Insights - Spring 2019

A publication from the Albers School of Business and Economics

the Center for Leadership Formation s p r i n g 2 01 9

A FACULTY PANEL DISCUSSION:

BUSINESS LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

T

o explore the role of businesses in contributing to the greater social good, the Center for Leadership Formation enlisted a panel of faculty for a roundtable discussion with Marilyn Gist (Associate Dean) and Ariel Rosemond (Associate Director) of the Center. They are: Ajay Abraham, PhD, Assistant Professor, Marketing; April Atwood, PhD., Senior Instructor, Marketing; Brian Kelly, PhD., Associate Professor, Economics; Geneva Lasprogata Sedgwick, JD, LLM, Associate Professor, Marketing, and Jeffery Smith, PhD, Boeing Frank Shrontz Chair of Professional Ethics and Professor, Management. Each panelist also authored an article for this issue to further share faculty expertise. The first of these begins on page 3.

Many of our societal problems are complex and intrinsically connected to business and commerce. Consider just

the following major issues: There is huge wealth disparity in the U.S., as well as across the globe.

This is undermining both political and social stability. Many people cannot afford to meet basic needs such as food, housing, or healthcare. This is contributing to the growth of homelessness, drug use, and populist movements in major Western countries.

Immigration is needed to fill many jobs in science, technology, engineering, and math—as well as for unskilled labor in farming, housekeeping, and other low-skill jobs.

However, millions of migrants and refugees who could do this work are facing significant resistance in the US and Europe.

The adverse effects of uncontrolled climate change on global economies will be significant. Destabilizing global weather patterns have already

caused mass migration which has led to political and social unrest in many places throughout the world.

Business has globalized. While globalization has opened up new international markets, production has also become global as companies seek talent at lower wages abroad. This has resulted in lost jobs here—and the growth of nationalist politics.

Significant abuses of information technology—not only in security breaches, but in co-opting the internet to spread propaganda—have increased tensions between groups and radicalized elements of societies. As the pace of invention speeds up, seemingly, so does the pace of harm.

We are challenged to anticipate and manage the misuse of new technologies. discussion Continued on page 4

Letter from the Dean

T

in this issue Business Leadership for the Common Good / 1 A Letter from the Dean / 2 Business Leadership’s Reach for the Future / 3 The Sustainable Approach / 6 Business Leadership and American Trade Policy / 8 How Can Business Leaders Respond to Current Immigration Challenges? / 10 Overcoming a Post-Truth World / 11 Upcoming Events /16

connect with us!

For information about our programs, connect with us via: https://www.seattleu.edu/business/ executive/connect-with-us/

Center for Leadership Formation Alumni Association Program graduates enjoy exclusive content and events. Contact Ariel Rosemond, CLF Associate Director, at rosemond@seattleu.edu for more information.

Center for Leadership Formation Staff Dr. Marilyn E. Gist Associate Dean, Executive Programs Professor, Department of Management Executive Director, Center for Leadership Formation Ariel Rosemond Associate Director Kathleen McGill Manager, Executive Programs Outreach Lorri Sheffer Programs Manager

his edition of InSights takes a different direction and focuses on five critical issues weighing on our society, issues leaders cannot afford to ignore. For example, we’ve gotten used to a world of declining trade restrictions, but now we are seeing policy move in the opposite direction and new barriers have been threatened and sometimes imposed.

A second is speaking truth. Are we really in a “post-truth” age? Not to say that leaders have always stuck with the truth, but at least there were consequences when they did not. Now it happens so often it seems like a new normal.

Climate change and the sustainability of the planet are a big challenge. Much of the damaging activity is caused by business in the production process or in how products are utilized. Should the business sector wait to be regulated by government in order to respond to the challenge?

We are a nation of immigrants, but many of us want to close the doors to others.

Immigration can’t be a free-for-all, but saying we are fine with Norwegians but not Mexicans is just too revealing.

Advances in technology, such as artificial intelligence, pose wonderful opportunities, but also can be a threat to our society. As technology becomes more powerful, the degree of mischief it can cause grows. It is important that the introduction of new technologies consider the risks of misuse and build in remedies from the beginning.

Many thanks to Marilyn Gist for her excellent leadership of our graduate and leadership programs over what will be a 16-year period. She has decided to step down as Associate Dean for Executive Programs at the end of this academic year, but continue to teach and be active in the Center for Leadership Formation (CLF). Marilyn’s accomplishments and contributions over her tenure here are enormous. We intend to continue in her tradition of excellence, and are hoping she will continue to support the CLF and Albers mission in creative ways.

Joseph M. Phillips Dean, Albers School of Business and Economics

Center for Leadership Formation Fellows Alan Mulally Senior Fellow, Former President & CEO Ford Motor Company Phyllis Campbell Chairman, Pacific Northwest JP Morgan Chase Jim Dwyer President & CEO, Retired Delta Dental of Washington Allan Golston President, US Program Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Jim Sinegal Co-Founder & Retired CEO Costco Wholesale Brian Webster President & CEO Kestra Medical Technologies, Inc. Center for Leadership Formation Advisory Board Lindsay Anderson Vice President Quality, Retired Boeing Commercial Airplanes Lorrie Baldevia Senior Vice President MCM

Pa g e 2 / Alb e r s S c h o o l o f B u s i n e s s a n d E c o n o m i c s I s e at t l e u n i v e r s i t y

Responsible Innovation:

Business Leadership’s Reach for the Future Geneva Lasprogata Sedgwick, JD, LL.M.

T

he challenges emerging from the evolution of big data, machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI), collectively what I will refer to as “transformational technologies,” create a landscape for business leadership that is ultimately not unlike our decades-old work in corporate social responsibility. We are similarly challenged here by a lack of direction from most governments (the European Union excepted), disenfranchised and frequently confused stakeholders, issues of bias, discrimination, violation of human rights and individual freedoms, and community sustainability. What’s different in this challenge is the cadence of change. Innovation in transformational technologies is happening at a pace that is truly unprecedented.

In this technological era, we are cautioned that “man’s reach exceeds his grasp;” meaning, we have created an environment for innovation that is evolving so rapidly we can’t stop the inevitable harm to humanity that will come from unintended consequences.

