Business & Finance Written Assignment

josshisthemann

517451171-Meeting-the-Ethical-Challenges-of-Leadership-Casting-Light-or-Shadow-7th-Craig-E-Johnson.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Business & Finance Written Assignment

Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership Seventh Edition

To my students

Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership

Casting Light or Shadow

Seventh Edition

Craig E. Johnson George Fox University

Los Angeles London

New Delhi Singapore

Washington DC Melbourne

For information:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

2455 Teller Road

Thousand Oaks, California 91320

E-mail: [email protected]

SAGE Publications Ltd.

1 Oliver’s Yard

55 City Road

London EC1Y 1SP

United Kingdom

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area

Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044

India

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.

18 Cross Street #10-10/11/12

China Square Central

Singapore 048423

All rights reserved. Except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, no part of this work may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

All third party trademarks referenced or depicted herein are included solely for the purpose of illustration and are the property of their respective owners. Reference to these trademarks in no way indicates any relationship with, or endorsement by, the trademark owner.

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Johnson, Craig E. (Craig Edward), 1952- author.

Title: Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership : casting light or shadow / Craig E. Johnson.

Description: Seventh Edition. | Thousand Oaks : SAGE Publishing, 2020. | Revised edition of the author’s Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2019029874 | ISBN 9781544351643 (paperback) | ISBN 9781544351667 (epub) | ISBN 9781544351674 (epub) | ISBN 9781544351650 (pdf)

Subjects: LCSH: Leadership—Moral and ethical aspects.

Classification: LCC HM1261 .J64 2020 | DDC 303.3/4—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019029874

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Acquisitions Editor: Maggie Stanley

Content Development Editor: Lauren Gobell

Editorial Assistant: Janeane Calderon

Production Editor: Astha Jaiswal

Copy Editor: Diane DiMura

Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.

Proofreader: Jeff Bryant

Indexer: Celia McCoy

Cover Designer: Candice Harman

https://lccn.loc.gov/2019029874

Marketing Manager: Sarah Panella

Brief Contents 1. PREFACE 2. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3. INTRODUCTION 4. PART I THE SHADOW SIDE OF LEADERSHIP

1. CHAPTER 1 The Leader’s Light or Shadow 2. CHAPTER 2 Stepping in and out of the Shadows

5. PART II LOOKING INWARD 1. CHAPTER 3 The Leader’s Character 2. CHAPTER 4 Combating Evil

6. PART III ETHICAL STANDARDS AND STRATEGIES 1. CHAPTER 5 Ethical Perspectives 2. CHAPTER 6 Ethical Decision Making and Behavior 3. CHAPTER 7 Exercising Ethical Influence 4. CHAPTER 8 Normative Leadership Theories

7. PART IV SHAPING ETHICAL CONTEXTS 1. CHAPTER 9 Building an Ethical Small Group 2. CHAPTER 10 Creating an Ethical, Inclusive

Organizational Climate 3. CHAPTER 11 Meeting the Ethical Challenges of

Leadership in a Global Society 4. CHAPTER 12 Ethical Crisis Leadership

8. EPILOGUE 9. REFERENCES

10. INDEX 11. ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Detailed Contents PREFACE

KEY FEATURES WHAT’S NEW TO THIS EDITION? DIGITAL RESOURCES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS INTRODUCTION

LEADERS: THE NEWS ISN’T ALL BAD DEFINING TERMS OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

PART I THE SHADOW SIDE OF LEADERSHIP CHAPTER 1 The Leader’s Light or Shadow

WHAT’S AHEAD A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE/THE DARK SIDE OF LEADERSHIP THE LEADER’S SHADOWS

The Shadow of Power The Shadow of Privilege The Shadow of Mismanaged Information The Shadow of Inconsistency The Shadow of Misplaced and Broken Loyalties The Shadow of Irresponsibility

CHAPTER 2 Stepping In and Out of the Shadows WHAT’S AHEAD SHADOW CASTERS

Unhealthy Motivations Unmet Needs Self-Centeredness Personality Disorders Faulty Decision Making Failure of Moral Imagination Moral Disengagement Lack of Ethical Expertise Contextual Factors

STEPPING OUT OF THE SHADOWS PART II LOOKING INWARD

CHAPTER 3 The Leader’s Character WHAT’S AHEAD

ELEMENTS OF CHARACTER Courage Grit Temperance Wisdom and Prudence (Practical Wisdom) Justice Optimism Integrity Humility Compassion (Kindness, Generosity, Love) Forming a Moral Identity

CHARACTER BUILDING Finding Role Models Hearing Stories/Living Shared Stories Learning From Hardship Developing Habits Developing Personal Mission Statements Identifying Values

CHAPTER 4 Combating Evil WHAT’S AHEAD THE FACES OF EVIL

Evil as Dreadful Pleasure Evil as Idealism Evil as Exclusion Evil as Bureaucracy Evil as a Choice Evil as Ordinary

