India Hospital Fire

http://news.yahoo.com/fire-indian-hospital-kills-89-staff-flees-150911718.html

So, for my last ethics article I noticed this terrible failure in ethical standards in the news today. Essentially what happened was that the hospital was not up to code, did not have adequate fire extinguishers, was not accessible to fire trucks. This is bad enough when a fire breaks out and there are many issues with the ethics of the hospital administrators for that (even though it is the social norm.) Beyond that is the issue of what happened at the actual fire.

According to the news, hospital administrators were the first to get out of the building when the fire happened. They did not even attempt to help those who were sick. Nurses and doctors left too. A few patients were helped, but according to the release nearly 90 died because they couldn't get out of the smoke. Many of them were in the hospital for minor issues, including one with an infection and another with only a sprained ankle.

I can totally imagine the script that ran through the admins heads. Alarm goes off, leave the building. Its probably not that big of a fire, maybe its just a drill right? I can see that none of the other hospitals had their buildings up to code either, this particular hospital was said to be one of the better ones.

But I can't see myself ever just leaving someone helpless in a burning building to die when I could get in there after them. I don't think the security guards could have stopped me either.

Read two articles today.
The first is a gross story about the Air Force dumping soldiers bodies in a landfill. The soldiers families had given permission to properly dispose of the bodies, but still! It seems that respect for the human body-even if its not someone you know, or if you are given permission, and no one will be watching, is still important.

The other article is about the ethical basis of using drone planes in the military. They seem like a great idea to me, but it does suck for the enemy to not be able to fight a real person. I am sure there will be a number of issues brought up due to the lack of actual fighting that will happen because of this.

Code Breakers

Here are the Ethics concepts that I pulled from the movie Code Breakers. The movie was based on a cheating scandal within the West Point Academy, where values are upheld to a high level. The ones who were cheating were trying to justify their actions because of keeping true to thier friends within the ring, but were not being true to their inner values.

Do I tell on my friends?
We are instructing officers, who will our men follow into battle, a liar and a cheat?
Is it ok to go undercover? to shake hands on things? to give people your trust, just so you can turn them in?
i can lie to myself, i just cant lie to an officer who asks a direct question
Mark for life-less than honorable discharge
did it to keep the team together-did it for the coach-thought he wanted it that way
Threats--what does that help? he's not going to change his story
Throw away 4 years of hard work? your life?
using values of an officer to justify why they have to lie
whistle blowers thanks is that no one will talk to you, threats, etc.
Will not betray my friends--that is the only honorable thing to do
Did the coaches or department have anything to do with it?
Now that you know everything, do you think we should have told the truth?
Are they really men of Character? coach says no honorable discharge, and no right to brand them as criminals

Tennessee family home burns as firefighters watch

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html

The story here is that this rural, poor, Tennessee family had not paid their annual dues of $75 to the local fire department--essentially an insurance policy--so the firemen came, but did not put out the fire.

The fire chief defended their acts because a) no one was hurt and b) they cant get to every fire of every person due to the cost, so they can only put out the fires for people who pay their annual dues.

Apparently this has happened before in this county, just last year in fact.

For them to say they can't get to everyone's home unless they pay their dues doesn't take away the fact that they were there, and did nothing. I can't see how the greater good is being served here, or how the government can insist on everyone having an insurance policy. Without diving deeper, I don't think the firefighters actions were justified.

Integrity

Elder Tad R. Callister- President of the Seventy
Devotional

Is your integrity worth a dime? Everyone has a price.
Thomas Moore didn't have a price for his integrity. He didn't give in for any price--even his life
You can't move forward with your Christlike intentions without first fixing your integrity
Settle with an employee you are firing. Not enough to be fair, need to be Christlike
Integrity is not a temporary change of behavior, but a permanent change in nature
Disclose the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The lord can't tolerate a deceitful heart
Are there loopholes in our word?
Not governed by the presence of others
Reward for integrity: Accepted by the Lord

Ms. Evers' Boys

These are all the ethical dilemma concepts I noticed during the movie Miss Evers' Boys. I can really see why she did what she did, but it seems she could have done more by bringing up the study to the media. I'm sure that she didn't trust the media, or the government, to help her in this situation though--she really didn't have any sort of outlet to tell.