Consider, for example, the range of

Sallie Bondy Director, Business Operations for Boeing Fabrication The Boeing Company Mike Ehl Director, Aviation Operations Port of Seattle Brad Harlow CEO Cardiac Insight Inc. Aaron Howes Vice President, Risk Management & Insurance Expeditors International of Washington

possible outcomes when we teach machines to teach themselves and then assign agency authority to that machine intelligence, whether it be in the form of hiring algorithms or autonomous vehicles. While it is neither desirable nor possible to slow the pace of innovation, it requires intentional, intelligent risk identification and management to ensure positive progress in technology that benefits us all. This process of purposeful corporate responsibility is not unique. However, what is novel is the level of creativity and collaboration that is demanded for organizations to engage in “responsible innovation” that is as transformational as the technology itself.

Business leaders have an amazing opportunity to engage in “responsible innovation.” That is, innovation to solve our biggest social problems in ways that make the world a better place for us all. This requires organizations to first identify the risks arising from innovation of their transformational technologies and then to create a strategic process for responding to and transcending those risks.

O. David Jackson Founder and Chief Strategist Jaxx Strategic Partners LLC Kate Joncas Owner PlaceStrategic Harvey Kanter President and CEO DXL Group Jim Klauer Senior Vice President, Non-Foods Merchandising, Costco Wholesale John Milne Founder & CEO Avnew Health

Business leaders have an amazing opportunity to engage in “responsible innovation.”

This necessitates the creation of a framework or a set of ethical and social norms that will facilitate innovation while protecting against identified and even unidentified potential harm. I propose that there is at least one common risk and one common recommended course of action that straddles all industries.

An identified risk that crosses industries and sectors engaging with transformational technologies is quantification bias. This is the belief that what is measurable is more Continued on page 12

Doug Moore President McKinstry Company Sarah Patterson Executive Vice President & COO Virginia Mason Medical Center Chris Rivera Chairman, President & CEO Nativis, Inc. Dan Wall President, Global Products Expeditors International of Washington

S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 I s e a t t l e u . e d u / a lb e r s / e x e c u t i v e / p a g e 3

“Businesses shouldn’t wait for government intervention to begin addressing societal issues…”

Business Leadership for the common Good Continued from page 1

“Fake news” and “alternative facts” have become so widespread that information from mainstream media, government, and scientists is discounted. Intense disagreement on what is true vs. untrue is making consensus on policy and action increasingly illusive.

These challenges with their complexity and severity are now beyond the ability of government to resolve alone. Business has driven globalization, and business has the knowledge, skills, and resources to make a significant, positive impact.

We need the active engagement of business leaders who can represent— and integrate—the interests of ALL. CLF Moderator: From Seattle U’s perspective, a moral framework exists that should guide leadership. There is right and wrong. Although people may seem equally passionate on opposing sides of arguments, our discussion addresses three broad questions.

First, what factors (facts) do you see as important in guiding policy and business leadership?

Jeffery: There’s a lot of uncertainty being caused by large, structural problems in free trade, international cooperation, government deficits and immigration. Businesses not only find it difficult to operate in the midst of such uncertainty, but it’s tough for them to get involved in solving some of society’s most pressing problems when there is basic instability around such fundamental issues.

Brian: Politicians frequently attack immigration, trade, and American cooperation with its allies, portraying a naïve America being exploited by foreigners, the feared “other.” In international trade, there is a perception that manufacturing jobs, in particular, have suffered from trade and trade agreements, at great cost to the

country, and that perception has led to increasing resentment that must be acknowledged when discussing how business leaders approach related policy questions.

With respect to international trade, countries, including the United States, gain greatly by participating in trade.

But trade also has costs arising from imports, particularly manufactured imports. Ideally, business leaders should acknowledge both its benefits and its costs and look to maximize the former and minimize the latter. But the nature of business leadership is to seek success for one’s own business.

Does this leave room for business to do anything other than promote its particular interests? I think it does.

Business leaders can engage in respectful, measured rhetoric, keeping in mind that a healthy, pluralistic United States is in the long-term interest of their firms. Business leaders can also support definite goals rather than exploiting uncertainty, which can damage long-term interests.

Eva: I agree. There are opportunities for business to address inequities that are built into our systems. One example of this would be to audit HR systems to ensure that personal biases around gender or race aren’t actually programmed into the technology.

Ajay: There seems to be a “resignation” inherent in the reactions of business leaders to society’s needs. For example, immigrants are a vital source of skilled and unskilled labor in this country. But the issue of immigration with all its many layers of complexity and high frequency of policy change doesn’t encourage investment in any one solution.

Jeffery: Business leadership is needed in the information technology space, as this is an area that has proven to be a basic challenge to democratic ideals. In

social media, for example, companies need to build trust by making sure platforms are used in a manner consistent with the basic goals of truth, knowledge and civil discourse. This is an important example of the special role that companies can play in shoring up our ability to collectively address the most pressing problems of the day.

Eva: Businesses shouldn’t wait for government intervention to begin addressing societal issues, particularly in technology where businesses are creating new ways of living we haven’t yet envisioned. The leaders with a long view are seeing indications of real fundamental changes in the ways that society is organized and must be prepared to act should those changes be detrimental to the way we live.

Jeffery: On issues of immigration, trade, global climate change, and others, businesses are well-positioned to complement and shore up government solutions in order to serve the common good.

Eva: I’m concerned about the growing gap in the use of technology and data among emerging business leaders and more experienced leaders. A generation of digital natives is now using technology to shape the future while more experienced business leaders with less familiarity, knowledge, and comfort around technology are nonetheless using it to make decisions.

Where their experience and caution would benefit society most, many are missing the deep understanding of technology required to grasp key ethical touch points along the way.

Marilyn: I’m heartened, seeing popular movements against the status quo created and galvanized via technology.

These movements, like the boycott of Tyson foods for its sponsorship of certain programming on FOX News, are

Pa g e 4 / Alb e r s S c h o o l o f B u s i n e s s a n d E c o n o m i c s I s e at t l e u n i v e r s i t y

also starting to hold businesses accountable. If competition is a default state for business today, could collaboration between competitors become part of a good answer?

Eva: In technology, I’ve seen a joint venture between Microsoft Corporation and Accenture LLP (Avanade) working to design a common ethical framework for artificial intelligence (AI). Collaboration among competitors can be good when it’s in their collective best interests.

Ariel: Is there an example of a business that has thrived from the attention paid by leaders to key performance indicators beyond the company’s bottom line?

April: Unilever is a great example of a corporation that has decoupled company growth from resource use and negative impacts. They are making more profit while addressing the needs of more consumers worldwide and reducing their negative environmental and climate impacts at the same time.

They are serving as a role model, proving that it can be done.

Ajay: Business could learn from higher education which uses a model of shared governance—participatory decision-making where everyone has a voice and corporate social responsibility guides decision-making with a long view.

