Ethics in Leadership

Getting Started

How do we decide what is right? How do we choose what is the right action? Questions like these have been the focal point of scholars, philosophers, and sages for much of human history.

While Socrates did not write anything that has been preserved for us to read, others have recorded and analyzed some of his thinking. Melchert (2018) suggested that Socrates believed human excellence consists in knowledge. However, “Such knowledge is not just having abstract intellectual propositions in your head. It is knowledge of what to do and how to do it” (p. 99).

This assignment will give you some tools to increase your knowledge of both what and how to function in ethical ways.

Upon successful completion of this discussion, you will be able to:

· Select from among a variety of ways that right decisions or actions might be determined.

Background Information

Ethicists have developed a variety of systems for making decisions or actions that are considered to be “right.” Watch these short videos describing some of these systems:

Utilitarianism

Deontology/Duty/Imperative

Value Ethics

Veil of Ignorance/Justice

Altruism

Moral Pluralism

Johnson (2019) outlined several ethical perspectives. Each of these perspectives has a specific way of assessing whether a decision or choice of action should be considered right.

Select the dropdown arrow for each perspective to read short descriptions.

Expand all

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism (consequentialism) rests on the premise that ethical choices are based on the outcomes of the choices. That is, the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the consequences of that act. Two key questions undergird utilitarian decision-making. First, which outcome provides the greatest advantage or benefits relative to the disadvantages of the outcome? Second, which outcome benefits the greatest number of people? In other words, a utilitarian perspective determines right by the greatest good for the greatest number.

Categorical Imperative

German philosopher Immanuel Kant developed the ethical system known as the categorical imperative. However, rather than weighing consequences (as in Utilitarianism), Kant believed that ethical decisions should be made regardless of the outcomes. That is, rightness or wrongness of an act is based on universal principles, truths, or duty (called deontological ethics). Accordingly, certain acts are always wrong, and certain acts are always right simply because they are, not because they might produce positive or negative outcomes.

Justice as Fairness

Harvard philosopher John Rawls developed a set of guidelines to settle disputes involving the distribution of resources. Resources are always limited in any organization or social unit, making conflict inevitable and the need to decide how to distribute those resources (i.e., what is right) critical. Rawls rejected utilitarianism because he believed that individual rights should never be violated regardless of the outcome and that a greatest good approach could systematically disadvantage some groups. Thus, decisions should be made based on two principles: equal liberty (all people have the same basic rights) and equal opportunity (everyone should have the same chance to qualify for offices, jobs, and resources). He also developed the maximin rule, which suggests that the best option is the one whose worst outcome is better than the worst outcome of other options. Thus, rightness is determined by decisions that preserve or create equal liberty and opportunity as well as reduce negative impact.

Aristotelian Ethics

While the previous ethical perspectives (Utilitarianism, Categorical Imperative, Justice) suggest that we make right choices by following rules or principles, Aristotle proposed that ethical decisions emerge from developing character traits or virtues – sometimes called virtue ethics. Virtues such as prudence, wisdom, courage, and generosity create the grounds for ethical thinking and doing. To make an ethical decision, virtuous people find the middle ground between the extremes of too little and too much within a given situation – or the golden mean. The virtuous life serves a higher purpose – to achieve a life of flourishing and happiness or living well. Thus, rightness flows from virtue and moderation.

Confucianism

Confucius was born into a society experiencing wars and power struggles, including a collapse of the ruling Chinese dynasty into competing states. To restore order and good government, Confucius developed his thinking about ethics as a series of harmonious relationships, beginning with family and extending up to the highest level of government. Each of these relationships is characterized by trust and mutual concern. Confucianism emphasizes personal virtues and clear policies, but the starting place is building healthy relationships. Thus, rightness is determined by prioritizing relationships that align with personal virtues and result in good policies.

Altruism - The Ethic of Care for Others

Altruism is a principle-based approach to ethics, suggesting that we should help others regardless of whether we benefit from doing so. While we may experience some benefit (e.g., feel good about helping another), the primary reason for acting is not the personal benefit but others’ benefit. Thus, an ethic of care involves being attentive to the needs of others, then taking responsibility to act on behalf of others. Additionally, altruism suggests the need to be cautious. Those needing care may be in a vulnerable position of which we should avoid taking advantage (taking advantage is contrary to the altruistic perspective). Thus, rightness is determined by that which promotes the good of others.

Divine Comman Theory

Although Johnson (2019) does not discuss the divine command theory, it is a way of viewing morality as dependent upon the commands and claims of God (although various religious systems may have different views on God). In other words, right decisions are those that follow what God requires.

While other ethical perspectives exist, these seven systems provide some good opportunities for comparison as well as for broadening our skillset to analyze a situation and figure out right action. Each of the systems has strengths and weaknesses for practical application. For example, not everyone agrees exactly in their interpretation of what God requires. Additionally, the various systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For instance, altruism can be seen in each of the other systems. Johnson (2019) stated, “resist the temptation to choose your favorite approach and ignore the rest. Use a variety of theories when possible” (p. 8). Applying multiple approaches to the same problem (i.e., ethical or moral pluralism) can help us generate new insights to decide what is a right choice and what is a right action in a situation.

Instructions

1. Review the rubric to make sure you understand the criteria for earning your grade.

2. Review the Background Information.

3. Read Faddis (course text).

a. Chapter 1; Strategy 2 – pp. 27–40.

b. Chapter 2; Strategy 3 – pp. 41–45.

4. Read  Caldwell et al. article(new tab) . Focus your reading on the discussion of virtuous leaders and personal virtues (including a variety of virtues discussed in the paper) on pages 1185–1192.

5. Write an initial response (300–400 words) to the following prompt(s) or question(s):  

a. Briefly describe some type of ethical dilemma (e.g., a scenario or decision-opportunity). This dilemma may be one that you faced, personally, one that you observed in your organization, or even one that you’ve read or heard about in news media. This portion of your response should be no more than 100–150 words. (This dilemma may be one you used previously in the course).

b. Then, select two of the seven ethical perspectives and discuss what the “right thing to do” in the ethical dilemma may be by following the rationale of each of your two perspectives. Do you reach the same conclusions by following different ethical systems?