Select one of the following Case Studies 13.1, 13.2, or 13.3. (Pages 314-316)
Use the guidelines below to draft your analysis of the case.
Guidelines for Case Study
1. Brief introductory or problem synopsis
2. Stakeholders or parties of interest involved
3. Critical issues or key findings/observations
4. Propose 2-3 possible alternatives for solving the problem
5. One Recommendation based on the aforementioned alternatives. Note: Be sure to mention why the selected recommendation is the best option. Include any theoretical or academic support to validate your recommended proposal.
*Note: The questions at the end of each case are thought provoking. However, I prefer for the format of your analysis to be presented as listed above.1-2 pages. (Typically three or more fully developed paragraphs with appropriate citations). You need to read the file I upload. You can use quote and list reference. Reference should not be used above 30% of whole paper. Write your examples, opinion, and comments if necessary.
NO Plagiarism. It must be upload to the Turnitin website.
Only use the note I upload for references. NO OUTSIDE REFERENCES.
If you don’t follow the rules, I will withdraw it. Week 7 case.docxweek_7_note.docxweek_7_case.docxReference:
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. ISBN: 978-1-4833-1753-3
13 Leadership Ethics
DESCRIPTION
This chapter is different from many of the other chapters in this book. Most of the other
chapters focus on one unified leadership theory or approach (e.g., trait approach, path–goal
theory, or transformational leader- ship), whereas this chapter is multifaceted and presents a
broad set of ethical viewpoints. The chapter is intended not as an “ethical leadership
theory,” but rather as a guide to some of the ethical issues that arise in leadership situations.
Probably since our cave-dwelling days, human beings have been concerned with the ethics
of our leaders. Our history books are replete with descriptions of good kings and bad kings,
great empires and evil empires, and strong presidents and weak presidents. But despite a
wealth of biographical accounts of great leaders and their morals, very little research has
been published on the theoretical foundations of leadership ethics. There have been many
studies on business ethics in general since the early 1970s, but these studies have been only
tangentially related to leadership ethics. Even in the literature of management, written
primarily for practitioners, there are very few books on leadership ethics. This suggests that
theoretical formulations in this area are still in their infancy.
One of the earliest writings that specifically focused on leadership ethics appeared as
recently as 1996. It was a set of working papers generated from a small group of leadership
scholars, brought together by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. These scholars examined how
leadership theory and practice could be used to build a more caring and just society. The
ideas of the Kellogg group are now published in a volume titled Ethics, the Heart of
Leadership (Ciulla, 1998).
Ethical Leadership
330 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE
Interest in the nature of ethical leadership has continued to grow, particularly because of the
many recent scandals in corporate America and the political realm. On the academic front,
there has also been a strong interest in exploring the nature of ethical leadership (see
Aronson, 2001; Ciulla, 2001, 2003; Johnson, 2011; Kanungo, 2001; Price, 2008; Trevino,
Brown, & Hartman, 2003).
Ethics Defined
From the perspective of Western tradition, the development of ethical theory dates back to
Plato (427–347 b.c.) and Aristotle (384–322 b.c.). The word ethics has its roots in the Greek
word ethos, which translates to “customs,” “conduct,” or “character.” Ethics is concerned
with the kinds of values and morals an individual or a society finds desirable or appropriate.
Furthermore, ethics is concerned with the virtuousness of individuals and their motives.
Ethical theory provides a system of rules or principles that guide us in making decisions
about what is right or wrong and good or bad in a particular situation. It provides a basis for
understanding what it means to be a morally decent human being.
In regard to leadership, ethics is concerned with what leaders do and who leaders are. It has
to do with the nature of leaders’ behavior, and with their virtuousness. In any decisionmaking situation, ethical issues are either implicitly or explicitly involved. The choices
leaders make and how they respond in a given circumstance are informed and directed by
their ethics.
A leader’s choices are also influenced by their moral development. The most widely
recognized theory advanced to explain how people think about moral issues is Kohlberg’s
stages of moral development. Kohlberg (1984) presented a series of dilemmas (the most
famous of which is “the Heinz dilemma”) to groups of young children who he then
interviewed about the reasoning behind their choices regarding the dilemmas. From these
data he created a classification system of moral reasoning that was divided into six stages:
Stage 1—Obedience and Punishment, Stage 2— Individualism and Exchange, Stage 3—
Interpersonal Accord and Conformity, Stage 4—Maintaining the Social Order, Stage 5—
Social Contract and Individual Rights, and Stage 6—Universal Principles (see Table 13.1).
Kohlberg further classified the first two stages as preconventional morality, the second two
as conventional morality, and the last two as postconventional morality.
Ethics Introduction
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 331
When an individual is at the preconventional morality level, he or she tends to judge the
morality of an action by its direct consequences. There are two stages that fall within
preconventional morality:
Stage 1—Obedience and Punishment. At this stage, the individual is egocentric and sees
morality as external to self. Rules are fixed and handed down by authority. Obeying rules is
important because it means avoiding punishment. For example, a child reasons it is bad to
steal because the consequence will be to go to jail.
Stage 2—Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, the individual makes moral decisions
based on self-interest. An action is right if it serves the individual. Everything is relative, so
each person is free to do his or her own thing. People do not identify with the values of the
community (Crain,
332 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE
1985) but are willing to exchange favors. For example, an individual might
say, “I’ll do a favor for you, if you do a favor for me.”
Level 2. Conventional Morality
Those who are at this level judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society’s
views and expectations. Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based
on the norms of the group to which the person belongs. Kohlberg identified two stages at
the conventional morality level:
Stage 3—Interpersonal Accord and Conformity. At this stage, the individual makes moral
choices based on conforming to the expectations of others and trying to behave like a
“good” person. It is important to be “nice” and live up to the community standard of
niceness. For example, a student says, “I am not going to cheat because that is not what a
good student does.”
Stage 4—Maintaining the Social Order. At this stage, the individual makes moral decisions
in ways that show concern for society as a whole. In order for society to function, it is
important that people obey the laws, respect authority, and support the rules of the
community. For example, a person does not run a red light in the middle of the night when
no other cars are around because it is important to maintain and support the traffic laws of
the community.
Level 3. Postconventional Morality
At this level of morality, also known as the principled level, individuals have developed
their own personal set of ethics and morals that guide their behavior. Postconventional
moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic
human rights as life, liberty, and justice. There are two stages that Kohlberg identified as
part of the postconventional morality level:
Stage 5—Social Contract and Individual Rights. At this stage, the individual makes moral
decisions based on a social contract and his or her views on what a good society should be
like. A good society supports values such as liberty and life, and fair procedures for
changing laws (Crain, 1985), but recognizes that groups have different opinions and values.
Societal laws are important, but people need to agree on them. For example, if a boy is
dying of cancer and his parents do not have money to pay for his treatment, the state should
step in and pay for it.
Ethical Dilemmas
Stage 6—Universal Principles. At this stage, the individual’s moral reasoning is based on
internalized universal principles of justice that apply to everyone. Decisions that are made
need to respect the viewpoints of all parties involved. People follow their internal rules of
fairness, even if they conflict with laws. An example of this stage would be a civil rights
activist who believes a commitment to justice requires a willingness to disobey unjust laws.
Kohlberg’s model of moral development has been criticized for focusing exclusively on
justice values, for being sex-biased since it is derived from an all-male sample, for being
culturally biased since it is based on a sample from an individualist culture, and for
advocating a postconventional morality where people place their own principles above those
of the law or society (Crain, 1985). Regardless of these criticisms, this model is seminal to
developing an understanding of what forms the basis for individuals’ ethical leadership.
Ethical Theories
For the purposes of studying ethics and leadership, ethical theories can be thought of as
falling within two broad domains: theories about leaders’ con- duct and theories about
leaders’ character (Table 13.2). Stated another way, ethical theories when applied to
leadership are about both the actions of leaders and who they are as people. Throughout the
chapter, our discussions about ethics and leadership will always fall within one of these two
domains: conduct or character.