CLF Moderator: Can moral reasoning guide companies to a recommended decision/action?

Brian: Reasoning can guide us, and I maintain that careful reasoning has an important, positive moral

Dr. Marilyn E. Gist is Associate Dean for executive programs and Professor of Management, Albers School of Business and Economics, Seattle University. In addition, she serves as Executive Director of the Center for Leadership Formation providing academic direction for the executive degree and certificate programs. Prior to this, Marilyn held the Boeing Endowed Professorship of Business Management at the University of Washington, where she was also the Faculty Director for Executive MBA programs. In addition to her academic roles, she

dimension. International trade provides a wonderful example of this. For 200 years, trade has been recognized as an enterprise that enriches participating countries.

Empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports this view although it remains counterintuitive to many. In the United States, there is a commonly-held belief that imports are bad and exports are good, yet there continues to be demand for high-quality goods coming from foreign countries at low prices.

Walmart or dollar store chains have a very high proportion of imported goods precisely because their customers value low prices.

Business leaders are in an unusually strong position to explain to their employees, customers and even the public at large that, in fact, international trade has vastly increased the prosperity of the United States by providing high-quality goods to Americans at prices they are willing to pay.

Thinking through this example, careful reasoning tells us consumers benefit from greater competition. Moreover, consumers of limited means benefit more than their wealthier fellows for whom price is not an issue. If benefitting consumers is recognized as a social good, moral reasoning guides us to continue supporting international trade.

Jeffery: At the most basic level, there is a morality to competing in the market. Profitability may be a

has served in management positions in the public and private sectors, and has extensive consulting experience.

Marilyn has over 25 publications in leading scholarly outlets. Her publications include “Developing Dual-Agenda Leaders” (co-authored with Professor Sharon Lobel) in the 2012 Journal of Corporate Citizenship, and ”Self-Efficacy” (coauthored with Angela Gist) in the 2013 Oxford Bibliographies in Management.

necessary concern in competition but there are moral expectations regarding the way that firms compete, for example in how they communicate information, whether deals are negotiated fairly and contracts are honored, how environmental harm is mitigated, and so on. Competition is beneficial but only if the purpose of competition structures how firms compete. Moral reasoning about how to be honest, fair, and trustworthy therefore plays a central role for businesses in the market.

Eva: To add to Jeffery’s point: think about Nike’s marketing campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick, the American activist and former professional football player. In creating the campaign, Nike incorporated the principles of emotional intelligence, focusing more on belonging, connection, and conviction. In doing so, Nike clearly, but not overtly, expressed their support for him.

Whatever the motivation, companies are clearly choosing to take a stand Continued on page 13

Ariel Rosemond, MBA serves as Associate Director of the Center for Leadership Formation at the Albers School of Business and Economics, Seattle University. He is an alumnus of the Center’s Executive Leadership Program and its Leadership Executive MBA. Rosemond chairs the advisory committee for Contemplative Leaders in Action—Seattle, a regional nonprofit organization focused on Ignatian-based professional development. He also serves as a volunteer career/education mentor for his fellow US military veterans in career transition with the non-profit Boots-to-Shoes Foundation.

S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 I s e a t t l e u . e d u / a lb e r s / e x e c u t i v e / p a g e 5

The Sustainable Approach

By April Atwood

O

ne could argue that environmental challenges are among the most, if not the most, important an organization needs to consider. The challenges being presented by the natural environment are formidable.

When we consider environmental degradation, resource scarcity, burgeoning world populations, environmental toxins, more frequent and extreme weather events, we see the need for resilience, and the need for better energy solutions. Add in the effects of climate change and our concern broadens to include the fact that climate change is happening faster than ever predicted. It is affecting temperature, raising sea levels, and reducing availability of fresh water, increasing the incidence and spread of insect-borne disease.

It is also increasing the incidence and severity of drought and wildfire, decreasing crop yields and nutritional levels of the crops that are grown, increasing extinction of animals, increasing temperatures of ocean waters, and the list can just go on and on. Add to these challenges the changes in technology and increasing consumer expectations around corporate transparency, and we can feel the full impact of the importance of organizational management of and responses to environmental changes and challenges.

To address these trends and the associated future uncertainties,

organizations need to discard their financial bottom-line focused, ‘business as usual’ approaches for more forward-looking strategies that have the potential to create a more flourishing sustainable world.

Considering the realm of business, even Pope Francis has identified the need for the focus of business to broaden: m “The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations, reflects a misunderstanding of the very nature of the economy. As long as production is increased, little concern is shown about whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the environment; as long as the clearing of a forest increases production, no one calculates the losses entailed in the desertification of the land, the harm done to biodiversity or the increased pollution. In a word, businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved.” (ch.195, Laudato Si, Pope Francis second encyclical, 2015) Beyond the moral imperatives around protecting all forms of life on earth for current and future generations, there are pragmatic reasons for businesses to act. Unfortunately, the business advantages of taking action on environment and climate issues are discussed all too infrequently—the focus is too often how to continue to profit under traditional approaches

to business. In taking action to reduce their environmental impact, organizations that adopt a more sustainable approach stand to enjoy competitive advantages and reap the many benefits that accrue from demonstrating leadership in this arena. Consideration of the most obvious must include: m The ability to act in advance of regulations: when it is clear that regulations will be put into effect, companies planning for the future will take them into account when planning their strategies. In many parts of the world (including parts of North America) a price is being put on carbon dioxide emissions now. Forward-looking companies should be planning for this eventuality in the areas where they are located or want to do business so that when this fee is put into place, they will be ready for it—and in the meantime, their action will lead the company to enjoy some of these other benefits as well. m Lower costs: making better use of resources and producing less waste means not having to buy as many inputs or results in more output per unit of input. Resource efficiency and reducing waste can result in quick monetary savings for the company to enjoy.

Increasing energy efficiency means money previously spent on fuel or electricity can be applied directly to the bottom line. And reducing exposure to environmental challenges means reduced risk,

Pa g e 6 / Alb e r s S c h o o l o f B u s i n e s s a n d E c o n o m i c s I s e at t l e u n i v e r s i t y

which appeals to investors and insurers. m Resource accessibility: using fewer constrained resources as input will save money for the organization and also will extend the length of time the company has access to these resources, effectively ‘buying some time’ for alternative inputs to be developed. m Innovation: has been found to flourish in companies that are encouraged or forced to find alternatives to their ‘business as

Being a leader in environmental or sustainability action has been found to be a big advantage to companies in their quest to hire the ‘best and brightest.’ Employees of companies like Ben & Jerry’s (under parent Unilever) discuss openly the advantages of working at a job where they feel like they are making a positive contribution to society through their work. And by providing a positive, healthy place to work, companies are enjoying lower turnover rates, thus avoiding

can decouple resource use from growth and profitability. These companies have increased sales and profits while decreasing their environmental footprints.