FACING EVIL MAKING A CASE FOR FORGIVENESS

Breaking the Cycle of Evil The Forgiveness Process Seeking Forgiveness

SPIRITUALITY AND LEADERSHIP PART III ETHICAL STANDARDS AND STRATEGIES

CHAPTER 5 Ethical Perspectives WHAT’S AHEAD UTILITARIANISM: DO THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE

Applications and Cautions

KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: DO WHAT’S RIGHT NO MATTER THE COST

Applications and Cautions JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS: GUARANTEEING EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES BEHIND THE VEIL OF IGNORANCE

Applications and Cautions PRAGMATISM: ETHICS AS INQUIRY

Applications and Cautions ALTRUISM: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR

Applications and Cautions CHAPTER 6 Ethical Decision Making and Behavior

WHAT’S AHEAD ETHICAL DECISION MAKING: A DUAL PROCESS APPROACH COMPONENTS OF MORAL ACTION

Component 1: Moral Sensitivity (Recognition) Component 2: Moral Judgment Component 3: Moral Focus (Motivation) Component 4: Moral Character

DECISION-MAKING FORMATS The Four-Way Method Five Timeless Questions The Lonergan/Baird Method The Foursquare Protocol

CHAPTER 7 Exercising Ethical Influence WHAT’S AHEAD ETHICAL ISSUES IN INFLUENCE

Framing Compliance Gaining Communication of Expectations Argumentation Negotiation

RESISTING INFLUENCE Reciprocation (Give-and-Take) Commitment and Consistency Social Proof Liking Authority Scarcity

CHAPTER 8 Normative Leadership Theories WHAT’S AHEAD TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: RAISING THE ETHICAL BAR

Applications and Cautions SERVANT LEADERSHIP: PUT THE NEEDS OF FOLLOWERS FIRST

Applications and Cautions AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP: KNOW YOURSELF AND TO YOUR OWN SELF BE TRUE

Applications and Cautions AESTHETIC (BEAUTIFUL) LEADERSHIP

Applications and Cautions Benevolent Leadership: Demonstrate Concern and Compassion

Applications and Cautions ETHICAL LEADERSHIP: MORAL PERSONS AND MORAL MANAGERS

Applications and Cautions PART IV SHAPING ETHICAL CONTEXTS

CHAPTER 9 Building an Ethical Small Group WHAT’S AHEAD THE LEADER AND THE SMALL GROUP FOSTERING INDIVIDUAL ETHICAL ACCOUNTABILITY PROMOTING ETHICAL GROUP INTERACTION

Comprehensive, Critical Listening Defensive versus Supportive Communication Emotional Intelligence Productive Conflict Minority Opinion

AVOIDING MORAL PITFALLS Groupthink Polythink False Agreement Escalation of Commitment

GROUP LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD CHAPTER 10 Creating an Ethical, Inclusive Organizational Climate

WHAT’S AHEAD

ETHICAL CLIMATES SIGNS OF HEALTHY ETHICAL CLIMATES

Inclusion Trust Justice Integrity Structural Reinforcement Organizational Citizenship

CLIMATE-BUILDING TOOLS Discovering and Communicating Core Ideology Codes of Ethics Preventing and Eliminating Destructive Behaviors Ethical Socialization Processes Ethics Training

CHAPTER 11 Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership in a Global Society

WHAT’S AHEAD THE DARK SIDE OF GLOBALIZATION

The Global Shadow of Power The Global Shadow of Privilege The Global Shadow of Mismanaged Information The Global Shadow of Inconsistency The Global Shadow of Misplaced and Broken Loyalties The Global Shadow of Irresponsibility

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND ETHICAL VALUES

Defining Culture World Values Survey Programmed Value Patterns Project GLOBE Moral Foundations Theory

FACING THE CHALLENGES Overcoming Attitudinal Obstacles Finding Common Moral Ground A Global Ethic Making Ethical Choices in Culturally Diverse Settings

CHAPTER 12 Ethical Crisis Leadership

WHAT’S AHEAD CRISIS: AN OVERVIEW

The Three Stages of a Crisis COMPONENTS OF ETHICAL CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Assume Broad Responsibility Practice Transparency Take Decisive (Heroic) Action Demonstrate Care and Concern Engage the Head as Well as the Heart Improvise From a Strong Moral Foundation Build Resilience

THE ETHICAL DEMANDS OF EXTREME LEADERSHIP

EPILOGUE REFERENCES INDEX ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Preface

You have chosen a critical moment to study ethical leadership. That’s because the need for ethical leaders seems greater than ever with the constant drumbeat of White House and business scandals; the rise of authoritarianism in Poland, Hungary, China, Brazil, Poland, and the Philippines; and the displacement of over 65 million people around the world (an all-time high) through violence, war, and persecution. Fortunately, you have a rapidly growing body of knowledge to draw from in your efforts to become a more ethical leader and follower. Academic interest in the topic is greater than ever, generating a constant stream of new books, articles, and research studies as well as the creation of new leadership ethics units and courses. We are learning much more about the factors that make up ethical (and unethical) leadership, how leaders make moral choices, how leaders create ethical groups and organizations, how leaders can behave more ethically in a global society, and so on.