Ethical theories that deal with the conduct of leaders are in turn divided into two kinds:
theories that stress the consequences of leaders’ actions and those that emphasize the duty or
rules governing leaders’ actions (see Table 13.2). Teleological theories, from the Greek
word telos, meaning “ends” or “purposes,” try to answer questions about right and wrong by
focusing on whether a person’s conduct will produce desirable consequences. From the
334 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE
teleological perspective, the question “What is right?” is answered by looking at results or
outcomes. In effect, the consequences of an individual’s actions determine the goodness or
badness of a particular behavior.
In assessing consequences, there are three different approaches to making decisions
regarding moral conduct (Figure 13.1): ethical egoism, utilitarian- ism, and altruism.
Ethical egoism states that a person should act so as to create the greatest good for her- or
himself. A leader with this orientation would take a job or career that she or he selfishly
enjoys (Avolio & Locke, 2002). Self-interest is an ethical stance closely related to
transactional leadership theories (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Ethical egoism is common in
some business contexts in which a company and its employees make deci- sions to achieve
its goal of maximizing profits. For example, a midlevel, upward-aspiring manager who
wants her team to be the best in the company could be described as acting out of ethical
egoism.
A second teleological approach, utilitarianism, states that we should behave so as to create
the greatest good for the greatest number. From this viewpoint, the morally correct action is
the action that maximizes social benefits while minimizing social costs (Schumann, 2001).
When the U.S. government allocates a large part of the federal budget for preventive health
care rather than for catastrophic illnesses, it is acting from a utilitarian perspective, putting
money where it will have the best result for the largest number of citizens.
Closely related to utilitarianism, and opposite of ethical egoism, is a third teleological
approach, altruism. Altruism is an approach that suggests that actions are moral if their
primary purpose is to promote the best interests of others. From this perspective, a leader
may be called on to act in the interests of others, even when it runs contrary to his or her
own self-interests (Bowie, 1991). Authentic transformational leadership (Chapter 8) is based
on altruistic principles (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996) and
altruism is pivotal to exhibiting servant leadership (Chapter 10). The strongest example of
altruist ethics can be found in the work of Mother Teresa, who devoted her life to helping
the poor.
Quite different from looking at which actions will produce which outcomes, deontological
theory is derived from the Greek word deos, which means “duty.” Whether a given action is
ethical rests not only with its consequences (teleological), but also with whether the action
itself is good. Telling the truth, keep- ing promises, being fair, and respecting others are all
examples of actions that are inherently good, independent of the consequences. The
deontological perspective focuses on the actions of the leader and his or her moral
obligations and responsibilities to do the right thing. A leader’s actions are moral if the
leader has a moral right to do them, if the actions do not infringe on others’ rights, and if the
actions further the moral rights of others (Schumann, 2001).
In the late 1990s, the president of the United States, Bill Clinton, was brought before
Congress for misrepresenting under oath an affair he had maintained with a White House
intern. For his actions, he was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but then
was acquitted by the U.S. Senate. At one point during the long ordeal, the president
appeared on national television and, in what is now a famous speech, declared his
innocence. Because subsequent hearings provided information that suggested that he may
have lied during this television speech, many Americans felt President Clinton had violated
his duty and responsibility (as a person, leader, and president) to tell the truth. From a
deontological perspective, it could be said that he failed his ethical responsibility to do the
right thing—to tell the truth.
Whereas teleological and deontological theories approach ethics by looking at the behavior
or conduct of a leader, a second set of theories approaches ethics from the viewpoint of a
leader’s character (see Table 13.2). These theories are called virtue-based theories; they
focus on who leaders are as people. In this perspective, virtues are rooted in the heart of the
individual and in the individual’s disposition (Pojman, 1995). Furthermore, it is believed
that virtues and moral abilities are not innate but can be acquired and learned through
practice. People can be taught by their families and communities to be morally appropriate
human beings.
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 335
Approaches to Ethical Leadership
336 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE
With their origin traced back in the Western tradition to the ancient Greeks and the works of
Plato and Aristotle, virtue theories are experiencing a resurgence in popularity. The Greek
term associated with these theories is aretaic, which means “excellence” or “virtue.”
Consistent with Aristotle, cur- rent advocates of virtue-based theory stress that more
attention should be given to the development and training of moral values (Velasquez,
1992). Rather than telling people what to do, attention should be directed toward telling
people what to be, or helping them to become more virtuous.
What, then, are the virtues of an ethical person? There are many, all of which seem to be
important. Based on the writings of Aristotle, a moral person demonstrates the virtues of
courage, temperance, generosity, self-control, honesty, sociability, modesty, fairness, and
justice (Velasquez, 1992). For Aristotle, virtues allowed people to live well in communities.
Applying ethics to leadership and management, Velasquez has suggested that managers
should develop virtues such as perseverance, public-spiritedness, integrity, truthfulness,
fidelity, benevolence, and humility.
In essence, virtue-based ethics is about being and becoming a good, worthy human being.
Although people can learn and develop good values, this theory maintains that virtues are
present in one’s disposition. When practiced over time, from youth to adulthood, good
values become habitual, and part of the people themselves. By telling the truth, people
become truthful; by giving to the poor, people become benevolent; by being fair to others,
people become just. Our virtues are derived from our actions, and our actions manifest our
virtues (Frankena, 1973; Pojman, 1995).
Centrality of Ethics to Leadership
As discussed in Chapter 1, leadership is a process whereby the leader influences others to
reach a common goal. The influence dimension of leadership requires the leader to have an
impact on the lives of those being led. To make a change in other people carries with it an
enormous ethical burden and responsibility. Because leaders usually have more power and
control than followers, they also have more responsibility to be sensitive to how their
leadership affects followers’ lives.
Whether in group work, organizational pursuits, or community projects, leaders engage
followers and utilize them in their efforts to reach common goals. In all these situations,
leaders have the ethical responsibility to treat followers with dignity and respect—as human
beings with unique identities. This “respect for people” demands that leaders be sensitive to
followers’ own
Integrity Drives Growth
interests, needs, and conscientious concerns (Beauchamp & Bowie, 1988). Although all of
us have an ethical responsibility to treat other people as unique human beings, leaders have
a special responsibility, because the nature of their leadership puts them in a special position
in which they have a greater opportunity to influence others in significant ways.
Ethics is central to leadership, and leaders help to establish and reinforce organizational
values. Every leader has a distinct philosophy and point of view. “All leaders have an
agenda, a series of beliefs, proposals, values, ideas, and issues that they wish to ‘put on the
table’” (Gini, 1998, p. 36). The values promoted by the leader have a significant impact on
the values exhibited by the organization (see Carlson & Perrewe, 1995; Schminke,
Ambrose, & Noel, 1997; Trevino, 1986). Again, because of their influence, leaders play a
major role in establishing the ethical climate of their organizations.
In short, ethics is central to leadership because of the nature of the process of influence, the
need to engage followers in accomplishing mutual goals, and the impact leaders have on the
organization’s values.
The following section provides a discussion of some of the work of prominent leadership
scholars who have addressed issues related to ethics and leadership. Although many
additional viewpoints exist, those presented are representative of the predominant thinking
in the area of ethics and leader- ship today.
Heifetz’s Perspective on Ethical Leadership
Based on his work as a psychiatrist and his observations and analysis of many world leaders
(e.g., President Lyndon Johnson, Mohandas Gandhi, and Margaret Sanger), Ronald Heifetz
(1994) has formulated a unique approach to ethical leadership. His approach emphasizes
how leaders help followers to confront conflict and to address conflict by effecting changes.