In sum, business leaders of today and tomorrow will be challenged by many changes and interconnected issues in our world. Environment and sustainability considerations intersect with the other ‘big issues’ discussed in this publication; it is vitally important that we continue to prepare our

Innovation has been found to flourish in companies that are encouraged or forced to find alternatives to their ‘business as usual.’ usual.’ Innovative changes that companies have made range from a new way of envisioning the business they are in (e.g., Tesla electric car business? or battery business? or clean energy system business?) to a reconceptualization of how the business is structured (e.g., selling a service rather than a product: consider HVAC providers who now sell their ‘HVAC service’ to buildings rather than sell the HVAC equipment outright—incentives are now aligned for those companies to produce high-efficiency, longlasting equipment; the result is less environmental impact and HVAC service overseen by professionals). m Access to workers and a healthier workforce: increasingly, workers today want to work for companies who are considered ‘good’ contributors to society—this is especially true for the current generation of college graduates.

some of the hiring and on-boarding costs that hit when employees leave. Taking action to eliminate or reduce toxins in the products made and the workplaces where they are made means those workforces are healthier too—sick time is reduced and health care costs are lower. m Marketplace differentiation and brand value: society’s increasing interest in companies who are environmental and sustainability leaders means that the brand reputation and brand image of leading companies is enhanced through their efforts. The segments of consumers who are interested in ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ offerings continue to grow, so companies who exercise leadership in these offerings and in how they operate their business are enjoying greater profits. World leaders including Interface and Unilever have demonstrated that a company

leaders to be able to think more broadly and systematically about the reasons and approaches they can use to address these challenges.

Dr. April Atwood, Marketing & Consumer Psychology (Ohio State—PhD, MA, BSBA), is completing her 10th year of teaching at the Albers School, after more than two decades of teaching at University of Washington. At Albers, she has helped develop the sustainable business courses and sustainable business certificate, and has organized and overseen over 35 sustainable business consulting projects. Recent publication outlets include the Journal of Jesuit Business Education, and the Journal of Sustainability Education, and she has presented work at the International Association of Jesuit Business Schools in recent years. Over the past few years, she served as Vice-Chair of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee for King County and she served on the 2018 Seattle-King County Responsible Recycling Task Force. She is also a trained Master Naturalist with the Bellevue Parks Department and a trained Beach Naturalist with Seattle Aquarium.

S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 I s e a t t l e u . e d u / a lb e r s / e x e c u t i v e / p a g e 7

Business Leadership and American Trade Policy Brian Kelly, Seattle University

I

nternational trade policy is important again. Following the conclusion of the Tokyo Round about 40 years ago, an uneasy truce had held in world capitals.

Countries agreed to give up some of their ability to restrict trade in return for other countries doing the same. These agreements, first under the GATT and then the WTO, had safety valves—antidumping duties, countervailing (antisubsidy) duties, and rarely invoked “safeguards”—that allowed temporary protectionism in the face of “unfair” trade or import surges.

Political pressures could be relieved for specific industries and the general agreements hung together. The chief concerns were the rise of regional and bilateral agreements and the difficulties in making progress in the new WTO round of talks.

On the surface, this changed with the election of Donald Trump, although problems had been mounting before 2016. Trump campaigned on a theme that the United States had received a raw deal in trade, among other raw deals. He promised to renegotiate existing agreements on terms more favorable to the United States. And he mobilized a portion of the electorate that indeed felt that the United States had been a net loser with its fairly open borders.

The political divide on trade issues was less partisan initially than immigration or national security, with many Democrats supporting Trump’s themes. Trump’s first major action, not submitting the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement to Congress, would likely have occurred under a Clinton administration as well. But the administration’s subsequent actions left possible domestic allies puzzled.

The brinksmanship on NAFTA brought

modified. There may be cases where business leaders favor current policies and think that a debate would serve no good purpose, but I believe that most would disagree with the apparent goal (bilateral trade balances) and especially with the use of disruption of commercial relations as a strategy.

What can business leaders do in this situation? What special advantages do they bring?

There are many, but let me focus on three. minor proposed changes to the Agreement and left lasting damage to relations with Canada and Mexico.

The large tariffs placed on steel and aluminum, as well as the current and threatened tariffs on Chinese goods, relied on seldom used safeguard actions and an old national security exception found in U.S. law but not the WTO agreements, threatening the U.S. role as an exemplar of respect for agreed trade rules. Above all, the rhetoric aimed at China and others seemed to have no purpose other than creating disruption and achieving bilateral trade balances, neither of which made sense.

The voices supporting protection have been focused and loud. Those protesting have been hobbled by the fact that benefits from trade are more diffused than its costs. Also, damage from the steps taken to date has been obscured by the generally strong economy. Vigorous partisanship and the president’s success in marginalizing his political opponents have further disarmed opponents of protection.

The result is that we have not had a balanced debate on whether the protective measures are a good idea overall, whether they should be jettisoned, or whether they should be

Make the case for trade.

While familiar, the arguments that trade provides net benefits are routinely ignored and need to be made over and again. To appreciate why those arguing for government interference should carry the burden of proof, consider briefly competitive domestic markets. An innovative domestic producer will win customers from other producers by lower prices or a more appealing product. Should government interfere with innovation and markets to protect the less capable firms? Should it do so if these less capable firms are relatively labor intensive, so that the industry might experience some net job loss due to the innovation? No. Any gain to the less effective producers and their workers would be more than offset by harm to the more efficient producer and to consumers. More importantly, the economy would quickly become sclerotic if government sought to protect less competitive suppliers in a market. True, the labor and capital deployed in the less innovative firms may have to find new homes and may suffer as a result: competition is not gentle. To an economist, however, a social response aimed at cushioning

Pa g e 8 / Alb e r s S c h o o l o f B u s i n e s s a n d E c o n o m i c s I s e at t l e u n i v e r s i t y

Continued on page 9

the blow should not be at the cost of innovation, but should use measures to mitigate the harm, such as unemployment benefits or subsidized health care.

So, should government interfere with competitive international markets? Overall, the world economy gains from competition in the same way that a domestic economy does.

