A: Ethical Leader

The ethical leader I will be discussing today is a former manager of mine, Kenny (name changed for privacy). I worked with and under him for under two and a half years, performing numerous functions for the company we were employed with. The two ethical traits that will be evaluated below are his encouragement of personal growth and initiative and his willingness to lead by example.

Ethical Traits Demonstrated

The first ethical trait, encouragement of personal growth and initiative, is a perfect trait to have as a leader. Encouraging initiatives shows that you respect your employees and believe in them. This allows the team members to contribute in ways they may have been afraid to. This will help the project or team by offering new and creative ways to reach the goal.

The second trait, willingness to lead by example, shows that he would never ask his employees to do anything he would not do himself. This, in my mind, separates a leader from a manager (Lemoine et al., 2019). He is not just sitting back, barking orders, but joining in the fight, climbing into the trenches when needed. This shows employees that he is with them, supporting them, not just expecting results from them.

How Was Ethical Conduct Exhibited

The best way to describe how Kenny showed ethical conduct was by establishing trust and mutual respect for colleagues and employees. With this, he treated his team as co-workers rather than subordinates. By treating us this way, he earned more trust and respect from us, the team (Lemoine et al., 2019). Doing this opened doors for conversations, even those uncomfortable, and a flexible work environment that kept the team happy. He could elevate himself when needed, but that was rare.

B: Deontological and Consequentialist Perspectives

The discussion in this section will be related to the accompanying situation: "You are an agent for a clinical gadget organization that produces fake joints. Your organization has fostered a counterfeit knee joint that is more affordable than the opposition and will emphatically diminish recuperating time for patients. Nonetheless, creating a serious and possibly deadly disease in a little level of patients is likewise known. The organization won't unveil this expected secondary effect. You believe you have an obligation to unveil this issue, however you consented to a nondisclosure arrangement when you were recruited and stress over potential repercussions” (Ruehle, 2019).

When going through the scenario, you can see how there can be different perspectives. The two views to be discussed are the Deontological and the Consequentialist. Our textbook teaches us that consequentialists are a philosophical theory in which the person choosing right vs wrong looks at the results based on the consequences that will come from it (Ruehle, 2019). Of this theory, is the idea of the practical, also one of the better-known theories, focusing on an outcome that would benefit society and offer the least harm to those involved? Based on the previous sentence, a utilitarian would look at the situation, comparing the consequences of both sides, with questions similar to those below: 

If I choose to hide the information, who is affected? What if I disclose it?

The answer to both is - everyone will be affected either way.

If I do/don't disclose, what are the consequences?

Do: I could lose my job, affecting my family, but for the patient's benefit.

Don't: Patients could die, affecting their families. It could later affect the company's reputation when the information is found.

The Deontological theory, as described in the textbook, is one in which the person evaluates a situation and bases decisions on values, such as fairness, honesty, loyalty, and respect for human beings or property (Ruehle, 2019). With this stated, this person would look at the outcome with respect for the human being in the scenario (the patient), regardless of what this would do to the company. This, in turn, would push to have the information shared, as it would benefit the patient who may or may not choose to use the product.

Order a Custom Written EHM1 Ethical Leadership Task through Whatsapp:  +15672691073 

C: Level of Cognitive Moral Development

When it comes to cognitive moral development, you need to look at the situation and ask yourself a few questions to determine its ethicality. Based on the above scenario from section B, I will answer the following questions:

Which action would most likely serve the greater good in society?

This question falls into the post-conventional morality, stage 5 (Kleshinski et al., 2021), due to the ask for the greater good. In the scenario we are analyzing, the answer would be protecting the lives of future patients instead of the company from losing sales.

If I reveal this information, will I get into trouble and possibly even lose my job?

This question falls into stage 1 of the conventional level, obedience and punishment orientation (Kleshinski et al., 2021). The individual may be swayed in their decision and action, fearing retribution or firing if they reveal this information without company-expressed consent.

Which action best aligns with my long-held belief in the principle of justice?

What do the laws say, and what would a law-abiding citizen do?

Questions 3 and 4 would fall under stage 6 in the post-conventional level, universal principles (Kleshinski et al., 2021). This level reviews the laws and possible legal repercussions involved, as well as ethical regulations of justice and the rights of patients.

If I keep quiet, will I get some reward? 

Worrying about a reward would fall under the pre-conventional level, stage 2, about individualism and exchange. The person is thinking about a discussion of a reward for their silence, in the form of a bonus, raise, or related item of value to them.

D: Ethical Lens Inventory

At the beginning of this course, it was asked that I, as a student, take an Ethical Lens Inventory. The selected site offered a quiz called a 'game', in which questions were asked, and then it provided me with results based on my answers. The below sections will be a review of what it revealed.

Preferred Ethical Lens

According to the game's results, my preferred lens is the Blended Responsibilities and Results. This means I use personal reasoning skills and intuition to balance personal principles and long-term goals to meet autonomy. I will always look at my values and past experiences to make ethical decisions.

Based on the positioning of the dot in the graph, I am very near the centre. This suggests that in some situations, I may not prefer any particular lens and would choose my approach to any condition being authentic in the world rather than towards any lens.