Heifetz’s perspective is related to ethical leadership because it deals with values: the values
of workers and the values of the organizations and communities in which they work.
According to Heifetz, leadership involves the use of authority to help followers deal with
the conflicting values that emerge in rapidly changing work environments and social
cultures. It is an ethical perspective because it speaks directly to the values of workers.
For Heifetz (1994), leaders must use authority to mobilize people to face tough issues. As
was discussed in the chapter on adaptive leadership (Chapter 11), it is up to the leader to
provide a “holding environment” in
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 337
Ethical Norms
338 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE
which there is trust, nurturance, and empathy. In a supportive context, followers can feel
safe to confront hard problems. Specifically, leaders use authority to get people to pay
attention to the issues, to act as a reality test regarding information, to manage and frame
issues, to orchestrate conflicting perspectives, and to facilitate decision making (Heifetz,
1994, p. 113). The leader’s duties are to assist the follower in struggling with change and
personal growth.
Burns’s Perspective on Ethical Leadership
As discussed in Chapter 8, Burns’s theory of transformational leadership places a strong
emphasis on followers’ needs, values, and morals. Transformational leadership involves
attempts by leaders to move followers to higher standards of moral responsibility. This
emphasis sets transformational leadership apart from most other approaches to leader- ship
because it clearly states that leadership has a moral dimension (see Bass & Steidlmeier,
1999).
Similar to that of Heifetz, Burns’s (1978) perspective argues that it is important for leaders
to engage themselves with followers and help them in their personal struggles regarding
conflicting values. The resulting connection raises the level of morality in both the leader
and the follower.
The origins of Burns’s position on leadership ethics are rooted in the works of such writers
as Abraham Maslow, Milton Rokeach, and Lawrence Kohlberg (Ciulla, 1998). The
influence of these writers can be seen in how Burns emphasizes the leader’s role in
attending to the personal motivations and moral development of the follower. For Burns, it
is the responsibility of the leader to help followers assess their own values and needs in
order to raise them to a higher level of functioning, to a level that will stress values such as
liberty, justice, and equality (Ciulla, 1998).
Burns’s position on leadership as a morally uplifting process has not been without its critics.
It has raised many questions: How do you choose what a better set of moral values is? Who
is to say that some decisions represent higher moral ground than others? If leadership, by
definition, entails raising individual moral functioning, does this mean that the leadership of
corrupt leaders is not actually leadership? Notwithstanding these very legitimate questions,
Burns’s perspective is unique in that it makes ethics the central characteristic of the
leadership process. His writing has placed ethics at the forefront of scholarly discussions of
what leadership means and how leader- ship should be carried out.
Teaching Ethical Leadership
The Dark Side of Leadership
Although Burns (1978) placed ethics at the core of leadership, there still exists a dark side
of leadership that exemplifies leadership that is unethical and destructive. It is what we
defined in Chapter 8 (“Transformational Leadership”) as pseudo transformational
leadership. The dark side of leadership is the destructive and toxic side of leadership in that
a leader uses leadership for personal ends. Lipman-Blumen (2005) suggests that toxic
leaders are characterized by destructive behaviors such as leaving their followers worse off
than they found them, violating the basic human rights of others, and playing to their basest
fears. Furthermore, Lipman-Blumen identifies many dysfunctional personal characteristics
destructive leaders demonstrate including lack of integrity, insatiable ambition, arrogance,
and reckless dis- regard for their actions. The same characteristics and behaviors that
distinguish leaders as special can also be used by leaders to produce disastrous outcomes
(Conger, 1990). Because researchers have been focused on the positive attributes and
outcomes of effective leadership, until recently, there has been little attention paid to the
dark side of leadership. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that it exists.
In a meta-analysis of 57 studies of destructive leadership and its outcomes, Schyns and
Schilling (2013) found a strong relationship between destructive leadership and negative
attitudes in followers toward the leader. Destructive leadership is also negatively related to
followers’ attitudes toward their jobs and toward their organization as a whole. Furthermore,
Schyns and Schilling found it closely related to negative affectivity and to the experience of
occu- pational stress.
In an attempt to more clearly define destructive leadership, Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser
(2007) developed the concept of a toxic triangle that focuses on the influences of destructive
leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments (see Figure 13.2). As shown in
the model, destructive leaders are characterized by having charisma and a need to use power
and coercion for personal gains. They are also narcissistic and often attention-getting and
self-absorbed. Destructive leaders often have negative life stories that can be traced to
traumatic childhood events. Perhaps from self-hatred, they often express an ideology of hate
in their rhetoric and worldview.
As illustrated in Figure 13.2, destructive leadership also incorporates susceptible followers
who have been characterized as conformers and colluders. Conformers go along with
destructive leaders to satisfy unmet needs such as emptiness, alienation, or need for
community. These followers have low self- esteem and identify with charismatic leaders in
an attempt to become more
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 339
The Dark Side of Leadership
340 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE
desirable. Because they are psychologically immature, conformers more eas- ily go along
with authority and engage in destructive activity. On the other hand, colluders may respond
to destructive leaders because they are ambitious, desire status, or see an opportunity to
profit. Colluders may also go along because they identify with the leader’s beliefs and
values, which may be unsocialized such as greed and selfishness.
Finally, the toxic triangle illustrates that destructive leadership includes a conducive
environment. When the environment is unstable, the leader is often granted more authority
to assert radical change. When there is a perceived threat, followers often accept assertive
leadership. People are attracted to leaders who will stand up to the threats they feel in the
environment. Destructive leaders who express compatible cultural values with followers are
more likely to succeed. For example, cultures high on collectiveness would prefer a leader
who promotes community and group identity. Destructive
Opportunism and Ethics
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 341 leadership will also thrive when the checks and balances of
the organization
are weak and the rules of the institution are ineffective.
Although research on the dark side of leadership has been limited, it is an area critical to our
understanding of leadership that is unethical. Clearly, there is a need for the development of
models, theories, and assessment instruments about the process of destructive leadership.
Principles of Ethical Leadership
In this section, we turn to a discussion of five principles of ethical leadership, the origins of
which can be traced back to Aristotle. The importance of these principles has been
discussed in a variety of disciplines, including biomedical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress,
1994), business ethics (Beauchamp & Bowie, 1988), counseling psychology (Kitchener,
1984), and leadership edu- cation (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998), to name a few.
Although not inclusive, these principles provide a foundation for the development of sound
ethical leadership: respect, service, justice, honesty, and community (Figure 13.3).
Practical Ethical Theory
342 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE
themselves and never as means to ends. As Beauchamp and Bowie (1988, p. 37) pointed
out, “Persons must be treated as having their own autonomously established goals and must
never be treated purely as the means to another’s personal goals.”These writers then
suggested that treating others as ends rather than as means requires that we treat other
people’s decisions and values with respect: Failing to do so would signify that we were
treat- ing them as a means to our own ends.
Leaders who respect others also allow them to be themselves, with creative wants and
desires. They approach other people with a sense of their unconditional worth and valuable
individual differences (Kitchener, 1984). Respect includes giving credence to others’ ideas
and confirming them as human beings. At times, it may require that leaders defer to others.
As Burns (1978) suggested, leaders should nurture followers in becoming aware of their
own needs, values, and purposes, and assist followers in integrating these with the leader’s
needs, values, and purposes.
Respect for others is a complex ethic that is similar to but goes deeper than the kind of
respect that parents teach little children. Respect means that a leader listens closely to
followers, is empathic, and is tolerant of opposing points of view. It means treating
followers in ways that confirm their beliefs, attitudes, and values. When a leader exhibits
respect to followers, followers can feel competent about their work. In short, leaders who
show respect treat others as worthy human beings.
