Paul,

Pills, like short-term strategies, don't make us better at what we do. If the interview is important, prepare the night before instead of partying and pass on the pills.

Paul,
Good post, and a timely one.
I think the scenario you've outlined has become quite familiar in our society. The underlining mentality seems to be that when people are looking for a competitive or performance edge, and drugs will give it to them, it can somehow be rationalized. That's how professional sports have become embroiled in the steroid mess, for example. Is this fair? No. Is it moral? No. The playing field is not level. I agree with Lewis: let's take responsibility for ourselves and do what we need to do to prepare for important events in our lives, and give it the best we have, sans any help from a bottle.

Lewis, thank you for commenting. In this particular instance, the dinner and evening drinking sessions are actually part of the interview- albeit informally.

Knowing this, would you still try and get away from the late night event with the VPs?

Claire, you make some good points.

If we cannot compete on our own merits, we shouldn't compete. However, I suppose in real life it's not that simple a choice. There are external pressures (need the job, just got married, baby on the way etc) and internal pressures (feed the ego, sense of self worth) that make the decision to take any performing enhancing drug more of a dillemma than perhaps it should be.

Those pressures that you point out have always existed, Paul. What has changed: our modern response to them.

Paul,

I would attend the party but excuse myself around 10 p.m., saying something simple like: Great party everyone. I had a fabulous time and look forward to more of these. See you tomorrow.

Lewis, thanks for continuing the conversation and pointing out a viable option.

Many of the readers of the FIX are not only employees, but also hourly or by the project consultants. We'll be competing at some point for jobs or consulting gigs with other marketers/ or agencies who employ people using brain drugs to get an edge.

Assuming there is indeed "an edge" --Fair or foul? And what can/should be done about it?

How different is Provigil or Adderall from an infusion of Stabucks caffeine? (Outside of being way more expensive, prescribed by an MD, and marketed by Big Pharma.)
Sure, heroin would be bad, but what about gingo biloba? It's not an Olympic competition, it's real life. Folks want to be their best and do their best. "Life enhancement" through drugs, exercise or plastic surgery is inevitable. I'm pretty sure it's not evil or unethical.

(If Devon, in the example, really had a killer instinct, he'd have swilled club soda the night before, encouraging Scott and everybody else to get plastered.)

Excellent topic, Paul, and one that is bound to be more of an issue over time. Relying on specific meds to manage mental health diagnoses is one thing. To take prescription drugs electively or recreationally is another. How does one know what the side effects will be - after regular use, in five years, in ten? Is being that competitive so important that people are willing to take chances with their brains?

I don't have a problem with natural supplements and herbs, although I wish they would be regulated for efficacy and quality.

It's human nature to try to be our best, as Jack points out. Eating nutritionally and exercising are good for us no matter what. I suppose invasive options are about risk assessment.

Jack, thanks for weighing in.

If I were Devon, I'd be concerned about multiple things - one being potential adverse side effects from taking a drug that I know nothing about and not specifically prescribed for me. Granted, some of these ADHD drugs have proven relatively harmless --for those people they are prescribed for!

And if I was already taking a daily prescription drug for another ailment, drug interactions in the body with non-prescribed drugs could lead to injury or worse.

Last note, getting a job or bid these days is, in my opinion as important to some as an "olympic competition"!

Do those pills really have such a dramatic effect? My take was that they were pretty ineffectual and had nowhere near the visible effect of a strong cup of coffee.

I'm not a competitive person so maybe I just can't relate. If a company is going to make me jump thru hoops and then gets charmed by a pill-popping asshole (and Scott really does sound like one), I don't want to work there anyway. I think people should find a team/culture that aligns well with their authentic personality and abilities (not to mention values), rather than use artificial means to fit in somewhere. I also think people need to take a longer view of their lives and careers and be honest about how they're gonna sleep at night.

Companies that reward unethical behavior -- or make employees resort to it in order to fulfill unrealistic expectations -- should also be held accountable. I realize the company in this story isn't necessarily aware of Devon's brain drugs, but maybe it (like governing bodies in professional sports) needs to take measures to ensure that their employees are "clean." Heck, it would be good PR too.