This edition of Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership incorporates the latest developments in the field but, like previous versions, is guided by seven principles. First, there are few topics as important as leadership ethics. To highlight that fact, I’ve adopted Parker Palmer’s metaphor of light and shadow as the book’s central metaphor. Palmer reminds us that leaders have the power to do significant benefit or substantial harm. In extreme cases, leaders literally make the difference between life and death for their followers.

Second, we need to recognize the reality of bad leadership. Understanding why and how leaders cast shadows can help us prevent destructive behaviors and promote positive leadership. At the same time, we can also learn a great deal from the example of good leaders. Models of ethical and unethical leadership are found throughout the text.

Third, there are important ethical demands associated with the leadership role. Those who want to serve as leaders have a

responsibility to exercise their authority on behalf of others. There are also ethical challenges associated with the follower role.

Fourth, the study of leadership ethics must draw from a wide variety of academic disciplines and traditions. Philosophers have been interested in the moral behavior of leaders for centuries. In the modern era, they have been joined by social scientists, resulting in significant advances in our understanding of moral and immoral leadership. This multidisciplinary approach introduces readers to (1) how moral decisions are made (what scholars describe as the descriptive perspective on ethics), and (2) how to lead in a moral manner (the prescriptive or normative perspective).

Fifth, both theory and practice are essential to learning. I try to balance presentation of important concepts and research findings with opportunities for application through self-assessments, case analyses, and exploration exercises.

Sixth, important insights come from multiple perspectives. I encourage you and apply a variety of theories and concepts. For example, when faced with an ethical dilemma, employ several ethical theories and decision-making formats to the problem. Consider what each normative leadership theory can contribute to your understanding and practice of ethical leadership.

Seventh, improvement is the bottom line. The ultimate goal of teaching and writing about ethics is to produce more ethical leaders. I believe that ethical development is part of leadership (and followership) development. Leaders and followers can develop their ability to make and carry through on their moral decisions, just as they develop their other competencies. Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership is designed to help students build their ethical expertise through theoretical understanding, skill development, case and film analysis, group and class discussions, personal assessment and reflection, research projects, and writing assignments.

Key Features

Examples and Case Studies Whatever their specific contexts, leaders face similar kinds of ethical choices. For that reason, I draw examples from a wide variety of settings: business, medicine, sports, law enforcement, education, government, nonprofit organizations, and the military. Cases continue to play an important role in this edition. Discussion probes at the end of each case encourage readers to reflect on key ethics issues and concepts and to apply what they have learned from that chapter to these narratives.

Self-Assessments The self-assessments are designed to help readers measure their performance with respect to important behaviors, skills, or concepts discussed in the chapters. Two self-assessments are found at the end of each chapter.

Focus on Follower Ethics This feature addresses the ethical challenges facing followers. Followers are critical to the success of any enterprise. The “Focus on Follower Ethics” box in each chapter helps students recognize and master the ethical demands of the follower role.

Implications and Applications This section, found immediately after the body of each chapter, reviews key ideas and their ramifications for readers.

For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self- Assessment This feature encourages interaction with chapter content. Activities include brainstorming exercises, small-group discussions, conversational dyads, debates, self-analysis, personal reflection, and application and research projects.

What’s New to This Edition? Three quarters of the case studies from previous editions have been replaced. Some of the new cases in this edition involve Harvey Weinstein, the McKinsey Company, Scott Pruitt, Dian Fossey, the Rohingya refugee crisis, Disney, global bribery, fraternity hazing, Mr. Rogers, the Parkland teens, the Thailand cave rescue, Nike, the Koch brothers, Starbucks, Chinese/African cultural tensions, Hurricane Maria, and leadership in Antarctica. Cases based on real-life events, held over from the sixth edition, have been updated. There are new self-assessments related to narcissism, grit, spirit at work, benevolent leadership, moral attentiveness, team emotional intelligence, inclusion, and personal resilience.

Here is a detailed breakdown of new/revised/expanded coverage in this edition:

Chapter 1 The Leader’s Light or Shadow

Leadership by terror

Cases: Harvey Weinstein

3D guns

EPA director Scott Pruitt

Chapter 2 Stepping In and Out of the Shadows

Dark side personality traits

Unmet needs

Follower moral disengagement

Toxic triangle

Cases: McKinsey Company in South Africa

Recreational center

NASA product branding

Self-Assessment: Narcissistic Leader Scale

Chapter 3 The Leader’s Character

Grit

Character vices

Schein’s career anchors

Cases: Character through hardship

Dian Fossey

Humble tech leaders

Chapter 4 Combating Evil

Evil as idealism

Evil as ordinary

Active bystanders

Cases: Philippine death squads

Rohingya refugee crisis

Self-Assessment: Spirit at Work Scale

Chapter 5 Ethical Perspectives

Altruism

Toxin handlers

Cases: International bribery

Tax transparency

Mama Daktari

Chapter 6 Ethical Decision Making and Behavior

Dual process decision making

Moral attentiveness

Four-Way Decision Method

Five Timeless Questions

Cases: Mortgage refinancing

School name change

Justice vs. ICE

Self-Assessment: Moral Attentiveness Scale

Chapter 7 Exercising Ethical Influence

Framing

Moral symbols

Negotiation

Cases: Disney labor negotiations

Fraternity and sorority hazing

Chapter 8 Normative Leadership Theories

Benevolent leadership

Ethical leadership theory

Self-sacrifice

Cases: Mr. Rogers

Parkland teens

Self-Assessments: Benevolent Leadership Scale

Ethical Leadership Scale (moved from Introduction)

Chapter 9 Building an Ethical Small Group

Self-leadership

The five dysfunctions of a team

Group ethical voice

Polythink

Collaborative/integrative leadership

Cases: Thai soccer team rescue

Self-Assessment: Team Emotional Intelligence Scale

Chapter 10 Creating an Ethical, Inclusive Organizational Climate

Inclusion

Microaggressions

Employee silence

CEO activism

Organizational stories

Cases: Sexual harassment at Nike

Koch brothers on college campuses

Starbucks bias training

Self-Assessment: Climate for Inclusion-Exclusion Scale

Chapter 11 Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership in a Global Society

The high costs of globalization

World Values Survey

Ethical upward influence across cultures

A Global Ethic

Metaethics Lens

Cases: China in Africa

Female circumcision

Ethical diversity scenarios: Epidemic, petty theft policy, subcontractor workload

Chapter 12 Ethical Crisis Leadership

First class noticers

Heroic action

Crisis Leadership Scorecard

Building moral resilience

Dealing with death

Cases: Duck boat tragedy

Chef Andres and Hurricane Maria

Polar leadership

Self-Assessment: Resilience Scale

Digital Resources

SAGE edge for Instructors A password-protected instructor resource site at www.edge.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e supports teaching with high-quality content to help in creating a rich learning environment for students. The SAGE edge site for this book includes the following instructor resources:

Instructor’s Manual offers the author’s insights on how to use this book most effectively in a course on leadership ethics. Test banks built on AACSB standards, the book’s learning objectives, and Bloom’s Taxonomy provide a diverse range of test items. PowerPoint slides capture key concepts and terms for each chapter for use in lectures and review. Case Notes designed to help instructors expand questions to students or initiate class discussion include a brief summary of each case and sample answers to case questions. Leadership ethics at the movies cases introduce films and documentaries that illustrate chapter principles and include questions to prompt discussion. Course syllabi provide suggested models for instructors to use when creating the syllabi for their courses. SAGE journal articles give access to full journal articles that instructors can use as further teaching tools in class.

http://www.edge.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

SAGE edge for Students An open-access student study site can be found at www.edge.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e. The site offers learning from SAGE journal articles, with access to recent, relevant, full-text articles from SAGE’s leading research journals. Each article supports and expands on the concepts presented in the book. This feature also provides discussion questions to focus and guide student interpretation.

http://www.edge.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

Acknowledgments

Colleagues and students, past and present, provided practical and emotional support during the writing of this edition, just as they did for earlier versions. I am particularly grateful to instructors who adopted the first six editions of Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership, which made this seventh edition possible. I also want to thank readers, both faculty and students, who have e-mailed me with comments and corrections. I’ve had the opportunity to meet some of you at International Leadership Association conferences, where you introduced yourselves and offered encouragement and feedback. Five reviewers provided insightful responses that guided my revisions for this edition. Editor Maggie Stanley ably picked up where her predecessors at SAGE left off, assisted by the rest of the SAGE staff. Finally, I want to once again thank my wife, Mary, who continues to encourage my writing efforts, though it often means less time together.

SAGE gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following reviewers:

We would like to thank the following reviewers for this helpful feedback in preparation of this edition:

John W. Aldridge, Jr., Colorado Christian University Susan Burton, PhD, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Crystal R. Chambers, East Carolina University Dr. David L. Cook, Judson University Sarah Deluliis, Duquesne University Mark E. Evans, Piedmont International University Mary M. Gill, Buena Vista University Patricia Greer, PhD, University of Denver Carolyn P. Simoneaux, Ed.D., Urshan College, Wnetzville, Missouri

Introduction

Leaders: The News Isn’t All Bad As I noted in the Preface, when it comes to leaders, there is plenty of bad news. Wherever we turn—politics, business, military, medicine, sports, education, or religion—we find leaders engaged in unethical and criminal behavior. Some have escaped punishment but many have sacrificed their positions of leadership and their reputations. They also face civil lawsuits, criminal charges, and jail time. The costs can be even greater for followers. Consider, for example, the following:

Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf and other bank executives admitted to creating millions of fake customer accounts, charging unfair mortgage fees, illegally repossessing service members’ cars, and punishing whistle-blowers. Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacy, R. Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Matt Lauer, and other prominent political, entertainment, and media figures were accused of sexual misconduct ranging from sexual harassment to sexual assault. Citizens protested police shootings of black suspects in Chicago, Memphis, Sacramento, Dallas, and other American cities. Goldman Sachs bankers were charged with defrauding investors out of $6 billion in a financial scandal involving Malaysia’s former prime minister. Executives at Nissan, Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, Suzuki, and other auto makers admitted to overstating fuel economy ratings or falsifying emissions test results. Administrators at Tokyo Medical University blocked female applicants from enrolling by lowering their entrance exam results. Philippines president Eduardo Duterte allegedly oversees death squads that murder drug suspects, political enemies, and ordinary citizens. The University of Maryland board of trustees came under intense criticism for recommending that the school president

retain the head coach of its football team after the death of a player and reports of a “toxic” football culture. Top Saudi officials ordered the killing of Washington Post correspondent Jamal Khashoggi in its Turkish consulate and then disposed of the body and the evidence. A Saudi blockade has cut off food, medicine, and clean drinking water to Yemen, creating what the United Nations describes as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Google and Facebook executives are under fire for the misuse of user data, privacy violations, and election interference. Nobel Laureate Ang San Suu Kyi refuses to intervene on behalf of Rohingyans forced to flee Myanmar in the face of brutal military repression. City officials in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, and Philadelphia face major federal corruption investigations.

The misery caused by unethical leaders drives home an important point: Ethics is at the heart of leadership.1 When we assume the benefits of leadership, we also assume ethical burdens. I believe that as leaders, we must make every effort to act in such a way as to benefit rather than damage others, to cast light instead of shadow. Doing so will significantly reduce the likelihood that we will join the future ranks of fallen leaders.

Thankfully, the news isn’t all bad. We can also find plenty of examples of leaders who brighten the lives of those around them. Consider these examples:

Ashley Judd, Taylor Swift, and hundreds of other women from all walks of life were honored as Time magazine’s people of the year for breaking the silence about male sexual misconduct and launching the #MeToo movement. Doctors Without Borders staff were first to respond to Ebola outbreaks in West Africa and later in the Congo. Former president Jimmy Carter, in his 90s, continues to work with Habitat for Humanity and his humanitarian Carter Center, even after a brain cancer diagnosis. Syria’s “White Helmets” rush to the scene of shelling and bombings to dig out victims from the rubble during that

country’s civil war. Celebrity chef Jose Andres led efforts to provide 14 million meals to survivors of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Winners of the CNN Hero Award are involved in helping others through a variety of community efforts ranging from rescuing survivors of sex trafficking to building beds for needy children to teaching English to immigrants. For over 30 years, Alberto Cairo has overseen a Red Cross physical rehabilitation program in war torn Afghanistan. Cairo and his colleagues have treated nearly 180,000 patients and built nearly 20,000 artificial limbs. Liberian peace activist Leymah Roberta Gbowee helped bring an end to the country’s civil war and continues to develop young West African women leaders. Local authorities and volunteers searched for human remains in the ashes of Paradise, California, hoping to identify fire victims and bring closure to family members.

You should find this book helpful if you are a leader or an aspiring leader who (1) acknowledges that there are ethical consequences associated with the leadership role, (2) wants to exert positive influence over others, (3) seeks to make more informed ethical choices and to follow through on your decisions, and (4) desires to foster ethical behavior in others. You will also find useful insights if you are a follower who wants to behave ethically and bring out the best in your leaders.

There is no guarantee that after reading this book you will act in a more ethical fashion in every situation. Nor can you be sure that others will reach the same conclusions as you do about what is the best answer to an ethical dilemma or that you will succeed in improving the ethical climate of your group or organization. Nevertheless, you can increase your ethical competence and encourage others to do the same. This book is dedicated to that end.

Defining Terms Because this is a book about leadership ethics, we need to clarify what both of these terms mean. Leadership is the exercise of influence in a group context.2 Want to know who the leaders are? Look for the people having the greatest impact on the group or organization. Leaders are change agents engaged in furthering the needs, wants, and goals of leaders and followers alike. They are found wherever humans associate with one another, whether in social movements, sports teams, task forces, nonprofit agencies, state legislatures, military units, or corporations.

No definition of leadership is complete without distinguishing between leading and following. Generally, leaders get the most press. The newfound success of a struggling college is a case in point. The university president gets most of the credit for turning the fortunes of the school around but the newfound success is really the result of the efforts of many followers. Admissions representatives boost enrollment by recruiting new students; development staff solicit donations for scholarships and new buildings; facilities personnel maintain the physical plant; faculty teach classes and publish research; and support staff ensure that registration, scheduling, graduation, and all other functions are carried out.