Ethical Leaders Serve Others
Earlier in this chapter, we contrasted two ethical theories, one based on a concern for self
(ethical egoism) and another based on the interests of others (ethical altruism). The service
principle clearly is an example of altruism. Leaders who serve are altruistic: They place
their followers’ welfare foremost in their plans. In the workplace, altruistic service behavior
can be observed in activities such as mentoring, empowerment behaviors, team building,
and citizenship behaviors, to name a few (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996).
The leader’s ethical responsibility to serve others is very similar to the ethical principle in
health care of beneficence. Beneficence is derived from the Hippocratic tradition, which
holds that health professionals ought to make choices that benefit patients. In a general way,
beneficence asserts that providers have a duty to help others pursue their own legitimate
interests and goals (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994). Like health professionals, ethical
Ethical School Leadership
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 343
leaders have a responsibility to attend to others, be of service to them, and make decisions
pertaining to them that are beneficial and not harmful to their welfare.
In the past decade, the service principle has received a great deal of emphasis in the
leadership literature. It is clearly evident in the writings of Block (1993), Covey (1990), De
Pree (1989), Gilligan (1982), and Kouzes and Posner (1995), all of whom maintained that
attending to others is the primary building block of moral leadership. Further emphasis on
service can be observed in the work of Senge (1990) in his well-recognized writing on
learning organizations. Senge contended that one of the important tasks of leaders in
learning organizations is to be the steward (servant) of the vision within the organization.
Being a steward means clarifying and nurturing a vision that is greater than oneself. This
means not being self-centered, but rather integrating one’s self or vision with that of others
in the organization. Effective leaders see their own personal vision as an important part of
something larger than themselves—a part of the organization and the community at large.
The idea of leaders serving others was more deeply explored by Robert Greenleaf (1970,
1977), who developed the servant leadership approach. Servant leadership, which is
explored in depth in Chapter 10, has strong altruistic ethical overtones in how it emphasizes
that leaders should be attentive to the concerns of their followers and should take care of
them and nurture them. In addition, Greenleaf argues that the servant leader has a social
responsibility to be concerned with the have-nots and should strive to remove inequalities
and social injustices. Greenleaf places a great deal of emphasis on listening, empathy, and
unconditional acceptance of others.
In short, whether it is Greenleaf ’s notion of waiting on the have-nots or Senge’s notion of
giving oneself to a larger purpose, the idea behind service is contributing to the greater good
of others. Recently, the idea of serving the “greater good” has found an unusual following in
the business world. In 2009, 20% of the graduating class of the Harvard Business School,
considered to be one of the premier schools producing today’s business leaders, took an
oath pledging that they will act responsibly and ethically, and refrain from advancing their
own ambitions at the expense of others. Similarly, Columbia Business School requires all
students to pledge to an honor code requiring they adhere to truth, integrity, and respect
(Wayne, 2009). In practicing the principle of service, these and other ethical leaders must be
willing to be follower centered, must place others’ interests foremost in their work, and
must act in ways that will benefit others.
344 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE Ethical Leaders Are Just
Ethical leaders are concerned about issues of fairness and justice. They make it a top
priority to treat all of their followers in an equal manner. Justice demands that leaders place
issues of fairness at the center of their decision making. As a rule, no one should receive
special treatment or special consideration except when his or her particular situation
demands it. When individuals are treated differently, the grounds for different treatment
must be clear and reasonable, and must be based on moral values.
For example, many of us can remember being involved with some type of athletic team
when we were growing up. The coaches we liked were those we thought were fair with us.
No matter what, we did not want the coach to treat anyone differently from the rest. When
someone came late to practice with a poor excuse, we wanted that person disciplined just as
we would have been disciplined. If a player had a personal problem and needed a break, we
wanted the coach to give it, just as we would have been given a break. Without question, the
good coaches were those who never had favorites and who made a point of playing
everyone on the team. In essence, what we wanted was that our coach be fair and just.
When resources and rewards or punishments are distributed to employees, the leader plays a
major role. The rules that are used and how they are applied say a great deal about whether
the leader is concerned about justice and how he or she approaches issues of fairness.
Rawls (1971) stated that a concern with issues of fairness is necessary for all people who are
cooperating together to promote their common interests. It is similar to the ethic of
reciprocity, otherwise known as the Golden Rule— “Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you”—variations of which have appeared in many different cultures
throughout the ages. If we expect fairness from others in how they treat us, then we should
treat others fairly in our dealings with them. Issues of fairness become problematic because
there is always a limit on goods and resources, and there is often competition for the limited
things available. Because of the real or perceived scarcity of resources, conflicts often occur
between individuals about fair methods of distribution. It is important for leaders to clearly
establish the rules for dis- tributing rewards. The nature of these rules says a lot about the
ethical underpinnings of the leader and the organization.
Beauchamp and Bowie (1988) outlined several of the common principles that serve as
guides for leaders in distributing the benefits and burdens fairly in an organization (Table
13.3). Although not inclusive, these principles point to the reasoning behind why leaders
choose to distribute things as they
Ethics in Management Ethics in Nursing
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 345 do in organizations. In a given situation, a leader may use a
single principle
or a combination of several principles in treating followers.
To illustrate the principles described in Table 13.3, consider the following hypothetical
example: You are the owner of a small trucking company that employs 50 drivers. You have
just opened a new route, and it promises to be one that pays well and has an ideal schedule.
Only one driver can be assigned to the route, but seven drivers have applied for it. Each
driver wants an equal opportunity to get the route. One of the drivers recently lost his wife
to breast cancer and is struggling to care for three young children (individual need). Two of
the drivers are minorities, and one of them feels strongly that he has a right to the job. One
of the drivers has logged more driving hours for three consecutive years, and she feels her
effort makes her the logical candidate for the new route. One of the drivers serves on the
National Transportation Safety Board and has a 20-year accident-free driving record
(societal contri- bution). Two drivers have been with the company since its inception, and
their performance has been meritorious year after year.
As the owner of the company, your challenge is to assign the new route in a fair way.
Although many other factors could influence your decision (e.g., seniority, wage rate, or
employee health), the principles described in Table 13.3 provide guidelines for deciding
who is to get the new route.
Table 13.3 Principles of Distributive Justice
These principles are applied in different situations. To each person
•
An equal share or opportunity
•
According to individual need
•
According to that person’s rights
•
According to individual effort
•
According to societal contribution
•
According to merit or performance
Ethical Leaders Are Honest
When we were children, grown-ups often told us we must “never tell a lie.” To be
good meant we must be truthful. For leaders the lesson is the same: To be a good
leader, one must be honest.
The importance of being honest can be understood more clearly when we consider
the opposite of honesty: dishonesty (see Jaksa & Pritchard, 1988). Dishonesty is a
form of lying, a way of misrepresenting reality. Dishonesty may bring with it many
objectionable outcomes; foremost among those outcomes
Developing Leadership Character
346 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE
is the distrust it creates. When leaders are not honest, others come to see them as
undependable and unreliable. People lose faith in what leaders say and stand for, and their
respect for leaders is diminished. As a result, the leader’s impact is compromised because
others no longer trust and believe in the leader.
When we relate to others, dishonesty also has a negative impact. It puts a strain on how
people are connected to each other. When we lie to others, we are in essence saying that we
are willing to manipulate the relationship on our own terms. We are saying that we do not
trust the other person in the relationship to be able to deal with information we have. In
reality, we are putting ourselves ahead of the relationship by saying that we know what is
best for the relationship. The long-term effect of this type of behavior is that it weakens
relationships. Even when used with good intentions, dishonesty contributes to the
breakdown of relationships.
But being honest is not just about telling the truth. It has to do with being open with others
and representing reality as fully and completely as possible. This is not an easy task,
however, because there are times when telling the complete truth can be destructive or
counterproductive. The challenge for leaders is to strike a balance between being open and
candid while monitor- ing what is appropriate to disclose in a particular situation. Many
times, there are organizational constraints that prevent leaders from disclosing information
to followers. It is important for leaders to be authentic, but it is also essential that they be
sensitive to the attitudes and feelings of others. Honest leadership involves a wide set of
behaviors.