Money for staff or for medicine.
in order to have the same study they cant treat the patients
make medical history
money for treatment
help people understand that black people's bodies react the same as white peoples
need a pure result
patients come before anyone else
do no harm
wipe out centurys of ignorance that disease based on race
tuskeegee medical research center
show what medical black people can do
out of medicine anyway
patients cant get treatment for the study to continue
study will bring them money for treatment in 6months to a year
patients will feel better while they are alive, but are more likely to die
spinal tap required to check for neurological disease
renaming things like spinal taps as back shots
Penicillin came out, but didn't go to Syphilis patients
Science is a hard task masker
chance at history
making change
showing once and for all using science that black and white people are the same
is it ok for her to test the penicillin on her patient without doctors orders?
men died, but would have died anyway...right?


Miss Evers'
Do you think you know better than doctors?
worse things that cleaning toilets--is this her burden to bear?
do what the lord gives us to do
Couldn't leave all her friends or leave town
counted on for the good ideas
If you care about someone you dont lie to them
"I hope what your getting is better than what you're giving up"

China Basketball

Related Article Here

The papers are reporting that NBA players who signed with teams in China due to the lockout are regretting it. The lockout is over in the states, so these players now want to come back to their big salaries. The problem is they signed contracts that said they would stay in China and play out the season. Additionally, the Chinese teams are required to forfeit their season if any of their players leave and play in the NBA. The Chinese would have to sign a documenting allowing them to return to the states and play, which they are not going to do. Essentially they are being held to their contract.

The question is why are they trying so hard to get out of these contracts? There are reports of faked injuries, missing practice, and generally being difficult, from players trying to get out, but ethically, these guys have a responsibility to fulfill their contract. Why can't these guys just suck it up and play out their contract and then go back to the states next year. Seriously, their being babies.

Housing dilemma

We have been shopping for apartments recently and came across a place we thought was perfect for us. We had done a lot of shopping and knew when we saw this place it was what we wanted. The only problem was the renter had set up a system where potential tenants give them $300 as an "earnest" payment. Essentially what this means is that your place in line is saved. The first person to pay the earnest has 72hrs from the time they pay it to say they don't want the place. If they don't want it the next in line gets the opportunity, and so forth. We were second in line. First in line was an extremely young couple (according to the renters) who definitely didn't need a spare room and probably didn't understand that this place should be out of their price range. Needless to say, the renters preferred us over them, but unfortunately had already made the "earnest" deal with the other couple. They also thought this other couple wouldn't actually come through and take the place.

We couldn't help but think of all the reasons we should get the place over the other couple. As we waited the 72hrs we tried to come up with all sorts of creative ways the renters could get around the promise they had made. It seemed to be in everyone's best interest to tell the first couple no and tell us yes, and don't they have the right to rent to whoever they want to rent to?

The couple did end up taking the place, the renters felt bad dragging us along all week, and we had to start over on our housing search. I'm sure everything will work out fine with those renters, but it sure seemed like there could have been a different result. Utilitarianism would have benefited us with the apartment, I'm sure.

We ended up signing on a new place the very next day. It is much nicer and cheaper, and is furnished as well. We feel like we ended up with a much better deal over all.

The situation with this apartment was similar to the first, were the renter had already had a few people see the place and like it. They had told us and two couples before us that whoever could get back with a deposit would be able to rent the apartment. This seemed a little better than the "earnest" situation, but because we only wanted to stay until April, it still caused some drama.

We had told the lady we would go right home and get the deposit immediately. As we drove, the renter called the other couples and told them we were going to take the apartment. She said she offered it to one of the other couples since they had been there first, and were wanting a place for a year, but they said they would keep looking. They said they almost called us and told us they didn't want to just rent it for one semester, but decided at the last minute to let us. I felt like she had given us her word, but we still were nervous for the whole ride home and back that she would call.

Now we have signed a contract, so I don't think they can back out if they wanted to. I think we ended up with the best situation overall.

Home Depot

Because of class I have been over aware of ethical situation that occur to me. This one was actually pretty obvious, so I am glad I did the right thing.

The other day my wife and I were at home depot. We were getting some Oak for an art project she needed to do. When we checked out the cashier was not able to scan the item, so she typed in the code. It turned out she typed the wrong code, and charged us $11 when we expected $24. I probably wouldn't have even noticed, but we had to wait for them to bring us a roll of quarters. As we stood their we looked over the receipt and noticed the error. It took nearly half an hour to get everything sorted out, all the while I'm asking myself why I have to pay for this, its not my fault she rang me up wrong. After customer service fixed the issue we were on our way, but I was able to have a clear conscience at least for the ride home.

The Smartest Guys in the Room

This is actually the second time I have watched this movie. I caught most of it the first time on CNBC one afternoon when I was sick. I thought I needed to watch it because I had heard a lot about it, but didn't know any of the details. As I am shifting into this business career I feel like I have a lot of catching up to do.

The biggest thing that stood out to me in this movie was the accounting principle they were able to get legalized. It basically said that you could count any money that is certain to be coming to you right when you sign the deal. It is as if you sell your car to your neighbor on Monday, but he doesn't get you the money until the next week. You trust your neighbor, so you go out and buy a new car with the money your neighbor is planning to give you. This principle is all good until the neighbor doesn't actually pay you. Then you are stuck with a new car payment and less money than you originally had.

Essentially this is the permission that was granted to Enron by the SEC. This allowed them to build a new factory and count all the money that they planned to make off it as earnings in the first year. When they didn't make what they expected they had to do it again in order to make up the money they told people they had. Every quarter after that they had to "expect" a little bit more money to cover the losses of the month plus some in order to get their stock to increase. Eventually this had to crumble.

I thought about this and realized that I had been in a similar (although not so large) situation last year. I was working on my research for my masters thesis and was supposed to talk to my professor once a week to just catch him up on what I had done. Some weeks were great, and we had a lot to talk about. The numbers in the following scenario are created to describe the situation, but are totally fictional. I dont remember exactly how the weeks passed.

Others were poor due to many responsibilities taking me away from my research. These weeks I thought to myself that I would just do a little extra work next week and skip my appointment until then. My goal was 10 hours a week of work, so I would just have to do 20 hours the next week. Well, at the end of week two my situation was predictable. I had logged about 5 hours of work at best. At that point I could admit my defeat and visit my professor, or...

Week three came to a close and I had done probably 10 of the 30 hours I was expected to have done. Surely I could come up with one big win and have it look like I had accomplished those 30 hours, right? I didn't have a choice not to.

Week four and five came and went. There were no big wins. Eventually I had to admit my defeat and talk to my professor. He was fortunately very forgiving, and we got back on track. I found that the key was to visit weekly even if there was nothing to report. It is amazing how quickly you can get behind, and there are no big wins that will get you out of it. I wasn't gambling with money, but clearly I was gambling on my time. Time has a funny way of not being any more available one day to the next, and I learned that it doesn't just appear when you need it.

Should Paterno be morally obligated to alert the police?

An article came out today about Joe Paterno’s release as head coach of Penn State. He was the winningest coach in college football and had been at penn state for 46 years. 

Why would Paterno have a moral obligation? He did what he was supposed to—he alerted his superiors. I would think that if he found out about it a second time he would have this moral obligation, but  this first time he had every reason to trust that his superiors would do what is right and alert the police. I don't think he should have been fired.

Ethical Dilemma Paper

We were given the opportunity to write about an ethical dilemma that had happened to us that we could discuss as a class. I wrote about a time I was approached twice by the same beggar:

Ethical Dilemma

Dan Miller

Section 2

            After approaching you begging for money once, the same woman is now returning, hand outstretched, asking for “just 2 or 3 dollars” in order to buy some food. You can see she is in need, and remember the command that we feed the hungry, that we are all beggars.

            Just returning from my last big vacation before I headed out from my mission I ran into a similar situation. Full of “greenie” fire, I was travelling home to Washington DC from New York City. The trip was a quick one, just a weekend, but included visiting my friends ward for church on Sunday and hearing the announcement of the Manhattan temple, a huge blessing for the members in the area.

            I had taken the cheapest form of transportation available to me, the greyhound bus. Besides having a low fare, this mode of transportation allowed me time to think about my upcoming assignment to the Colorado Springs mission. Both directions gave me the opportunity to discuss my feelings toward the gospel with fellow passengers. On the first leg I read through the first discussion with the person sitting next to me, and on the Sunday return a neighboring lady asked if I was a Mormon, basing her comment on the tie I was wearing and the Sprite in my hand (apparently only Mormons drink Sprite.)

            This bus ride also gave me the opportunity to study. I specifically read through King Benjamin’s address in Mosiah, paying special attention to the direction he gives concerning those we describe as beggars:

16 Ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

 17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

 18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this, the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

 19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have?

--Mosiah 4:16-19

            As I stepped off the bus at our destination, those verses still visible in my mind, a beggar woman approached me, hand outstretched, asking for “2 or 3 dollars” so she could buy some food.

            Clearly, King Benjamin’s lesson was standing right there in front of me. This was not even a choice. I pulled out my wallet and handed the lady a few dollars, to the disgust of everyone watching. Smiling I sat down on my bag and waited for my ride.