In truth, leaders and followers function collaboratively, working together toward shared objectives. They are relational partners who play complementary roles.3 Whereas leaders exert a greater degree of influence and take more responsibility for the overall direction of the group, followers are more involved in implementing plans and doing the work. During the course of a day or week, we typically shift between leader and follower roles —heading up a project team at work, for example, while taking the position of follower as a student in a night class. As a result, we need to know how to behave ethically as both leaders and followers.

Moving from a follower role to a leadership role brings with it a shift in expectations. Important leader functions include establishing direction, organizing, coordinating activities and resources, motivating, and managing conflicts. Important follower functions include carrying out important group and organizational tasks (engineering, social work, teaching, accounting), generating new ideas about how to get jobs done, working in teams, and providing feedback.4

Viewing leadership as a role should put to rest the notion that leaders are born, not made. The fact that nearly all of us will function as leaders at some point if we haven’t already done so means that leadership is not limited to those with the proper genetic background, income level, or education. Ordinary people emerged as leaders during the mass shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas. Crowd members shielded spouses and family members from bullets, ushered strangers to safety, provided emergency first aid to the wounded, and hauled victims to local hospitals in pick-up trucks. Angela Merkel was a quiet East German scientist who went on to become Chancellor of the reunited Germany, serving Europe’s most powerful leader (and the world’s most powerful female leader) for 13 years. Ruth Bader Ginsburg overcame gender discrimination to become a leading advocate for women’s rights and a member of the Supreme Court. Howard Schultz, from a humble Brooklyn family, went on to found Starbucks, the world’s largest coffee company. (See Case Study 0.1 at the end of this introduction for another example of an unlikely leader.) Leadership should not be confused with position, although leaders often occupy positions of authority. Those designated as leaders, such as a disillusioned manager nearing retirement, don’t always exert a great deal of influence. On the other hand, those without the benefit of a title on the organizational chart can have a significant impact. France’s Yellow Vest protests, for instance, are led by those earning just enough to get by—truck drivers, small-business owners, farmers, home aides, independent contractors. The protestors successfully blocked a scheduled gas tax hike. They also forced French President Macron to conduct a

series of town hall discussions on raising the minimum wage and lowering taxes.

Human leadership differs in important ways from the pattern of dominance and submission that characterizes animal societies. The dominant female hyena or male chimpanzee rules over the pack or troop through pure physical strength. Each maintains authority until some stronger rival (often seeking mates) comes along. Unlike other animals, which seem to be driven largely by instinct, humans consciously choose how they want to influence others. We can rely on persuasion, rewards, punishments, emotional appeals, rules, and a host of other means to get our way. Freedom of choice makes ethical considerations an important part of any discussion of leadership. The term ethics refers to judgments about whether human behavior is right or wrong. We may be repulsed by the idea that a male lion will kill the offspring of the previous dominant male when he takes control of the pride. Yet we cannot label his actions as unethical because he is driven by a genetic imperative to start his own bloodline. We can and do condemn the actions of leaders who decide to lie, belittle followers, and enrich themselves at the expense of the less fortunate.

Some philosophers distinguish between ethics, which they define as the systematic study of the principles of right and wrong behavior, and morals, which they describe as specific standards of right and wrong (“Thou shall not steal.” “Do unto others as they would do unto you.”). Just as many scholars appear to use these terms interchangeably. I will follow the latter course.

Scholars have identified a number of different elements of ethical leadership. For example, integrity, people orientation, fairness, power sharing, concern for sustainability, ethical guidance, role clarification, moral motives, communication of ethical values, consistent behavior, and altruism.5 (Complete Self-Assessment 0.1 to determine how your leader rates on several of these factors.) However, the most influential research program groups the elements of ethical leadership in to two categories: personal moral behavior and moral influence.6 Ethical leaders earn that label when they act morally as they carry out their duties and

shape the ethical contexts of their groups, organizations, and societies. Both components are essential. Leaders must demonstrate such character traits as justice, humility, optimism, courage, and compassion and master the ethical challenges of their roles. In addition, they are responsible for the ethical behavior of others. They draw attention to ethics, set ethical standards, reward those who meet the standards and punish those who don’t, create just procedures, and make principled decisions. These dual responsibilities intertwine. Leaders act as role models for the rest of the organization. How followers behave depends in large part on the example set by leaders. Conversely, leaders become products of their own creations. Ethical climates promote the moral development of leaders as well as that of followers, fostering their character and improving their ability to make and follow through on ethical choices. Ethical organizational environments are marked by integrity, justice, trust, a concern for how goals are achieved, and a sense of social responsibility. They also have safeguards that keep both leaders and followers from engaging in destructive behaviors.

We’ll take an in-depth look at what theorists have discovered about the dual nature of ethical leadership in Chapter 8. In the meantime, rest assured that you don’t have to sacrifice your ethical standards in order to be a successful leader. Investigators report that ethical leaders are frequently more, not less, effective than their unethical colleagues. Ethical leaders are rated as more promotable and effective; their followers are more committed and satisfied (and less likely to engage in deviant behavior); and their organizations perform better.6

Overview of the Book Part I of this book, “The Shadow Side of Leadership,” examines the important topic of leadership’s dark side. Chapter 1 outlines common shadows cast by leaders: abuse of power and privilege, mismanagement of information, misplaced and broken loyalties, inconsistency, and irresponsibility. Chapter 2 explores the reasons leaders often cause more harm than good and then outlines strategies for stepping out of the shadows and into the light.

After identifying the factors that cause us to cast shadows as leaders, the discussion turns to mastering them. To do so, we will need to look inward. Part II, “Looking Inward,” focuses on the inner dimension of leadership. Chapter 3 examines the role of character development in overcoming our internal enemies and faulty motivations, and Chapter 4 explores the nature of evil, forgiveness, apology, and spirituality.

Part III, “Ethical Standards and Strategies,” addresses moral decision making and provides the theory and tactics we need to develop our ethical expertise. Chapter 5 surveys a wide range of ethical perspectives that can help us set moral priorities, while Chapter 6 describes the process of ethical decision making as well as formats that we can use to make better moral choices and follow through on our decisions. Chapter 7 examines ethical influence and resistance tactics. Chapter 8 introduces theories specifically developed to guide the ethical behavior of leaders.

Part IV, “Shaping Ethical Contexts,” looks at ways in which leaders can shed light in a variety of situations. Chapter 9 examines ethical group decision making. Chapter 10 describes the creation of ethical organizational climates. Chapter 11 highlights the ethical challenges of leadership in a global society. Chapter 12 provides an overview of ethical leadership in crisis situations and extreme settings.

Expect to learn new terminology along with key principles, decision-making formats, and important elements of the ethical

context. This information is drawn from a number of different fields of study—philosophy, psychology, communication, theology, history, business, neuroscience, sociology, political science, and organizational behavior—because we need insights from many different disciplines if we are to step out of the shadows. You can anticipate reading about and then practicing a variety of skills, ranging from information gathering to listening and conflict management.

With these preliminaries out of the way, let’s begin with Chapter 1, which takes a closer look at some of the ethical hurdles faced by leaders.

Case Study 0.1 A Girl Takes On the Taliban (and World Leaders) One of the world’s most powerful advocates for children’s education started as one of the youngest. Malala Yousafzai began her career as an activist in 2008, at age 11, in the remote Swat Valley of Pakistan. After the Taliban began attacking girls’ schools in her region, she gave a radio interview in which she declared, “How dare the Taliban take away my basic right to education?”1 The next year, she began blogging for the BBC, describing what it was like to live under Taliban rule. Malala wrote under an assumed name but her identity was revealed, making her a target for the Taliban. Despite the risk, she continued to speak out about the right of girls and women. Malala and her father, an educator and anti- Taliban activist, received death threats from the militant group. On October 12, 2012, a Taliban gunman boarded the bus she was taking home from school and shot her in the left side of the head. (Two other girls were also injured.) Yousafzai was transferred to a Birmingham, England, hospital after initially receiving treatment in a Pakistani military facility. The young advocate suffered no permanent brain damage, though part of her skull had to be removed to relieve brain swelling. She still suffers partial paralysis on the left side of her face as well as loss of some hearing in her left ear.

The Taliban’s attempt to silence Malala had the opposite result. More people than ever were drawn to her cause. Citizens from around the world expressed their support for her during her recovery. She gave a speech to the United Nations (UN) on her 16th birthday and became the youngest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, at age 17, in 2014. (She shared the prize with Indian children’s rights champion Kailash Satyarthi.) Yousafzai and her father created the Malala Fund, which promotes 12 years of free education for all the world’s children, particularly girls. (An estimated 63 million children, over 5 million in Pakistan, don’t receive an education and millions of others learn in substandard conditions.) The fund has received support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Apple Inc. for work in Afghanistan, Brazil, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Turkey. In one project, the Malala Fund covered the costs of opening up a school for 200 Syrian girl refugees. In another, it supported the recruitment and training of teachers in Afghanistan. The fund helped secure a $2.9 billion commitment for girls’ education from countries making up the G7 (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Canada, Italy, Japan, Germany) and the World Bank.

Malala does not hesitate to take on world leaders in her fight for universal education. She faults the United Nations for only seeking to provide an elementary and middle school education to children. She told UN members to make 12 years of schooling their goal: “Your dreams were too small. Now it is time that you dream bigger.”2 Malala notes that just an 8- day halt to military spending would pay for “12 years of free, quality education to every child on the planet.”3 When she visited the White House, she told President Obama to stop drone warfare and to invest in education instead. She criticized the president of Nigeria for not doing enough to rescue schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram.

Malala returned to Pakistan nearly six years after she was shot, proclaiming, “Today is the happiest day of my life.”4 The country’s prime minister welcomed her but she was kept under tight security due to threats from the Taliban. In fact, many Pakistanis resent Malala, arguing that other children have suffered more than she. According to conspiracy theorists, she is a “stooge” of the West and her shooting was staged by the CIA. The Taliban has largely abandoned assaults on Pakistani schools after a 2014 attack in the city of Peshawar where gunmen murdered 140 teachers and children, most of them boys between the ages of 12 and 16.

