add a sheen to the current problems of the Police Force. Rather, the project is to encourage recruitment into the police force. In doing so, there is the potential to effect change on the demographic/psychographic composition of the Police Force itself. On another note, I fail to understand the point Jack's making about non-swimming, tattooed, short-sighted candidates with a couple of juvenile misdemeanours under their belts? Why shouldn't such people be hired? Ultimately, you just want people that aren't thugs or fascists. And a nice bit of pink typography will drive them away more effectively than anything else I can think of...
I can see where you would not want to do work encouraging people to join the KKK, for example, because you would presumable believe that nobody joining the KKK is an excellent thing. However, the police service will probably remain necessary in our forms of society for the forseeable future. So do you then work to get the right people into the organisation instead? Interesting... Posted by: Mathew on September 24, 2002 10:47 PM
Jack, Yes, your interpretation is correct. Sixteen year-olds take the GCSE exams, and must pass them (or at least, a certain number of them) if they want to progress to take the A Levels at 18. The exams are graded A to F, with A to C being pass marks. Similarly, universities will require an applicant for a place on a course to have a minimum number of A level passes in 3 or 4 subjects relevant to the course they want to attend. Actually, 'exams' is a bit misleading. Both GCSE and A Levels have a fair amount of course work which counts towards the final mark, with the exam at the end of the process typically only accounting for 50 to 60 percent of the total. Posted by: Alan Fisher on September 25, 2002 04:57 AM
So perhaps the question is not whether you would work for an organization that seems morally corrupt, but whether you would work for an organization that seems morally corrupt, but which has the potential to change for the better. On that premise, it would seem pointless to me to work for the KKK as that organization's mission is unlikely to change. But you could effect change by working for the police force & helping to get people hired into key positions. Maybe the HR person who sorts the applications is actually the most powerful person in the organization, particularly if employees can rise through the ranks to positions of prominence. Posted by: jan on September 25, 2002 11:03 AM
That same logic can (and should) be applied to any organization with which you might plan to work. My company has many serious process problems, but I am hoping that I can help improve them. Posted by: boysen on September 25, 2002 03:42 PM
I think you have to balance your personal opinions off against the potential benefit society might accrue from the work. So, I wouldn't work for a tobacco company - society would be better off without their products. I don't think I'd work for defence contractors or arms manufacturers either, although the world probably does need them, because of the needless arms sales to 3rd world countries. Also a no-no would be any political organisation whose values I disagree with, for example the Conservative party. BUT, I've worked for companies who make contributions to Conservative party funds, and felt uncomfortable about it. Am I a hypocrite? I'd work for the police, though. We need them, even though they are often prejudiced and racist. I might be outraged by incidents like the Birmingham 6 (Irishmen who were framed by the UK police for terrorist offences and spent the best part of 20 years in prison), but I'd be outraged if they weren't there as well. Posted by: Alan Fisher on September 26, 2002 07:32 AM
Great topic... Unfortunately ethical decisions aren't usually easy to see as black and white. Ethics Quiz: - Would you take on a web project for the KKK and then purposely do bad work for them and sabotage their strategy and goals (e.g. build a bad UI/design, make bad recommendations on content, etc.)? - Would you work on a project for a charity that did great things for sick children but wasted money and resources? - Would you work for an organization trying to eliminate a 'corrupt' police force if a result was less protection from criminals? - Have you ever given less than 110% effort or done less than your best work on a project? Isn't that unethical? Are you truthful in proposals and clearly communicate that you will deliver less than your best effort? If so, isn't that unethical? When you look at organizations, the 'ethics' can get a bit messy. In the end I think you have to hold true to your own values and character - refuse or quit work that is incongruent with your core principals. If someone is a bigot and does work for the KKK does that mean they are unethical? In my book, they are being consistent with their own ethics. I would disagree with their ethical position, but at least they are being consistent with their values. In some countries, bribes are a common and accepted practice in business circles - I don't agree with taking bribes to gain business. If I work in a country whose culture says bribery and kickbacks are legal and okay, should I take bribes? Personally, I don't think so. I don't think my values should change based on geography. Would you quit your job if:
Know and stay true to your core values. Focus on the things you have control over or can directly impact. Your values should drive your decisions, and in the end your decisions reveal your values. Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on September 27, 2002 02:36 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |