Not every disagreement rises to unethical levels

When someone disagrees with us, are they unethical?

Over the past 27 years, I’ve addressed all sorts of ethical issues in The Right Thing column. Mostly, I try to look at how people make ethical choices when faced with multiple options.

It’s important to remember that there is no one right thing to do when faced with a day-to-day decision or a particularly thorny conundrum. In his book “Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose Between Right and Right," Joseph L. Badaracco, the John Shad Professor of Business Ethics at Harvard Business School, points out that when we are faced with multiple right choices, our goal is to make the best right choice that most aligns with our values. I’ve long found Badaracco, who teaches a course on ethics where he uses examples from literature to guide students through making ethical choices, to be a wise man.

Making a choice can be simple. But making a thoughtful choice where we take the time to examine the implication of our decisions and what affect they might have on others can be hard.

When we make such decisions between right choices, we also would be wise to do so recognizing that someone else when faced with the same choices might end up making a different decision. That doesn’t make us or our choice superior to someone else. We should be able to disagree with someone without unleashing our wrath on someone else simply because they think differently.

It is timely to bring this up again now. Threatening judges because they don’t rule the way we’d like them to is wrong. Defacing or burning automobiles because we disagree with the company owner’s political views is wrong. Harassing someone online because they don’t agree that dating us would the best decision of their life is wrong. Bullying someone to get them to think like we do is never good.

Don’t get me wrong. Disagreeing vociferously and strongly with those whose views we find morally questionable is not only acceptable, it is essential if we want to find a way to live in the world together. It’s good to let others know that their decisions are not made in a vacuum devoid of consequences. When someone makes choices that conflict with our own values or that are likely to have a dire outcome on others, the right thing is to challenge these choices.

Not everything, however, rises to the level of catastrophe. What someone wears to a Cabinet meeting may annoy us, but that alone doesn’t make the person reprehensible. A mayor telling congresspeople to do their job rather than try to run a city may irk a congressperson, but it doesn’t indicate the mayor isn’t following federal, state and local laws.

In her essay, “The Insidious Ethic of Conscience,” the writer Joan Didion wrote that “when we start deceiving ourselves into thinking not that we want something or need something” but that it is a “moral imperative that we have it,” that is when “we join the fashionable madmen,” and that “is when we are in bad trouble.”

She wrote that in 1965. Sixty years later, the right thing remains to avoid joining the fashionable madmen and to work hard to identify decisions others make that are worth fighting over vs. those that simply differ from our own.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

(c) 2025 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

How far can I go to get past the job screening algorithm?

Is it wrong to tailor a resume to a specific job opening to increase your chances of getting considered for the job?

Companies, particularly large companies, have been using some sort of Applicant Tracking System (ATS) for decades. At first the systems that helped companies sort resumes were done manually, but as technology progressed, ATS began to make use of software applications often using algorithms to screen out applicants for jobs. Some surveys, particularly those done by companies that offer such ATS services, suggest that more than 98% of Fortune 500 companies employee ATS software in their hiring process.

It's reasonable to guess that companies that post job openings online and allow applicants to apply through some sort of online portal use some sort of software to dismiss those who are deemed not to meet the qualifications for a job and to move along those who do to the next phase of consideration for employment.

Even among companies that vigorously use ATS software, at some point, an actual human being engages in the process of reviewing resumes and applications for further consideration. But it can be frustrating to try to break through the algorithmic mishigas to get to that stage.

While the temptation might be to embellish or even fabricate experience to make it to a human being, fight that urge and never lie on a resume, even if you convince yourself you could correct the deception later.

It is fair game and wise, however, to use what a company provides you in its job advertisements to enhance your chances. Most any software algorithm being used is driven by the human being who decides what criteria the company most wants in an applicant. As a result, there are specific words in job ads that are smart to replicate in a cover letter or resume so they most likely match up.

The English language can be a curious beast and there are often multiple words used to describe the same thing. If a company describes a job function using particular words and you know you have experience with those functions but use different words to describe them, then it’s smart to edit your resume and cover letter to mirror the language used by the company.

There is nothing dishonest about rewording application materials to increase your chances of being positively screened by a potential employer, as long as whatever words you use are true. If companies are going to make it more difficult to get your resume to a human being who might be better equipped than an algorithm to grasp how suited you might be for an open position, then it’s totally fine to do what’s necessary to increase your chances of getting to that human being.

In their effort to streamline the job application process by using algorithms, companies might be missing out on exceptional employees simply because they don’t meet the exact screening criteria. Occasionally, people who were ruled out by screening software later get hired after someone at the company who heard about them and handed their resume and application materials to a hiring manager.

Until companies get back to a more human approach to job application screening, however, the right thing is do what you can honestly do to enhance your chances of getting employed.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

(c) 2025 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.