Like I said, I'm not motivated by competition, but I'd rather drop out of the game than have to resort to shady dealings in order to play. I need to look myself in the mirror every day.

Toad, take a look at that link to the LA Times article. I think you'll see whether real or perceived, there is a pretty strong effect.

Patricia, thank you for commenting. I think your approach is right on, however I fear you are in the minority...

The mentality seems to be, it's a dog eat dog world out there and "I just gotta keep up"!

I think this is really a question for parents. Parents help point their children in the direction of their own moral compass. Would you want your child to take the pills? Would your parents have wanted you to take the pills?

If it's not okay for your kids, it shouldn't be okay for you. And kids are more perceptive than parents give them credit for. They'll know; and they'll follow in your footsteps. If you're okay with that, that's fine, but "do as I say not as I do" has never worked.

Michael, you are right about parents helping set a moral compass, but not everyone has such parents. When then does personal responsibility factor into the equation?

I've read enough articles about potential side effects from non prescription use of ADHD drugs that it's made "the case for me" that these things are not safe for recreational use.

Maybe, as Elaine said previously, in addition to morality, it boils down to risk management.

Paul,
I'm never one to point the finger; maybe I was misunderstood. But to me it has nothing to do with risk vs reward. You're either honest or you're not. I most closely associate with Patricia on this one.

If you can access it, this Knowledge@Wharton article is VERY on point to this discussion.

An excerpt:
Thomas Dunfee, professor of legal studies and business ethics at Wharton, suggests that "when it comes to unethical behavior, companies often blame it on a few bad apples. But if the cheating becomes pervasive, it looks more like a bad barrel."

That, notes Shropshire, is the kind of "paranoid world" former San Francisco Giants player Bonds inhabited, according to the investigative reporting in Game of Shadows. "He looked around and saw so many others were taking performance enhancing drugs, including home-run kings like Mark McGwire. Bonds' innocence is still presumed, but the book indicates he took the drugs thinking, 'This is what I have to do to compete.'"

The psychological root of this vicious circle is human misperception, says Dunfee. "Research consistently indicates that people think of themselves as more ethical than others. That leads them to overestimate the amount of unethical behavior others engage in. People adjust their own behavior to that misapprehension, and then it gets scary: There's a downward spiral."

oops, here's the link
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1902

Patricia, thank you for the link. I'll agree that some people look around and say, "everyone's doing it, so I need to keep up" --whether everyone is actually doing it or not.

However, I think there's another element besides the need to keep up, and that's ego. There are those who -no matter what--are going to take the fast, easy, cheap and quick fix route.

This is a great one. And I must agree on Patricia much. Even tough the Lewis's great experience and suggestions are also rocking. :-)

Yet I think we also need to always see the wider perspective. Having a wow-payed-demanding-respected-job isn't actually something that can make us happy. I would prefer much more to be a fishermen at the seaside then taking pills to get/have/do job.

So:
- Devon shouldn't take pills
- He shouldn't notify anybody of this (he has better things to do in his life)
- Devon, don't worry, be happy. :-) NewCo, consider your business goals?

Now I can go for some RedBull to finish my work before sleep. :-)

Dusan, thank you for your entertaining perspectives--you have quite the sense of humor.

I once had a college professor, who I'm sure borrowed the phrase from someone else,who said, "anything worth doing, is worth doing right."

There is a lot of satisfaction at the end of the day, regardless of the decisions/actions of others, to close your eyes and say, I didn't cheat, lie, steal to get where I'm at.

Paul,

Nice post. I've been away part of the week on business, but wanted to add something to what has already been said.

Sooner or later, word gets out about people who cheat, lie or cut corners to reach their goals. Many times they tell business associates themselves, or boast of it in some way. In business circles, that's a brand image killer, for individuals and for companies alike who engage in this kind of behavior. Once a reputation is tainted, how long does it take, if ever, to get good opinion back? Will these people ever be deemed trustworthy again in the eyes of their peers or potential employers? It's just not worth it.

It could well be that these drugs are safe but what about side effects and long-term effects? Have studies been done?

I think people are very quick to pop a pill in our society. Sometimes medicine is definitely needed but some caution is in order.