This is the logic behind multilateral trade agreements. But the impulse that a country could gain unilaterally if it did not fear retribution is very strong. Here economics can play a role. Economics demonstrates that unilateral protection rarely benefits a country. Moreover, governments are notoriously bad at selecting those cases in which protection might be beneficial. Longstanding protection guarantees rigidities and inefficiencies.

American history overwhelmingly

that you must know your goals and have an end game when taking an action. Those who by and large favor current policies would agree, I think.

An important case in point concerns China’s pressure on foreign companies to give up their intellectual capital.

This is a serious problem and earlier, intensive diplomacy has not resolved it. Most Americans and America’s allies would agree that it makes sense for the United States to use its power to push back. But the administration has only raised intellectual capital in passing, not as a target related to current U.S. pressure. Do the threatened tariffs seek to change Chinese practice in this area? Are they a bargaining chip in pushing back on China’s policy of expropriation of technology? What is the plan for achieving that goal?

Business decision-makers know the need for clear goals and can bring an

that brand is rapidly turning sour.

Business professionals can reassure their international counterparts that the U.S. is not seeking a return to 1930s economic (and political) isolationism. More difficult but also important, business leaders should take public stands reminding our political leaders that the American brand is a valuable asset and should not be squandered for temporary political gain.

Current official attitudes towards trade are part of a broader theme, that the U.S. has been exploited by foreign interests, in immigration and security policy as well as commerce. This theme has political resonance, the resentment of the ‘other,’ the threatening outsiders. Rational response may seem outgunned for the moment, but its effect is cumulative across businesses and over time. Business leaders have

Executives need do what they can to remind the political structure that you must know your goals and have an end game when taking an action.

shows the advantages of trade overall for the economy, even though sectors may be damaged by the broader exposure to creative destruction that it introduces. Business leaders can question the basis of current federal actions at every opportunity, using their status as the frontline troops in commercial policy. What are the goals of protection? Are these goals legitimate and what are their costs? Do we anticipate that protection will be permanent and, if not, how will it end?

Communicate the need for goals.

Executives need to do what they can to remind the political structure

authority to the topic by raising these and related questions. Tactics without strategy can be worse than useless.

an unusual opportunity and an unusual responsibility to help guide U.S. policies during these times.

Do not squander your most precious resource, your reputation.

Businesses largely live and die by reputation. The United States has carefully, painfully built a reputation for reliability and sobriety in trade matters since 1947. Would any business burn its reputation to win a short-term battle?

Current U.S. policy, with its hostility to allies, essentially cannibalizes earlier U.S. efforts: had the U.S. not built a reputation over 70 years, current tantrums would be meaningless. But

Dr. Brian Kelly is Associate Professor of Economics in the Albers School of Business and Economics. His research involves policy-relevant applied economics, particularly in international trade and the economic analysis of law. His publications have appeared in journals such as the American Economic Review, Economic Inquiry, and the Journal of International Economic Law. He currently is developing an analysis of the costs and benefits of asset forfeiture programs with the aim of influencing public debate and jurisprudence at the federal and state levels.

He consults in the area of trade barriers such as antidumping and countervailing duty measures.

Professor Kelly received his Ph.D. from Harvard University.

S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 I s e a t t l e u . e d u / a lb e r s / e x e c u t i v e / p a g e 9

How Can Business Leaders Respond to Current Immigration Challenges?

“I

mmigration.” The word brings up different responses dependent on the mental associations automatically triggered. Does immigration get automatically associated with what is generally agreed upon as legal immigration or what is generally agreed upon as illegal immigration (Lopez, Bialik, and Radford 2018)? Or perhaps it gets associated with undocumented students who were brought into the country when they were children.

Or it might even get associated with other forms of immigration wherein individuals enter the country legally, but are then stuck in limbo without a formal legal status while an extension application is pending processing.

Given the potential hot-button nature of this issue, what can business leaders do to navigate the challenges that recent immigration developments pose for effective organizational and individual functioning, especially as research shows that immigrants help businesses (Kelly 2018)? There are potential political solutions that can be achieved, and some business leaders might feel comfortable at attempting to shape the political discourse. However, this is not the preferred path for everyone. Therefore, this article attempts to outline some considerations for those who would rather focus on navigating the business challenges arising from current immigration issues, in order to more effectively lead their organizations.

In many organizations, leaders do a great job of delegating tasks, leaving them free to focus on strategic issues.

This could have the consequence that various immigration circumstances end up coming only to the notice of departments that handle immigrationrelated paperwork. Business leaders

By Ajay abraham

could therefore consider alternative opportunities for employees to surface immigration-related issues from an individual rather than organizational perspective (anonymously, if necessary).

Such alternative opportunities include options such as open houses, suggestion boxes (physical or online), and telephone hotlines.

Immigration Challenges for Businesses What are some of the general challenges and recent developments on the immigration front? To start with, the H-1B status that allows US employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations is limited to a quota of 65,000 per year (often referred to as the “cap”) as per the Immigration Act of 1990, with an additional quota of 20,000 available to foreign nationals who hold a master’s or doctoral degree from a US university (“master’s cap”). Additionally, the annual H-1B application process begins in early April and closes once US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines that enough applications have been submitted that will eventually meet the quota (typically within a week in recent years).

After this, H-1B statuses are determined by random allocation

(“lottery”) among the applications.

There are also additional restrictions on the typical length of the H-1B status (three years) and how long the foreign national can remain in the US (six years), unless an associated permanent residency (“green card”) application has proceeded through certain stages. To enable foreign nationals to work in the US beyond the typical six-year period, companies can apply for employment-based permanent residency but, for foreign nationals from India, the actual wait time for becoming a permanent resident is currently almost ten years (depending on the category of filing), and this has been increasing steadily over time.

Some Potential Solutions The truncated timelines and random nature of the “lottery” process mean that businesses face significant uncertainty when hiring foreign nationals. One solution would be to hire US nationals. However, companies often use the H-1B process to hire foreign nationals with specific skillsets.

Therefore, another solution is to consider using an L-1 status to relocate employees from across the globe, but this is limited to multinational organizations that have offices in the US and abroad. Other organizations could consider permanent residency applications but, given the building backlog, typical second-preference (EB-2) permanent residency applications could take a long time, so organizations could consider sponsoring their employees under the highest-preference category (EB-1). At the same time, they should be aware that even the EB-1 category is facing a building backlog.