            Then, after waiting for half an hour for my ride, this same woman approaches. I’m sure she didn’t recognize me, because again, her hand was outstretched, and again the same request came: “2 or 3 dollars” so she could buy some food. Clearly this woman had “brought this misery upon herself,” right? Can’t I just ignore her like everyone else at the bus stop? What would you do?

Christian Morals

Recently I read an article on CNN.com about the reasons people can't wait to have sex until they are married. I found the thought process was dissonant to my moral compass, but you can read the article here and see for yourself:

Link: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/why-young-christians-arent-waiting-anymore/

 

I only have a few thoughts about this. Basically, what does the time exposed to temptation have to do with how ok it is to fall into its trap? Isn’t right right, and wrong wrong? Aren’t our ethics based on something that is greater than time? I think that they are. I feel that there is not an ever growing need to stop trying, as this writer suggests, but to try harder to instill in our children and our selves a sense of the weight our morals carry, that they are not something that can be disregarded because it’s hard, or we have been trying for a long time, so now we can give in.

Ethics Journal

For the next few posts I will be writing as part of my ethics journal. We are required to consider ethical situations and write about them outside of class.

I really like this class so far. It is nice to be in a class where everyone is on an equal playing field it seems. Ethical dilemmas seem to be constant and all around us, but the key is to recognize them when they come so that we can effectively and purposefully deal with them. Anyway, don't judge me for my thoughts. If you disagree feel free to tell me.

Competitive Strategy: tech life cycle by social status summary

This chart summarizes the last chapter I read in the book Inside the Tornado by Geoffrey Moore. It goes through the competitive advantage strategy each segment should follow within the parts of the technology life cycle I talked about earlier.

Social Media Response

So, a while back I posted on social media's interactions with the pragmatists. Unfortunately I had to repost to get the comments feature to work. In the meantime my friend Austin posted his comment to my thoughts on his blog. I wanted to keep this conversation going here on my blog, hence this post:

Austin,

What I’m hearing is that innovation will keep growing, which we all know to be true, so pragmatists just need to suck it up and get with the program. That is also true, although it doesn’t respond to my initial point.

Pragmatists are by nature risk averse. They can’t afford the risk because it will hurt them, their career, or their company. Because of this they will not pick up a product unless they are confident it will fit their needs. They also won’t use a tool unless they are certain it will make them money. (I put a bit at the end about uncertainty) Currently, that concern is not yet resolved. This is what is required as a whole product.

It turns out that pragmatists are also the majority of the money in the world, working in the biggest companies, making the biggest decisions (hence the need for certainty).

I understand that innovation will keep going. It’s an engine that clearly will never stop, especially in the realm of social media. But I also know there is another force keeping acceptance low. My point was that social media has not reached the point yet where large companies and pragmatists in general are willing to take the risk to spend their resources on it yet. They won’t be able to make that move until they see something they are confident in, i.e. a whole product.

My point is that social media has not, as a whole, reached the point yet where they can guarantee a solution-even though some features may have (i.e. facebook for social applications, etc.) Once they can guarantee a solution to a problem we face that has commercial value, then, and only then, will the bulk of the decision makers in the business world get on board with it. Currently the only thing social media can guarantee is that you can get attention through it. We also know that sometimes that attention can be monetized, but as anyone in the social media world knows, you can’t bet on a viral video. In the same way we have no way of guaranteeing that a company will get a paycheck if they use social media. No one has consistently proven it, although I am certain they will in the very near future.

I am not saying any specific tool has to be proven. We know that Twitter works; we even know mostly how it works, and that it has potential. We know how Facebook can be used to drive awareness and can even house some businesses. We know that Youtube has been a successful tool to building revenue. Each of those tools a pragmatist is likely to pick up for its specific purpose. But where is the path to success? We have a ton of empirical data, but few models, proofs, or methods, and the data we do have is somewhat inconclusive. Clearly nothing has been proven yet. We clearly aren’t using social media to its full potential.

Let me get one thing clear. It isn’t that I won’t use social media. I’m not holding out, and I certainly will apply it to uses as I see fit, but we have not gotten to the point where we can use it as a guaranteed money maker...yet.

Once it is proven out, once we have a process that we can rely on for success, then the bulk of the market will follow. I love what you said about Apple, it is right on point. The reason Apple does so well is because it gives out whole products—exactly what a pragmatist requires. Their reward seems to be in the form of the bulk of the market share going to them, the proven, stable, market leader. Do not read this as that their products don’t have problems, just that they were able to offer a fully proven and accepted product.