Dalla Costa (1998) made the point clearly in his book, The Ethical Imperative, that being
honest means more than not deceiving. For leaders in organiza- tions, being honest means,
“Do not promise what you can’t deliver, do not misrepresent, do not hide behind spindoctored evasions, do not suppress obligations, do not evade accountability, do not accept
that the ‘survival of the fittest’ pressures of business release any of us from the
responsibility to respect another’s dignity and humanity” (p. 164). In addition, Dalla Costa
suggested that it is imperative that organizations recognize and acknowledge the necessity
of honesty and reward honest behavior within the organization.
Ethical Leaders Build Community
In Chapter 1, we defined leadership as a process whereby an individual influ- ences a group
of individuals to achieve a common goal. This definition has a clear ethical dimension
because it refers to a common goal. A common goal requires that the leader and followers
agree on the direction to be taken by
Group Ethical Voice
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 347
the group. Leaders need to take into account their own and followers’ purposes while
working toward goals that are suitable for both of them.This factor, concern for others, is
the distinctive feature that delineates authentic transformational leaders from
pseudotransformational leaders (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999) (for more on
pseudotransformational leadership see page 163 in Chapter 8). Concern for the common
good means that leaders cannot impose their will on others. They need to search for goals
that are compat- ible with everyone.
Burns (1978) placed this idea at the center of his theory on transformational leadership. A
transformational leader tries to move the group toward a com- mon good that is beneficial
for both the leaders and the followers. In moving toward mutual goals, both the leader and
the followers are changed. It is this feature that makes Burns’s theory unique. For Burns,
leadership has to be grounded in the leader–follower relationship. It cannot be controlled by
the leader, such as Hitler’s influence in Germany. Hitler coerced people to meet his own
agenda and followed goals that did not advance the goodness of humankind.
An ethical leader takes into account the purposes of everyone involved in the group and is
attentive to the interests of the community and the culture. Such a leader demonstrates an
ethic of caring toward others (Gilligan, 1982) and does not force others or ignore the
intentions of others (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).
Rost (1991) went a step farther and suggested that ethical leadership demands attention to a
civic virtue. By this, he meant that leaders and fol- lowers need to attend to more than their
own mutually determined goals. They need to attend to the community’s goals and purpose.
As Burns (1978, p. 429) wrote, transformational leaders and followers begin to reach out to
wider social collectivities and seek to establish higher and broader moral purposes.
Similarly, Greenleaf (1970) argued that building community was a main characteristic of
servant leadership. All of our individual and group goals are bound up in the common good
and public interest. We need to pay attention to how the changes proposed by a leader and
followers will affect the larger organization, the community, and society. An ethical leader
is concerned with the common good, in the broadest sense.
STRENGTHS
This chapter discusses a broad set of ideas regarding ethics and leadership. This general
field of study has several strengths. First, it provides a body
Ethical Role of Management
348 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE
of timely research on ethical issues. There is a high demand for moral leadership in our
society today. Beginning with the Nixon administration in the 1970s and continuing through
Barack Obama’s administration, people have been insisting on higher levels of moral
responsibility from their leaders. At a time when there seems to be a vacuum in ethical
leadership, this research offers us some direction on how to think about and practice ethical
leadership.
Second, this body of research suggests that ethics ought to be considered as an integral part
of the broader domain of leadership. Except for servant, transformational, and authentic
leadership, none of the other leadership theories dis- cussed in this book includes ethics as a
dimension of the leadership process. This chapter suggests that leadership is not an amoral
phenomenon. Leadership is a process of influencing others; it has a moral dimension that
distinguishes it from other types of influence, such as coercion or despotic control.
Leadership involves values, including showing respect for followers, being fair to others,
and building community. It is not a process that we can demonstrate without show- ing our
values. When we influence, we have an effect on others, which means we need to pay
attention to our values and our ethics.
Third, this body of research highlights several principles that are important to the
development of ethical leadership. The virtues discussed in this research have been around
for more than 2,000 years. They are reviewed in this chapter because of their significance
for today’s leaders.
CRITICISMS
Although the area of ethics and leadership has many strengths, it also has some weaknesses.
First, it is an area of research in its early stage of develop- ment, and therefore lacks a strong
body of traditional research findings to substantiate it. As was pointed out at the beginning
of the chapter, very little research has been published on the theoretical foundations of
leader- ship ethics. Although many studies have been published on business ethics, these
studies have not been directly related to ethical leadership. The dearth of research on
leadership ethics makes speculation about the nature of ethical leadership difficult. Until
more research studies have been con- ducted that deal directly with the ethical dimensions
of leadership, theo- retical formulations about the process will remain tentative.
Another criticism is that leadership ethics today relies primarily on the writings of just a few
people who have written essays and texts that are
Ethical Issues in Nursing
strongly influenced by their personal opinions about the nature of leadership ethics and their
view of the world. Although these writings, such as Heifetz’s and Burns’s, have stood the
test of time, they have not been tested using traditional quantitative or qualitative research
methods. They are primarily descriptive and anecdotal. Therefore, leadership ethics lacks
the traditional kind of empirical support that usually accompanies accepted theories of
human behavior.
APPLICATION
Although issues of morality and leadership are discussed more often in society today, these
discussions have not resulted in a large number of pro- grams in training and development
designed to teach ethical leadership. Many new programs are oriented toward helping
managers become more effective at work and in life in general, but these programs do not
directly target the area of ethics and leadership.
Yet the ethics and leadership research in this chapter can be applied to peo- ple at all levels
of organizations and in all walks of life. At a very minimum, it is crucial to state that
leadership involves values, and one cannot be a leader without being aware of and
concerned about one’s own values. Because leadership has a moral dimension, being a
leader demands awareness on our part of the way our ethics defines our leadership.
Managers and leaders can use the information in this research to better understand
themselves and strengthen their own leadership. Ethical theories can remind leaders to ask
themselves,“What is the right and fair thing to do?” or “What would a good person do?”
Leaders can use the ethical principles described in this research as benchmarks for their own
behavior. Do I show respect to others? Do I act with a generous spirit? Do I show honesty
and faithfulness to others? Do I serve the community? Finally, we can learn from the
overriding theme in this research that the leader–follower relationship is central to ethical
leadership. To be an ethical leader, we must be sensitive to the needs of others, treat others
in ways that are just, and care for others.
LEADERSHIP INSTRUMENT
Ethics and morals often are regarded as very personal, and we resist having others judge us
about them. We also resist judging others. Perhaps for this reason, very few questionnaires
have been designed to measure ethical leader- ship. To address this problem, Craig and
Gustafson (1998) developed the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS), which is based on
utilitarian ethical theory. The PLIS attempts to evaluate leaders’ ethics by measuring the
degree to which coworkers see them as acting in accordance with rules that would produce
the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Craig and Gustafson found PLIS ratings
to be strongly and positively related to subor- dinates’ job satisfaction, and negatively
related to their desire to quit their jobs.
Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2002) used the PLIS in a study of 1,354 manag- ers and found
that perceived integrity was positively related to transformational leadership. Leaders who
were seen as transformational were also seen as having more integrity. In addition, the
researchers found that perceived integrity was positively correlated with leader and
organizational effectiveness.
By taking the PLIS, you can try to assess the ethical integrity of a leader you know, such as
a supervisor or leader of a group or organization of which you are a member. At the same
time, the PLIS will allow you to apply the ideas we discussed in the chapter to a real-world
setting. By focusing on observers’ impressions, the PLIS represents one way to assess the
principle of ethical leadership.