Slower processing times are also

Pa g e 1 0 / Alb e r s S c h o o l o f B u s i n e s s a n d E c o n o m i c s I s e at t l e u n i v e r s i t y

Continued on page 14

Overcoming a Post-Truth World

By Jeffery Smith

A

fter the election of President Trump the Oxford English Dictionary identified the term “post truth” as its “word of the year.” The reasons were obvious. Politicians have always engaged in exaggeration. But the presidential election of 2016 was unique. It was a moment where politics became a full assault on the truth.

Partisan victory, social influence and a firm resistance to one’s ideological opponent has now supplanted a basic concern for the facts.

As debilitating as this has been for our democracy, I am somewhat optimistic that all is not lost. There is a growing recommitment to the truth within civil society. Take my academic colleagues. Many of them now recognize the need to expose the errors of those in power, not only in their classrooms but also in their scholarship. Some of the same individuals now recognize—with regret —that their esoteric views about the “social construction” of knowledge have enabled others to blithely cast aside the science behind climate change.

Journalists are another bright spot.

They are on the front lines in this fight for the truth. The publishers of the New York Times remind us that although “the truth is hard to find” and “hard to know,” it is “more important now than ever.” The Times and other media outlets have taken a defiant stand against misinformation in the era of Trump that eclipses the run-ofthe-mill fact checking that was routine in earlier political eras.

Even some virtuous legislators and judges—speaking in good faith—have recognized the corrosive effects of

distrust that accompany our collective unwillingness to subject our beliefs to evidence and standards of good reason. There has been a steady, if slow, recognition on their part of how damaging a retreat from the truth can be and how the truth actually matters.

We should not forget that business leaders also have a role to play in this recommitment. Promoting a culture where we collectively demonstrate respect for the truth is inherently in the interest of business. When the expertise of the Federal Reserve Bank is assailed without cause, or when the economic impact of new tariffs is willfully distorted at a White House press briefing, there are direct and adverse consequences for the ability of businesses to manage risk and plan for the future. Corporate leaders understand that their firms and industries are best served by economic and political stability.

The bedrock of such stability is the confidence that public policy is—at bottom—moored to the truth.

This point is vividly illustrated in the recent public discussion (or lack thereof) about immigration reform. If that debate continues to be framed by disinformation about the number of immigrants crossing the southern border, or extravagant falsehoods about the amount of illegal drug trafficking taking place outside of ports of entry, we are deprived of the opportunity to have a meaningful

debate about real issues, such as how to properly respond to undocumented, young adult “dreamers” and the number of visas needed to support a thriving information technology sector. Business leaders recognize this and they know that so much of the strength of the American economy has been built on a pragmatic approach to immigration.

When elected officials no longer respect the truth—and fail to embrace the complexities associated with it— the prospect for such pragmatism is lost.

Business leaders therefore have a stake in making sure public discussions are grounded in the virtues associated with the search for truth. They, moreover, have the unique ability to assure that we all remain oriented toward well-informed policy making. Business leaders can mobilize a deeper Congressional examination of pressing social and environmental problems. They can criticize unjust actions undertaken by government.

They can assert their commitment to the rule of law. And they can identify and explain why certain policies are harmful to the communities in which they operate.

It takes special business leaders to also realize that this call to defend the truth is not simply a way to ensure that advantages will accrue to their companies. Business as we know it is only possible when well-functioning political institutions preserve the

S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 I s e a t t l e u . e d u / a lb e r s / e x e c u t i v e / p a g e 1 1

Continued on page 15

responsible innovation Continued from page 3

valuable than what is immeasurable.

As companies continue to invest in big data systems, there is an ongoing expectation that they will be able to make better decisions. However, it is proving to not always be the case that more data means more efficiency or more profit. There are human insights missing from big data, what technology ethnographer, Tricia Wang, calls “thick data.” Thick data is qualitative data like our stories, emotions and relationship insights. It is the human narrative. And whereas big data can offer insights to leverage the best of machine learning, thick data can help us leverage the best of human intelligence. In order to make holistic, strategic organizational decisions today, we need to access and apply both.

ourselves infers a possible future intention to interfere with human self-empowerment. It is a violation of that which is sacred to humanity— the fundamental right each individual has to create the person he or she wants to be in this lifetime. This right is grounded in human dignity. An individual’s consent to engage in transformational technologies, whether on social media or in an AI driven hiring search, is not a grant of agency to interfere with that person’s human right to self-design.

It is not enough for organizations to be cognizant of the risks attendant to data fundamentalism. Conscious business leaders can now innovate strategic processes to transcend these and other industry specific risks by

The full Robert Browning quote is this: “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” Instead of a fear-based word of caution about technology innovation, we might let these words bring optimism and hope. My message to business leaders regarding transformational technologies is this: let your reach reach high and wide.

Consider and engage the communities included and those still excluded.

Collaborate creatively with partners, competitors and humanities experts.

And let your influence be inspired by an intention to make the world a better place; not just more lucrative for some, but authentically better, healthier, more abundant, respectful, compassionate and fairer for us all.

Collaborate creatively with partners, competitors and humanities experts.

Another aspect of the quantification bias that can impact human well-being is our consuming desire to believe that big data is absolute truth. Microsoft researcher Kate Crawford coined this “data fundamentalism,” the idea that “correlations always indicate causation, and that massive data sets and predictive analytics always reflect objective truth.” This is incorrect. Big data is not objective and transformational technologies are created by human design which harbors hidden human biases.

We should constantly consider who is included, who is excluded and how the predictions and decisions are being made.

Along with data fundamentalism comes the growing assumption that transformational technologies can now not only predict human behavior, but also the very essence of a person’s being. A data controller’s belief that it now knows us better then we know

focusing their response on the core relationship between technology and humankind. How do we want that relationship to evolve? How can a framework of norms to manage future risks be informed by both theory and practice that draws impetus from the humanities themselves?

This is the collaboration opportunity referenced earlier. It is not surprising that insights from the humanities— sociology, anthropology, psychology, and ethics—are illuminating the risks of transformational technologies for those in their control. Business is not constrained by the lack of imagination which can bottle government. Business leaders are positioned to collaborate within their industries and with academic experts in the humanities who can help them define, for the benefit of everyone, what the right relationship between humanity and technology should be.

Dr. Geneva Lasprogata Sedgwick is an associate professor of business law in the Albers School of Business and Economics and the Director of Summer Programs for Seattle University. She is also the former Robert D. O’Brien Endowed Chair in Business and in that role, led a team of faculty colleagues in initiating the deeper integration of ethics and the humanities into the undergraduate business core. Dr. Sedgwick teaches law and ethics for Business Analytics in Albers’ new graduate MSBA program and is a co-founder of the firm Digital Dignity, LLC. Her scholarship concerns human and civil rights at the intersection of law and technology, and cross-sector collaborations that promote corporate social responsibility.