Now, I anticipate a reaction about the need for certainty. I read what you said about companies failing if they are not able to adapt. This is totally true. Being able to act in the face of uncertainty is a mark of many great leaders.

For pragmatists, uncertainty needs to be faced with as much clarity as possible though. It’s all about weighing risks. Risk takers generally fall into the visionary category in the model described, whereas being risk averse is a quality of these pragmatists. This does not mean they don’t take risks, they just weigh them differently. They tend to be much more thorough or deliberate when weighing options and then tend to make sure their decision is as clearly illuminated as possible before finally making a decision. Yes, it is true that they will lean away from a risk when it is present, but taking risks is clearly a part of life.

Neither group is wrong for acting the way they do; it’s just a different approach. According to the way things work out in this tornado model, the visionaries will always have a bit more technology, but the pragmatists won’t let themselves be left behind. It’s all part of weighing the risks. Pragmatists are willing to be a bit behind if it means they can let the visionaries and techies work all the kinks out, decide which product is best though votes in the form of dollars, and through this tell the pragmatists who the most stable contender (i.e. the market leader) is.

Your line about not being able to comment on my blog is right on point. I did nothing more than give my blog a name and then post, yet the comments link was not there. It turns out I didn't need to change anything. All I had to do is repost, and the comments link is now available.

Is Social Media Ready for the Pragmatists

I am using a model from the book Inside the Tornado that I describe in the post just before this one. If you are unfamiliar with this model please check it out here.

There is a principle that has stuck with me since I was a teenager:

The truly rich don't talk about their wealth

Real winners should act like a win was no surprise

If you still have to talk about how mature you are, you aren't mature yet

The same applies to return missionaries and how "normal" they are (BYU reference)

I'm not the most eloquent person in the world, and I'm sure there is a quotable way to say this, but I think the point is made. Really, the concept is, why would they have to promote ____ if it is just a part of life. If you aren't at that point yet you feel compelled to tell everyone around you how much you have actually met that standard. Only a team that expects to lose has any excuse to rush the field. (There is nothing wrong with celebrating a win, I loved it when BYU beat Oklahoma last year...)

This applies to the visionaries from the tornado model in my mind. They are the promoters of an innovation. They are in the early stages of adoption. They are the 18 year old girl desperately trying to tell their 25 year old crush "how mature" they are. And we want to believe them. A new idea, a true innovation, could be a huge benefit to our world. But the pragmatist sees right through it, only accepting when it sees the situation as authentically reaching a mature state, a "whole product" as the book calls it.

Why are there so many people trying to tell me that social media is the new world order. Why am I struggling to believe them. How many articles, posts, classes, teachers, friends, etc. have told me that social media has been accepted, using valid statistics as proof, yet many of the generation older than myself struggle to find a purpose to Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Foursquare or whatever other tool they use, and big businesses are just now struggling to find its position within their company.

I am a pragmatist. I still don't have a smart phone (shocking!) and I don't plan to get one. It's not that I don't think social media is a great innovation, that I don't see the potential benefits of using it in a company. I plan to make it a big part of my business career. I just don't think the world knows quite what to do with it yet. It's not a whole product.

Pragmatists, having a herd mentality, have migrated to some of the social media sites. My parents have a Facebook page, and most big companies I am interested in working for at least have a LinkedIn account. I'm not saying social media does not have some whole products out there, but I think that the world that these social media promoters wish would happen is now sitting in the "Chasm" between the visionaries and the pragmatists. I think this is because much of the social media world is still at 80% and the visionaries are telling us we are crazy for not helping them with the last 20%.

Yes, there are benefits to twitter, foursquare, etc. I potentially can save time and be more efficient if I use it. But is it 100% clear how? I say no. I think the rest of the pragmatists would agree as well. It is a useful tool, but it is no "plug and play."

Currently I am in a Social Media Marketing class taught by a successful social media marketer (not a professor). The class started out mostly full with close to 30 students. After two class periods we only have 11 (update:9) students enrolled. Understandably, it is hard to have faith in a class that has never been taught before when it is being taught by someone who is not normally a teacher. I think the teacher has some very great things to share, has been successful in this field, and is teaching a much needed subject, which is why I'm still enrolled.