In addition, the PLIS can be used for feedback to employees in organizations and as a part
of leadership training and development. Finally, if used as part of an organizational climate
survey, the PLIS could be useful as a way of identifying areas in an organization that may
need an ethics intervention (Craig & Gustafson, 1998).
SUMMARY
Although there has been an interest in ethics for thousands of years, very little theoretical
research exists on the nature of leadership ethics. This chapter has presented an overview of
ethical theories as they apply to the leadership process.
Ethical theory provides a set of principles that guide leaders in making deci- sions about
how to act and how to be morally decent. In the Western tradi- tion, ethical theories
typically are divided into two kinds: theories about conduct and theories about character.
Theories about conduct emphasize the consequences of leader behavior (teleological
approach) or the rules that govern their behavior (deontological approach). Virtue-based
theories focus on the character of leaders, and they stress qualities such as courage, honesty,
fairness, and fidelity.
Ethics plays a central role in the leadership process. Because leadership involves influence
and leaders often have more power than followers, they have an enormous ethical
responsibility for how they affect other people. Leaders need to engage followers to
accomplish mutual goals; therefore, it is imperative that they treat followers and their ideas
with respect and dignity. Leaders also play a major role in establishing the ethical climate in
their organization; that role requires leaders to be particularly sensitive to the values and
ideals they promote.
Several prominent leadership scholars, including Heifetz, Burns, and Greenleaf, have made
unique contributions to our understanding of ethical leadership. The theme common to these
authors is an ethic of caring, which pays attention to followers’ needs and the importance of
leader–follower relationships.
This chapter suggests that sound ethical leadership is rooted in respect, ser- vice, justice,
honesty, and community. It is the duty of leaders to treat others with respect—to listen to
them closely and be tolerant of opposing points of view. Ethical leaders serve others by
being altruistic, placing others’ welfare ahead of their own in an effort to contribute to the
common good. Justice requires that leaders place fairness at the center of their decision
making, including the challenging task of being fair to the individual while simulta- neously
being fair to the common interests of the community. Good leaders are honest. They do not
lie, nor do they present truth to others in ways that are destructive or counterproductive.
Finally, ethical leaders are committed to building community, which includes searching for
goals that are compat- ible with the goals of followers and with society as a whole.
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 359
360 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE
Research on ethics and leadership has several strengths. At a time when the public is
demanding higher levels of moral responsibility from its leaders, this research provides
some direction in how to think about ethical leadership and how to practice it. In addition,
this research reminds us that leadership is a moral process. Scholars should include ethics as
an integral part of the leader- ship studies and research. Third, this area of research describes
basic princi- ples that we can use in developing real-world ethical leadership.
On the negative side, this research area of ethical leadership is still in an early stage of
development. Few studies have been done that directly address the nature of ethical
leadership. As a result, the theoretical formulations about the process remain tentative.
Second, this area of research relies on the writ- ings of a few individuals whose work has
been primarily descriptive and anecdotal. As a result, the development of theory on
leadership ethics lacks the traditional empirical support that usually accompanies theories of
human behavior. Despite these weaknesses, the field of ethical leadership is wide open for
future research. There remains a strong need for research that can advance our
understanding of the role of ethics in the leadership process.
REFERENCES
Aronson, E. (2001). Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 244–256.
Avolio, B. J., & Locke, E. E. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader motivation:
Altruism versus egoism. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 169–191.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership
behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. E. (1988). Ethical theory and business (3rd ed.). Engle- wood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics (4th ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Block,P.(1993).Stewardship:Choosingserviceoverself-interest.SanFrancisco:Berrett- Koehler.
Bowie, N. E. (1991). Challenging the egoistic paradigm. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 1–21.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1995). Institutionalization of organizational
ethics through transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(10), 829–838.
Sharpen your skills with SAGE edge at edge.sagepub.com/northouse7e
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 361
Ciulla, J. B. (1998). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Ciulla, J. B. (2001). Carving leaders from the warped wood of humanity. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 313–319.
Ciulla, J. B. (2003). The ethics of leadership. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.
Conger, J. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19,
44–55.
Covey, S. R. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Fireside.
Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived Leader Integrity Scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of leader integrity. Leadership Quarterly,
9(2), 127–145.
Crain, W. C. (1985). Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. In W. C. Crain (Ed.),
Theories of development: Concepts and applications (pp. 118–136). New York:
Prentice-Hall.
Dalla Costa, J. (1998). The ethical imperative: Why moral leadership is good business.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
De Pree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday.
Frankena, W. (1973). Ethics (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gilligan, C. (1982). In
a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gini, A. (1998). Moral leadership and business ethics. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics, the
heart of leadership (pp. 27–46). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Newton Centre, MA: Robert K. Greenleaf Center.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power
and greatness. New York: Paulist.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Jaksa, J. A., & Pritchard, M. S. (1988). Communication ethics: Methods of analysis.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Johnson, C. R. (2011). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 257–265.
Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation, and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 12(3),
43–55.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development, Vol. 2: The psychology of moral development. New York: Harper & Row.
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (1998). Exploring leadership: For college
students who want to make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
362 LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders. New York: Oxford University Press.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible
followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176–194.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transforma- tional leaders in
organisational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 75–96.
Pojman, L. P. (1995). Ethical theory: Classical and contemporary readings (2nd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Price, T. (2008). Leadership ethics: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger. Schminke, M.,
Ambrose, M. L., & Noel, T. W. (1997). The effect of ethical frameworks on perceptions of organizational justice. Academy of Management Journal,
40(5), 1190–1207.
Schumann, P. L. (2001). A moral principles framework for human resource management ethics. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 93–111.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta- analysis of
destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24,
138–158.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The f ifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person–situation
interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617.
Trevino, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived
executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the
executive suite. Human Relations, 56(1), 5–37.
Velasquez, M. G. (1992). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wayne, L. (2009, May 30). A promise to be ethical in an era of immorality. The New
York Times. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/ business
Select one of the following Case Studies 13.1, 13.2, or 13.3. (Pages 314316)
Use the guidelines below to draft your analysis of the case. Submit the
final deliverable in the team discussion area. Revisit and interact among at
least two peers.
Guidelines for Case Study
1 Brief introductory or problem synopsis
2 Stakeholders or parties of interest involved
3 Critical issues or key findings/observations
4 Propose 2-3 possible alternatives for solving the problem
5 One Recommendation based on the aforementioned alternatives.
Note: Be sure to mention why the selected recommendation is the
best option. Include any theoretical or academic support to validate
your recommended proposal.
*Note: The questions at the end of each case are thought provoking.
However, I prefer for the format of your analysis to be presented as listed
above.
CASE STUDIES
The following section contains three case studies (Cases 13.1, 13.2, and 13.3) in which
ethical leadership is needed. Case 13.1 describes a department chair
who must choose which student will get a special assignment. Case 13.2 is concerned with
one manufacturing company’s unique approach to safety standards. Case 13.3 deals with the
ethical issues surrounding how a human resource service company established the pricing
for its services. At the end of each case, there are questions that point to the intricacies and
complexities of practicing ethical leadership.
CASE 13.1
Choosing a Research Assistant
Dr. Angi Dirks is the chair of the state university’s organizational psychology department, which
has four teaching assistants (TAs). Angi has just found out that she has received a grant for research
work over the sum- mer and that it includes money to fund one of the TAs as her research assistant.
In Angi’s mind, the top two candidates are Roberto and Michelle, who are both available to work
over the summer. Roberto, a foreign student from Venezuela, has gotten very high teaching
evaluations and is well liked by the faculty. Roberto needs a summer job to help pay for school
since it is too expensive for him to return home for the summer to work. Michelle is also an
exceptional graduate student; she is married and doesn’t necessarily need the extra income, but she
is going to pursue a PhD, so the extra experience would be beneficial to her future endeavors.