Her articles are published in such journals as the American Business Law Journal and the Stanford Technology Law Review.

Pa g e 1 2 / Alb e r s S c h o o l o f B u s i n e s s a n d E c o n o m i c s I s e at t l e u n i v e r s i t y

Business Leadership for the Greater Good Continued from page 5

to be inclusionary vs. exclusionary in this example. They may see a bump in profit, and there is certainly a change afoot.

Ariel: Are all opinions equally valid if they are strongly held?

Marilyn: No. Validity must include more than how closely or strongly held the idea is. There has to be a moral framework governing social behavior that also helps us determine the validity of opinions. Belief in discriminating against groups can be deeply held opinion, but if the moral framework says “all are created equal”—and should be treated as such—the deeply held opinion loses validity.

Jeffery: Companies often distinguish what they must do in order to be a responsible actor in the marketplace and what they owe to society. There are times when this latter concern prompts business leaders to take a stand on difficult moral issues. But in these cases, it is incumbent for businesses to remain tolerant and support the ideals of respectful citizenship. For example, as we witnessed in the controversial stance Hobby Lobby took against the Affordable Care Act, when a business enters the public square it needs to be done in a way that supports the diversity of opinion characteristic of democracy. A company’s employees, customers and business partners inevitably reflect the range of moral views that make up society at large.

Ajay: Where immigration is concerned, a company acting with care for and managing employees and applicants affected by immigration policy is a clear sign of leadership acting for the greater good, with an eye for the business environment. This is one more place the business leader can shine.

April: Companies that have recognized and taken action to address climate change actively support/defend their actions and perspectives.

Consideration of social impact and environmental impact are nonnegotiable to them as they direct the

business, living out its mission and guiding principles. Patagonia and Ben & Jerry’s are illustrations.

Also, the B Corp certification (along with legal corporate designations of ‘benefit corporations’ and ‘social purpose corporations’) allow businesses to be recognized for their desire to use business as a force for good in the world (not just to make profits for shareholders).

CLF Moderator: How do you bring this into your teaching at SU? Brian: I give students the analytic tools and the critical mindset to be able to determine for themselves the extent to which policy arguments make sense.

A large proportion of our students appreciate analytic rigor and the chance to do systematic work. I want our students’ strong sense of social justice to be a powerful instrument for good.

Ajay: I stay updated with the International Student Center and am sure to share news with international students in my class. Other students may find the information irrelevant but sharing it in public is a nudge for illustrating care for all members of the group, especially the affected ones.

We also talk about the triple bottom line and marketing ethics in the courses.

Eva: I use the “corporation as a person” metaphor. I find it is creative to look at a company’s decisions, even the refusals to accept responsibility for making bad decisions, in terms that are personal to the students. I use students’ familiarity with Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook in discussions about who gets to write their personal stories.

Finally, I sometimes lose 20 minutes of planned content delivery in discussions about “shared sorrow” (student reactions to the shocking but sadly regular events of violence, loss of life, and politics). Business leaders need to do the same—be vulnerable, open, honest, and allow for authentic reactions among employees. We may not be able to fix it, but we do our best to help.

“Leadership requires understanding how you mentor, empower and invest in people to allow them to flourish.”

Jeffery: Leadership requires understanding how you mentor, empower and invest in people to allow them to flourish. In this sense, businesses leaders create moral communities within the confines of a shared social and political life. I strive to get students to see that they—as future leaders—should understand their role in this creative light. I also emphasize that business leaders today work within a democratic society and are expected to support the institutions that provide moral legitimacy to business in the first place. These related tasks—creating communities and sustaining society’s institutions—are not easy, but define what we should expect of our students.

April: I include discussions of sustainable business and climate change in every class I teach because these are some of the big issues our students will grapple with the rest of their professional lives. Teaching “business as usual” is NOT doing our students (or our future world) a service. The triple bottom line framework (people, planet, profit), or its updated cousin, the quadruple bottom line (people, planet, profit, purpose), seems a natural fit with the university’s emphasis on considering long-term, global and ethically appropriate outcomes and objectives.

I feel that to best prepare students, we are obligated to help them think more broadly about the impacts of business on our world and their own roles, actions, and decisions within the business world.

S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 I s e a t t l e u . e d u / a lb e r s / e x e c u t i v e / p a g e 1 3

Continued on page 14

Reaching out to affected employees in a more humane manner is likely to engender stronger organizational loyalty…

How can business leaders respond to current immigration challenges?

Continued from page 10

affecting the processing of extension applications; for example, at the end of the initial three-year period of H-1B status. An organization can apply for H-1B status extension six months before the status ends, but current extension processing times are up to 11 months (USCIS 2019a). With the H-1B status, even after the status date ends, the status holder continues to receive the benefits for 240 additional days as long as an extension application is pending. Therefore, the current situation allows for up to 14 months of processing time, but things may soon reach that stage.

That being the case, business leaders should also be aware of the ability to use “premium” processing by payment of an additional fee (currently $1,410) to expedite processing (USCIS 2019b). Applications filed under “premium” processing receive USCIS action within 15 days, so organizations could consider this service rather than dealing with the uncertainty that comes with regular processing timelines. At the same time, recent developments around “premium” processing involve temporary

changes to the eligible categories of applications, so organizations should constantly monitor USCIS updates.

Coda: The Human Side of Immigration Issues Finally, one avenue by which business leaders can demonstrate thought leadership is in understanding the challenges of immigration issues on their foreign national employees’ stress levels. Employees at all levels of the organization, especially those who work with foreign nationals, should be sensitized to their colleagues’ immigration challenges and provide appropriate flexibility. Better yet, organizations could take the lead in proactively reaching out to foreign nationals to understand the relevant family situations, as entire families may be in a holding pattern while immigration statuses are being processed.

Organizations often handle immigration-related issues in a very process-driven manner without taking into account the human side of the equation. Reaching out to affected employees in a more humane manner is likely to engender stronger

organizational loyalty, and it can also lead to good press and a feel-good factor about businesses that truly care for their employees. In addition to demonstrating thought leadership and being good for the business, this is also the right thing to do!

References Kelly, Nataly (2018), “Research Shows Immigrants Help Businesses Grow. Here’s Why,” Harvard Business Review Online, October 26, 2018.

Lopez, Gustavo, Kristen Bialik, and Jynnah Radford (2018), “Key Findings about US Immigrants,” Pew Research Center, September 14, 2018.