I think a big reason why people are leaving is the MBA program is full of pragmatists. It is full of people looking for careers in big companies. It is full of people looking for a full solution. While everyone accepts that social media will be a required tool in the marketing world, they do not see a full solution being offered yet. They do not see a "this is how you handle the social media world, works every time" solution being taught, possibly because one does not exist yet. They are looking for something solid to hold onto, not just examples and success stories. They want someone who has repeatedly and reliably been successful in social media to show them how its done.

Maybe I'm just ignorant. Maybe the solution is out there, I just haven't seen it yet. All you visionaries out there trying to defend your social media baby, don't just jump down my throat. Remember the 18 year old trying to declare her maturity. I know there are uses, purposes, techniques out there. I'm just not sure anyone has proven out a successful, scholarly, repeatable, and reliable way to handle social media yet, and until that happens the pragmatists will just have to wait.

Need for a "whole" product

Is Social Media Ready for the Pragmatists?

I am using a model from the book Inside the Tornado that I describe in the post just before this one. If you are unfamiliar with this model please check it out here.

There is a principle that has stuck with me since I was a teenager:

The truly rich don't talk about their wealth

Real winners should act like a win was no surprise

If you still have to talk about how mature you are, you aren't mature yet

The same applies to return missionaries and how "normal" they are (BYU reference)

I'm not the most eloquent person in the world, and I'm sure there is a quotable way to say this, but I think the point is made. Really, the concept is, why would they have to promote ____ if it is just a part of life. If you aren't at that point yet you feel compelled to tell everyone around you how much you have actually met that standard. Only a team that expects to lose has any excuse to rush the field. (There is nothing wrong with celebrating a win, I loved it when BYU beat Oklahoma last year...)

This applies to the visionaries from the tornado model in my mind. They are the promoters of an innovation. They are in the early stages of adoption. They are the 18 year old girl desperately trying to tell their 25 year old crush "how mature" they are. And we want to believe them. A new idea, a true innovation, could be a huge benefit to our world. But the pragmatist sees right through it, only accepting when it sees the situation as authentically reaching a mature state, a "whole product" as the book calls it.

Why are there so many people trying to tell me that social media is the new world order. Why am I struggling to believe them. How many articles, posts, classes, teachers, friends, etc. have told me that social media has been accepted, using valid statistics as proof, yet many of the generation older than myself struggle to find a purpose to Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Foursquare or whatever other tool they use, and big businesses are just now struggling to find its position within their company.

I am a pragmatist. I still don't have a smart phone (shocking!) and I don't plan to get one. It's not that I don't think social media is a great innovation, that I don't see the potential benefits of using it in a company. I plan to make it a big part of my business career. I just don't think the world knows quite what to do with it yet. It's not a whole product.

Pragmatists, having a herd mentality, have migrated to some of the social media sites. My parents have a Facebook page, and most big companies I am interested in working for at least have a LinkedIn account. I'm not saying social media does not have some whole products out there, but I think that the world that these social media promoters wish would happen is now sitting in the "Chasm" between the visionaries and the pragmatists. I think this is because much of the social media world is still at 80% and the visionaries are telling us we are crazy for not helping them with the last 20%.

Yes, there are benefits to twitter, foursquare, etc. I potentially can save time and be more efficient if I use it. But is it 100% clear how? I say no. I think the rest of the pragmatists would agree as well. It is a useful tool, but it is no "plug and play."

Currently I am in a Social Media Marketing class taught by a successful social media marketer (not a professor). The class started out mostly full with close to 30 students. After two class periods we only have 11 (update:9) students enrolled. Understandably, it is hard to have faith in a class that has never been taught before when it is being taught by someone who is not normally a teacher. I think the teacher has some very great things to share, has been successful in this field, and is teaching a much needed subject, which is why I'm still enrolled.

I think a big reason why people are leaving is the MBA program is full of pragmatists. It is full of people looking for careers in big companies. It is full of people looking for a full solution. While everyone accepts that social media will be a required tool in the marketing world, they do not see a full solution being offered yet. They do not see a "this is how you handle the social media world, works every time" solution being taught, possibly because one does not exist yet. They are looking for something solid to hold onto, not just examples and success stories. They want someone who has repeatedly and reliably been successful in social media to show them how its done.

Maybe I'm just ignorant. Maybe the solution is out there, I just haven't seen it yet. All you visionaries out there trying to defend your social media baby, don't just jump down my throat. Remember the 18 year old trying to declare her maturity. I know there are uses, purposes, techniques out there. I'm just not sure anyone has proven out a successful, scholarly, repeatable, and reliable way to handle social media yet, and until that happens the pragmatists will just have to wait.