I do not own a TV so when I visit a friend and watch, it seems every other ad is for a drug: "Does your big toe hurt? You could be a 'Big Toe Syndrome' sufferer." This is a serious ailment that causes 1 in 25 adults to hate life. If you want your toe and you to feel fantastic, ask your doctor for ToeEnEx! It is the blue pill that cures the toe."

Ted, thanks for weighing in. Your point gets back to my earlier reference to ego. Sometimes these folks just cannot help boasting, and might even intentionally let the secrets of their success slip.

You also referenced companies, which brought me back to the idea of company cultures. I bet in a company like Enron, such behavior would not only be sanctioned but encouraged. It was certainly survival of the fittest there. Sadly, I bet there are at least another ten Enron's (culturally) in operation at this very moment.

Neil, we most certainly like to pop pills in this culture. But if pills were taken away, don't you think we'd try and find another quick fix?

Funny, Paul, but Enron crossed my mind too, when writing about companies that engage in unethical behavior. It's an extreme example, of course, but I'm sure you're right. There are more Enrons out there. Just think of what happens to them, though. The executives who engaged in improper behavior at that level went to prison; the company was ruined; trust was lost among consumers, investors, employees. The ramifications are huge.

On a smaller level, who wants to take on an employee who is a known cheater or liar? How could you trust such a person? Would you want such a person to represent your company's brand to the customer? How would the other employees feel having a co-worker like that among them? So to your point: it pays to slowly build the right kind of culture in a company, and that is directly based on the quality of the people who are hired. It's about building and maintaining trust, internally, and with our customers, in a highly skeptical world.

Paul,

I am not suggesting that I have the wisdom to know when a particular pill is good, bad, or somewhere in between. I have absolutely no doubt that medicines benefit many, many people every day.

I am just suggesting that a bit of caution is in order. These seems to be the idea that there is a pill for just about everything. I was taught there is no free lunch...

Paul: Link to LA Times article is no longer working.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing the scenario you laid out as anything more than a parable since these drugs mostly seem to work via the placebo effect (e.g. people really want to believe they're working, but there's zero concrete evidence that they actually do.)

The truth is the guy who won the job did it the night before over drinks. The interview might well be a formality.

As long as both men had a strong cup of coffee, I think it is a probably a wash.

Hi Toad, this site has a reprint of the LA Times article.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/12/23/1223braindoping.html

Neil, you make a good point. The CEO interview might just be a rubber stamp, and the real interviews happened with Devon/Scott's peers. It's almost as important to "be on" at dinner and after dinner, as it is during formal interviews.

Yeah, going home at 10:00 PM might have been a mistake.

Presumably the CEO knows about the night out. Good judgement does say that Devon and Scott should watch their drinking so they do not get completely hammered with the peers and end up completely useless the next day.

Back to these pills, I think there is not really a moral issue here. People are free to take or not take them. I believe these things are in the realm of personal decisions and really none of anyone else's business.

The issue is personal. Do these pills do you more harm than good? What if they cause severe liver damage over time or something? What if over time you actually harm your cognitive ability? We need more research. Is there really a free lunch when it comes to a cognitive boost?

These pills are not medicine. If someone needs a prescription for a specific ailment that is one thing but it is quite another if one wants to be a bit sharper.

Unless you are Forrest Gump, you do not need smart pills. Though old Forrest seemed to have a good measure of emotional intelligence...

I do not think that Devon should take pills in order to aquire a career. If this was to be the right career for him, then he would not have to be going about it this way. Any attempt on Devons' behalf to "notify NewCO of their conversation" ( Scott and Devons') would be none of
Devons' business. And my advice to Devon would be to go and find out what you really want to do.

Kitteey, thanks for chiming in.

You make an interesting point about career choice for Devon. Sometimes we think we know what we want to do, and have in mind our "limits" on behaviors we're willing to engage in to get there. But I've been discovering (and it's not uncharted territory) that there's a HUGE gap between theory and reality.

It's in those private split second moments that we have choices to make. Decisions today can affect generations to come.

This thread dovetails well with Ted Mininni's on "Caffeinated Candy, What's Next?" See right under "Most Active Posts." Particularly in light of the labels on Homer's brain lobes. I'm loving the ethical focus of these posts.