USCIS (2019a), “Check Case Processing Times,” USCIS, January 25, 2019.

USCIS (2019b), “How Do I Use the Premium Processing Service?” USCIS, January 25, 2019.

Dr. Ajay T. Abraham is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Albers School of Business and Economics, Seattle University, and he has a Ph. D. from the University of Maryland, College Park. Prior to joining academia, he worked in marketing and technology roles across multiple companies in India, including Microsoft and Wipro Technologies. Ajay’s research primarily studies pricing through meta-analysis, eye-tracking, and experiments, and he is also interested in morality. He has published in Journal of Marketing Research and Sloan Management Review, and he teaches at the MBA and undergraduate levels.

Business Leadership for the common Good Continued from page 13

Finally, I try to instill in my students a tendency to shift and broaden their thinking from the old (outdated) win/ lose mindset to, instead, a win-win perspective in which companies are being more responsible and sustainable with less negative impacts AND they are demonstrating better financial performance, too. Evidence is mounting

in support of this new business mindset; we serve our students well when we prepare them to succeed in this new business world.

Eva: Students and business leaders generally prefer easy and predictable.

At Seattle U, we don’t “do” easy and certainly don’t teach as if students will

work in an easy and predictable world.

In many ways, we are living in a grand experiment. We want to prepare them to be resilient, compassionate, humble, and authentic.

Center for Leadership Formation thanks the faculty participating in this roundtable discussion.

Pa g e 1 4 / Alb e r s S c h o o l o f B u s i n e s s a n d E c o n o m i c s I s e at t l e u n i v e r s i t y

overcoming a post-truth world Continued from page 11

conditions needed for a productive, innovative and just economy. This means that businesses, like you and me, have obligations to nurture and support effective politics, apart from whether it happens to pay.

In the late 20th century the political philosopher John Rawls noted that a core feature of a durable democracy is a commitment to the “public use of reason,” where citizens, elected officials, courts and civil servants are motivated to govern society through an appeal to toleration and rational discourse. This is a lofty ideal that our actual political processes can only approximate.

But our ideals provide us direction and define our character. This is why the open disdain for the truth is, in

effect, an outward abandonment of this basic value that sustains our republic. Evidence now, at times, seems irrelevant. We inhabit a world of subjectivity, where your facts are yours, my facts are mine, and we have no mutually recognized standards for determining which are more accurate. Popular media outlets allow and encourage this confusion. In this environment, where we have no clear public norms of right and wrong, true and false, we become, as the post-war author Hannah Arendt noted, ideal subjects of “totalitarian rule.”

Over the last two years, the response to this concern has been growing. One opportunity to make it stronger is for civic-minded companies and their leaders to speak out against

those actions that threaten our shared interest in the truth, no matter how difficult and contentious it turns out to be.

Dr. Jeffery Smith is Seattle University’s Boeing Frank Shrontz Chair in Professional Ethics and Professor of Management in the Albers School of Business and Economics. He is currently President of the Society for Business Ethics. Professor Smith’s work at the intersection of philosophy and business has been published in journals such as Business Ethics Quarterly, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, and the Journal of Business Ethics, and he is the co-author of the internationally recognized text Ethics and the Conduct of Business (Pearson). He has held visiting appointments at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, the Janet Prindle Institute for Ethics and the Keck Graduate Institute. Professor Smith received his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota.

S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 I s e a t t l e u . e d u / a lb e r s / e x e c u t i v e / p a g e 1 5

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Seattle, WA Permit No. 2783

Seattle University Center for Leadership Formation 901 12th Avenue / P.O. Box 222000 Seattle, WA 98122-1090

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Upcoming events ALBERS EXECUTIVE SPEAKER SERIES Events are held in Pigott Auditorium from 5:30-6:30 p.m. (unless otherwise posted).

Free and open to the public.

Francois Locoh-Donou President & CEO, F5 Networks Monday, June 3, 2019 I Student Center 160

Seattle University Pre College Summer Immersion Transformative Technologies: Using AI for Social Good (3 college credits) July 15- July 26, 2019 Seattle University’s Summer Programs invites competitive high school juniors and seniors, with an interest in computer science and technology, to apply for Transformative Technologies. This pre-college immersion is an opportunity to learn about machine learning, data analytics and artificial intelligence and how technology can be used ethically to promote human well-being.

Outside of the classroom, students will have the experience of applying what they learn during visits lead by their faculty to local tech industry leaders. The program provides a unique chance to preview life as a college student, including living in Seattle University’s campus dorms in the heart of Capitol Hill.

Additionally, students will participate in a Leadership Boot Camp where they will work

with a certified education planner on activities designed to promote self-awareness and skills that will support them in the college application/ admission process, including personal essay design for the Common Application and college interviewing.

And of course, the program would not be complete without the fun cultural experience of summertime in Seattle! We will explore Pike Place Market, Capitol Hill, the Seattle Center, including the Museum of Pop Culture, and more!

For more information and to register go to https://www.seattleu.edu/summer/precollegiate-programs/, or email Eva Lasprogata Sedgwick, Director of Summer Programs, at lasprogg@seattleu.edu.

Harriet Stephenson Business Plan Competition Semifinals Tuesday, May 7, 2019 I 2-5 p.m.

Campion Ballroom Local professionals and alumni can sign up online to be Trade Show judges, or can drop in to watch the Fast Pitch competition at 2 p.m. and/or the Trade Show at 3-5 p.m.

Finals & Awards Friday, May 31, 2019 Columbia Tower Club All Semifinalist and Finalist Teams should plan to attend.

Albers Ethics Week

May 13-17, 2019 Albers Ethics Week is a unique annual program that hosts dozens of guest speakers from the greater Seattle-area business community for an intensive, week-long examination of ethical issues in business. Guests appear in classrooms across the Albers School curriculum, addressing ethical issues in areas such as accounting, finance, data analytics, marketing, and human resource management.

Two keynote events will be centered on the theme The Rise of Artificial Intelligence. Join the Center for Business Ethics and Seattle University for these important conversations.

Ethics and Responsible AI David Danks, L.L. Thurston Professor of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University Solon Barocas, Professor of Information Science, Cornell University Tuesday, May 14, 2019 I 5:30-6:45 p.m.

Pigott Auditorium Free and open to the public The Global Impact of AI Norm Judah, Chief Technology Officer, Microsoft Services Thursday, May 16, 2019 I 5:30-6:45 p.m.

Pigott Auditorium Free and open to the public