Analysis of Lenses per Setting

Based on the situation (work, social, personal, etc.), I feel that my preferred lens is a good fit. I follow the same decision-making whenever I work with my family or volunteer at my rescue squad. I am always learning from my past, wanting to be better in the future, and always trying to be authentic and using personal principles.

Primary Value and Classical Virtue

Looking at my results, my primary values are no preference between Rationality and Sensibility and Mild Autonomy. Because Mild Autonomy is the only one that I do not incline towards, I will discuss this. Having a preference for autonomy over equality means respecting the individual rather than the group as a whole (MacQuillin, 2022). This means that while aiming for personal goals, people may be able to influence me slightly, but I will still make decisions based on myself and a good life. Autonomy also should that I defend the rights of each person involved in a situation, looking for them to take responsibility for their actions and to choose their own goals.

As for a virtue identified, I can choose between temperance and prudence or the ability to be moderate and self-restrained when making decisions about daily affairs. I will discuss temperance or being moderate and self-restrained (MacQuillin, 2022). Abstinence helps me not worry about others' opinions or expectations but focus on myself and my goals. This will allow me to avoid greed and gluttony while maintaining discipline and self-control.

PRIMARY vs SELF-IDENTIFIED VALUE AND VIRTUE

My primary value from Primary Value and Classical Virtue is Autonomy, which falls into the personally identified value of Customer Satisfaction. I will put an individual and their feelings above a group of people in each of these values. I have noticed at work that a customer wants to be heard and handled individually, and blanket responses do not go over well (Sila, 2022). Treating them as an individual fits autonomy very well. My discussed virtue is temperance, which aligns with another personally identified value of self-discipline. I have found myself working towards strengthening this value in myself after a life of freedom in past years. As I better myself, I see self-discipline growing. In doing this, I notice that others' opinions do not matter to me anymore, aligning with the definition of Temperance given in the ELI.

ELI DISCUSSION

In my ELI, it was identified that my Blind Spot is the belief that motive justifies the method or being satisfied with too little good. This is found in my mild preference for autonomy, which means I am reluctant to second-guess guess what people want; I may take the path of expedience and be satisfied with too little good (MacQuillin, 2022). With the above, I may lose sight of my goals and the consequences of my actions concerning those goals. This happens by not holding myself or others accountable for our actions. I will decide that consistency is only for people who do not recognize me and are not essential to my goals. 

MITIGATION OF ELI DISCUSSION

To mitigate my Blind Spot as identified above, I have devised two methods. Those methods are regularly tracking and reviewing my personal goals and enforcing accountability. Setting a schedule to review my dreams and track progress towards them will help me stay on track and hopefully identify where I may get stuck or sucked into my blind spot. Then, forcing myself to remember accountability for myself and others will keep me on a steady path without skipping items, or cutting corners, thus setting myself up for better success and the team for a better overall image.

ELI'S APPLICATION TO ETHICAL SITUATIONS AT WORK

When reviewing my ELI and trying to align it with a situation at work, I think back to when we had an issue with the software offered to our clients. The parent company sent a party-line to use with every involved client, but it was vague and generic. My manager Kenny (from section A), and some team members had a quick meeting regarding the line. We all felt it was unfair to hide information about the outage, as it may have been company-caused and affected our clients negatively and financially (Palanski et al., 2021). We argued back up the chain that we should be more transparent with our clients, especially those impacted the hardest.

This type of discussion and behaviour falls into my value of autonomy. I wanted the clients to be treated as individuals, based on their specific impact, rather than the group, as a whole, with a public party-line.

E. Ethical Lens Inventory Attachment

Attached along with this document is a PDF of my Ethical Lens Inventory.

References

Lemoine, G. J., Hartnell, C. A., & Leroy, H. (2019). Taking stock of ethical approaches to leadership: An integrative review of honest, authentic, and servant leadership. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 148-187. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/annals.2016.0121 

Kleshinski, C. E., Wilson, K. S., Stevenson-Street, J. M., & Scott, B. A. (2021). Principled leader behaviours: An integrative framework and extension of why leaders are fair, ethical, and nonabusive. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 1-36. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/annals.2019.0029 

MacQuillin, I. (2022). Normative fundraising ethics: A review of the field. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, e1740. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nvsm.1740 

Palanski, M., Newman, A., Leroy, H., Moore, C., Hannah, S., & Den Hartog, D. (2021). Quantitative research on leadership and business ethics: Examining the state of the field and a plan for future research. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(1), 109-119. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-019-04267-9 

Sila, I. (2022). A stakeholder view of quality management and CSR through feminist ethics. Quality Management Journal, 29(1), 51-79. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10686967.2021.2003729?casa_token=tifol8EoBLcAAAAA:SteMy5FLr3ad53lZ0WGGKz0rw19L9Bt5IWp6PD2r_Q1fXvqxJzSR6663NehIYr7NH-pcP8v4PJV_MjY

Ruehle, C. R. (2019, September). Investigating Ethical Considerations of Machine Learning Adoptions Within Organizations: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Engaged Management Scholarship (2019). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3454120