A third teaching assistant, Carson, commutes to school from a town an hour away, where he is
helping to take care of his aging grandparents. Carson manages to juggle school, teaching, and his
home responsibilities well, carrying a 4.0 GPA in his classwork. Angi knows Carson could use the
money, but she is afraid that he has too many other responsibilities to take on the research project
over the summer.
As Angi weighs which TA to offer the position, a faculty member approaches her about considering
the fourth TA, Analisa. It’s been a tough year with Analisa as a TA. She has complained numerous
times to her faculty mentor and to Angi that the other TAs treat her differently, and she thinks it’s
because of her race. The student newspaper printed a column she wrote about “being a speck of
brown in a campus of white,” in which she expressed her frustration with the predominantly white
faculty’s inability to understand the unique perspectives and experiences of minority students. After
the column came out, the faculty in the department became wary of working with Analisa, fearing
becoming part of the controversy. Their lack of interaction with her made Analisa feel further
alienated.
Angi knows that Analisa is a very good researcher and writer, and her skills would be an asset to the
project. Analisa’s faculty mentor says that giving the position to her would go a long way to
“smooth things over” between faculty and Analisa and make Analisa feel included in the
department. Analisa knows about the open position and has expressed interest in it to her faculty
mentor, but hasn’t directly talked to Angi. Angi is afraid that by not giving it to Analisa, she may
stir up more accusations of ill treatment while at the same time facing accusations from others that
she is giving Analisa preferential treatment.
1.
Of the four options available to Angi, which is the most ethical?
2.
Using the principles of distributive justice,who would Angi choose to become the research
assistant?
3.
From Heifetz’s perspective, can Angi use this decision to help her department and faculty
face a difficult situation? Should she?
4.
Do you agree with Burns’s perspective that it is Angi’s responsibility to help followers
assess their own values and needs in order to raise them to a higher level that will stress
values such as liberty, justice, and equality? If so, how can Angi do that through this
situation?
CASE 13.2
How Safe Is Safe?
Perfect Plastics Incorporated (PPI) is a small injection molding plastics com- pany that employs 50
people. The company is 10 years old, has a healthy balance sheet, and does about $4 million a year
in sales. The company has a good safety record, and the insurance company that has PPI’s liability
policy has not had to pay any claims to employees for several years. There have been no major
injuries of any kind since the company began.
Tom Griffin, the owner, takes great pride in the interior design and work- ing conditions at PPI. He
describes the interior of the plant as being like a hospital compared with his competitors. Order,
efficiency, and cleanliness are top priorities at PPI. It is a remarkably well-organized manufacturing
company.
PPI has a unique approach to guaranteeing safe working conditions. Each year, management brings
in outside consultants from the insurance indus- try and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) to audit the plant for unsafe conditions. Each year, the inspections reveal a
variety of concerns, which are then addressed through new equipment, repairs, and changed workflow designs. Although the inspectors continue to find opportunities for improvement, the overall
safety improves each year.
The attorneys for PPI are very opposed to the company’s approach to safety. The lawyers are
vehemently against the procedure of having out- side auditors. If a lawsuit were to be brought
against PPI, the attorneys argue that any previous issues could be used as evidence of a historical
pattern and knowledge of unsafe conditions. In effect, the audits that PPI conducts voluntarily could
be used by plaintiffs to strengthen a case against the company.
The president and management recognize the potential downside of outside audits, but they point
out that the periodic reviews are critical to the ongoing improvement of the safety of everyone in
the plant. The purpose of the audits is to make the shop a secure place, and that is what has
occurred. Management also points out that PPI employees have responded positively to the audits
and to the changes that result.
Questions
1.
As a company,would you describe PPI as having an identifiable philosophy of moral
values? How do its policies contribute to this philosophy?
2.
Which ethical perspective best describes PPI’s approach to safety issues? Would you say
PPI takes a utilitarian-, duty-, or virtue-based approach?
3.
Regarding safety issues,how does management see its responsibilities toward its employees?
How do the attorneys see their responsibilities toward PPI?
4.
Why does it appear that the ethics of PPI and its attorneys are in conflict?
CASE 13.3
Reexamining a Proposal
After working 10 years as the only minority manager in a large printing company, David Jones
decided he wanted to set out on his own. Because
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 353
of his experience and prior connections, David was confident he could survive in the printing
business, but he wondered whether he should buy an existing business or start a new one. As part of
his planning, David contacted a professional employer organization (PEO), which had a sterling
reputation, to obtain an estimate for human resource services for a startup company. The estimate
was to include costs for payroll, benefits, workers’ compensation, and other traditional human
resource services. Because David had not yet started his business, the PEO generated a generic
quote applicable to a small company in the printing industry. In addition, because the PEO had
nothing tangible to quote, it gave David a quote for human resource services that was unusually
high.
In the meantime, David found an existing small company that he liked, and he bought it. Then he
contacted the PEO to sign a contract for human resource services at the previously quoted price.
David was ready to take ownership and begin his new venture. He signed the original contract as
presented.
After David signed the contract, the PEO reviewed the earlier proposal in light of the actual figures
of the company he had purchased. This review raised many concerns for management. Although the
goals of the PEO were to provide high-quality service, be competitive in the marketplace, and make
a reasonable profit, the quote it had provided David appeared to be much too high. It was not
comparable in any way with the other service contracts the PEO had with other companies of
similar size and function.
During the review, it became apparent that several concerns had to be addressed. First, the original
estimate made the PEO appear as if it was gouging the client. Although the client had signed the
original contract, was it fair to charge such a high price for the proposed services? Would charging
such high fees mean that the PEO would lose this client or similar clients in the future? Another
concern was related to the PEO’s support of minority businesses. For years, the PEO had prided
itself on having strong values about affirmative action and fairness in the work- place, but this
contract appeared to actually hurt and to be somewhat unfair to a minority client. Finally, the PEO
was concerned with the implications of the contract for the salesperson who drew up the proposal
for David. Changing the estimated costs in the proposal would have a significant impact on the
salesperson’s commission, which would negatively affect the morale of others in the PEO’s sales
area.
After a reexamination of the original proposal, a new contract was drawn up for David’s company
with lower estimated costs. Though lower than the original proposal, the new contract remained
much higher than the average contract in the printing industry. David willingly signed the new
contract.
Questions
1.
What role should ethics play in the writing of a proposal such as this? Did the PEO do the
ethical thing for David? How much money should the PEO have tried to make? What would
you have done if you were part of management at the PEO?
2.
From a deontological (duty) perspective and a teleological (consequences) perspective, how
would you describe the ethics of the PEO?
3.
Based on what the PEO did for David, how would you evaluate the PEO on the ethical
principles of respect, service, justice, honesty, and community?
4.
How would you assess the ethics of the PEO if you were David?If you were among the PEO
management? If you were the salesperson? If you were a member of the printing
community?
Select one of the following Case Studies 13.1, 13.2, or 13.3. (Pages 314316)
Use the guidelines below to draft your analysis of the case. Submit the
final deliverable in the team discussion area. Revisit and interact among at
least two peers.
Guidelines for Case Study
1 Brief introductory or problem synopsis
2 Stakeholders or parties of interest involved
3 Critical issues or key findings/observations
4 Propose 2-3 possible alternatives for solving the problem
5 One Recommendation based on the aforementioned alternatives.
Note: Be sure to mention why the selected recommendation is the
best option. Include any theoretical or academic support to validate
your recommended proposal.
*Note: The questions at the end of each case are thought provoking.
However, I prefer for the format of your analysis to be presented as listed
above.
CASE STUDIES
The following section contains three case studies (Cases 13.1, 13.2, and 13.3) in which
ethical leadership is needed. Case 13.1 describes a department chair
who must choose which student will get a special assignment. Case 13.2 is concerned with
one manufacturing company’s unique approach to safety standards. Case 13.3 deals with the
ethical issues surrounding how a human resource service company established the pricing
for its services. At the end of each case, there are questions that point to the intricacies and
complexities of practicing ethical leadership.
CASE 13.1
Choosing a Research Assistant
Dr. Angi Dirks is the chair of the state university’s organizational psychology department, which
has four teaching assistants (TAs). Angi has just found out that she has received a grant for research
work over the sum- mer and that it includes money to fund one of the TAs as her research assistant.
In Angi’s mind, the top two candidates are Roberto and Michelle, who are both available to work
over the summer. Roberto, a foreign student from Venezuela, has gotten very high teaching
evaluations and is well liked by the faculty. Roberto needs a summer job to help pay for school
since it is too expensive for him to return home for the summer to work. Michelle is also an
exceptional graduate student; she is married and doesn’t necessarily need the extra income, but she
is going to pursue a PhD, so the extra experience would be beneficial to her future endeavors.
A third teaching assistant, Carson, commutes to school from a town an hour away, where he is
helping to take care of his aging grandparents. Carson manages to juggle school, teaching, and his
home responsibilities well, carrying a 4.0 GPA in his classwork. Angi knows Carson could use the
money, but she is afraid that he has too many other responsibilities to take on the research project
over the summer.
As Angi weighs which TA to offer the position, a faculty member approaches her about considering
the fourth TA, Analisa. It’s been a tough year with Analisa as a TA. She has complained numerous
times to her faculty mentor and to Angi that the other TAs treat her differently, and she thinks it’s
because of her race. The student newspaper printed a column she wrote about “being a speck of
brown in a campus of white,” in which she expressed her frustration with the predominantly white
faculty’s inability to understand the unique perspectives and experiences of minority students. After
the column came out, the faculty in the department became wary of working with Analisa, fearing
becoming part of the controversy. Their lack of interaction with her made Analisa feel further
alienated.
Angi knows that Analisa is a very good researcher and writer, and her skills would be an asset to the
project. Analisa’s faculty mentor says that giving the position to her would go a long way to
“smooth things over” between faculty and Analisa and make Analisa feel included in the
department. Analisa knows about the open position and has expressed interest in it to her faculty
mentor, but hasn’t directly talked to Angi. Angi is afraid that by not giving it to Analisa, she may
stir up more accusations of ill treatment while at the same time facing accusations from others that
she is giving Analisa preferential treatment.
1.
Of the four options available to Angi, which is the most ethical?
2.
Using the principles of distributive justice,who would Angi choose to become the research
assistant?
3.
From Heifetz’s perspective, can Angi use this decision to help her department and faculty
face a difficult situation? Should she?
4.
Do you agree with Burns’s perspective that it is Angi’s responsibility to help followers
assess their own values and needs in order to raise them to a higher level that will stress
values such as liberty, justice, and equality? If so, how can Angi do that through this
situation?
CASE 13.2
How Safe Is Safe?
Perfect Plastics Incorporated (PPI) is a small injection molding plastics com- pany that employs 50
people. The company is 10 years old, has a healthy balance sheet, and does about $4 million a year
in sales. The company has a good safety record, and the insurance company that has PPI’s liability
policy has not had to pay any claims to employees for several years. There have been no major
injuries of any kind since the company began.
Tom Griffin, the owner, takes great pride in the interior design and work- ing conditions at PPI. He
describes the interior of the plant as being like a hospital compared with his competitors. Order,
efficiency, and cleanliness are top priorities at PPI. It is a remarkably well-organized manufacturing
company.
PPI has a unique approach to guaranteeing safe working conditions. Each year, management brings
in outside consultants from the insurance indus- try and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) to audit the plant for unsafe conditions. Each year, the inspections reveal a
variety of concerns, which are then addressed through new equipment, repairs, and changed workflow designs. Although the inspectors continue to find opportunities for improvement, the overall
safety improves each year.
The attorneys for PPI are very opposed to the company’s approach to safety. The lawyers are
vehemently against the procedure of having out- side auditors. If a lawsuit were to be brought
against PPI, the attorneys argue that any previous issues could be used as evidence of a historical
pattern and knowledge of unsafe conditions. In effect, the audits that PPI conducts voluntarily could
be used by plaintiffs to strengthen a case against the company.
The president and management recognize the potential downside of outside audits, but they point
out that the periodic reviews are critical to the ongoing improvement of the safety of everyone in
the plant. The purpose of the audits is to make the shop a secure place, and that is what has
occurred. Management also points out that PPI employees have responded positively to the audits
and to the changes that result.
Questions
1.
As a company,would you describe PPI as having an identifiable philosophy of moral
values? How do its policies contribute to this philosophy?
2.
Which ethical perspective best describes PPI’s approach to safety issues? Would you say
PPI takes a utilitarian-, duty-, or virtue-based approach?
3.
Regarding safety issues,how does management see its responsibilities toward its employees?
How do the attorneys see their responsibilities toward PPI?
4.
Why does it appear that the ethics of PPI and its attorneys are in conflict?
CASE 13.3
Reexamining a Proposal
After working 10 years as the only minority manager in a large printing company, David Jones
decided he wanted to set out on his own. Because
Chapter 13 Leadership Ethics 353
of his experience and prior connections, David was confident he could survive in the printing
business, but he wondered whether he should buy an existing business or start a new one. As part of
his planning, David contacted a professional employer organization (PEO), which had a sterling
reputation, to obtain an estimate for human resource services for a startup company. The estimate
was to include costs for payroll, benefits, workers’ compensation, and other traditional human
resource services. Because David had not yet started his business, the PEO generated a generic
quote applicable to a small company in the printing industry. In addition, because the PEO had
nothing tangible to quote, it gave David a quote for human resource services that was unusually
high.
In the meantime, David found an existing small company that he liked, and he bought it. Then he
contacted the PEO to sign a contract for human resource services at the previously quoted price.
David was ready to take ownership and begin his new venture. He signed the original contract as
presented.
After David signed the contract, the PEO reviewed the earlier proposal in light of the actual figures
of the company he had purchased. This review raised many concerns for management. Although the
goals of the PEO were to provide high-quality service, be competitive in the marketplace, and make
a reasonable profit, the quote it had provided David appeared to be much too high. It was not
comparable in any way with the other service contracts the PEO had with other companies of
similar size and function.
During the review, it became apparent that several concerns had to be addressed. First, the original
estimate made the PEO appear as if it was gouging the client. Although the client had signed the
original contract, was it fair to charge such a high price for the proposed services? Would charging
such high fees mean that the PEO would lose this client or similar clients in the future? Another
concern was related to the PEO’s support of minority businesses. For years, the PEO had prided
itself on having strong values about affirmative action and fairness in the work- place, but this
contract appeared to actually hurt and to be somewhat unfair to a minority client. Finally, the PEO
was concerned with the implications of the contract for the salesperson who drew up the proposal
for David. Changing the estimated costs in the proposal would have a significant impact on the
salesperson’s commission, which would negatively affect the morale of others in the PEO’s sales
area.
After a reexamination of the original proposal, a new contract was drawn up for David’s company
with lower estimated costs. Though lower than the original proposal, the new contract remained
much higher than the average contract in the printing industry. David willingly signed the new
contract.
Questions
1.
What role should ethics play in the writing of a proposal such as this? Did the PEO do the
ethical thing for David? How much money should the PEO have tried to make? What would
you have done if you were part of management at the PEO?
2.
From a deontological (duty) perspective and a teleological (consequences) perspective, how
would you describe the ethics of the PEO?
3.
Based on what the PEO did for David, how would you evaluate the PEO on the ethical
principles of respect, service, justice, honesty, and community?
4.
How would you assess the ethics of the PEO if you were David?If you were among the PEO
management? If you were the salesperson? If you were a member of the printing
community?
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.