Discussion Probes 1. How do you account for the fact that a girl from rural Pakistan

became a leading spokesperson for worldwide childhood education? 2. Can you think of any other examples of leaders, like Malala, who

overcame humble circumstances and significant barriers to become leaders?

3. What gives Malala Yousafzai the courage to speak boldly to world leaders?

4. Is Malala more effective as an advocate for children’s education because she started so young?

5. Is Malala’s goal of universal 12-year education too ambitious?

Notes 1. Yousafzai, M., & Lamb, C. (2013). I am Malala: The girl who stood up for education and was shot by the Taliban. New York, NY: Back Bay Books, p. 142.

2. Kristof, N. (2015, September 26). Malala Yousafzai’s fight continues. The New York Times, Op-Ed.

3. Biography: Malala Yousafzai. (2015, December 9). Biography.com.

4. Safi, M. (2018, March 29). “Happiest day of my life”: Malala returns to Pakistan for first time since Taliban shooting. The Guardian.

Sources Baker, A. (2013, December 19). Runner-up: Malala Yousafzai, the fighter. Time.com

Boone, J. (2015, December 15). Peshawar school attack: One year on “the country is changed completely.” The Guardian.

Kugel, M. (2017, August 15). Why Pakistan hates Malala. Foreign Policy.

$3 billion pledged for girls education atG7, delighting Malala. (2018, June 10). Economic Times.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 0.1 Ethical Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ)

Instructions The term unit refers to the team, department, division, or company for which your boss is the formal leader, and the term members refers to the people in the unit who report directly to your boss. Please indicate how well each of the following statements describes your current boss by selecting one of the following response choices. Write the number of the choice on the line provided. Leave the item blank if you do not know the answer.

1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = slightly disagree 4 = slightly agree 5 = moderately agree 6 = strongly agree

My boss

1. _____ shows a strong concern for ethical and moral values. 2. _____ communicates clear ethical standards for members. 3. _____ sets an example of ethical behavior in his or her

decisions and actions. 4. _____ is honest and can be trusted to tell the truth. 5. _____ keeps his or her actions consistent with his or her stated

values (“walks the talk”). 6. _____ is fair and unbiased when assigning tasks to members. 7. _____ can be trusted to carry out promises and commitments. 8. _____ insists on doing what is fair and ethical even when it is

not easy. 9. _____ acknowledges mistakes and takes responsibility for

them. 10. _____ regards honesty and integrity as important personal

values. 11. _____ sets an example of dedication and self-sacrifice for the

organization. 12. _____ opposes the use of unethical practices to increase

performance. 13. _____ is fair and objective when evaluating member

performance and providing rewards. 14. _____ puts the needs of others above his/her own self-interest. 15. _____ holds members accountable for using ethical practices in

their work.

Scoring This scale measures your perceptions of your supervisor’s (a) honesty and integrity (including the consistency of actions with values), (b) behavior designed to communicate or enforce ethical standards, (c) fairness of decisions and the distribution of rewards, and (d) behavior that is concerned for others rather than self- centered. Possible scores range from 15 to 90.

Source: Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Russia, G. E. (2013). An improved measure of ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 38–48.

Part I The Shadow Side of Leadership

Chapter 1. The Leader’s Light or Shadow 2 Chapter 2. Stepping in and out of the Shadows 36

1 The Leader’s Light or Shadow

Learning Objectives > Illustrate how leaders have the power to cast light or shadow. > Defend the importance of examining the dark side of leadership. > Categorize the types of negative leadership. > Describe the six ethical challenges faced by leaders. > Explain how leaders cast shadows when they fail to meet the six ethical challenges of leadership.

Yet I have something in me dangerous, which let thy wiseness fear.

—WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (HAMLET)

We know where light is coming from by looking at the shadows.

—HUMANITIES SCHOLAR PAUL WOODRUFF

What’s Ahead This chapter introduces the dark (bad, toxic) side of leadership as the first step in promoting good or ethical leadership. The metaphor of light and shadow dramatizes the differences between moral and immoral leaders. Leaders have the power to illuminate the lives of followers or to cover them in darkness. They cast light when they master ethical challenges of leadership. They cast shadows when they (1) abuse power, (2) hoard privileges, (3) mismanage information, (4) act inconsistently, (5) misplace or betray loyalties, and (6) fail to assume responsibilities.

A Dramatic Difference/The Dark Side of Leadership In an influential essay titled “Leading From Within,” educational writer and consultant Parker Palmer introduces a powerful metaphor to dramatize the distinction between ethical and unethical leadership. According to Palmer, the difference between moral and immoral leaders is as sharp as the contrast between light and darkness, between heaven and hell:

A leader is a person who has an unusual degree of power to create the conditions under which other people must live and move and have their being, conditions that can be either as illuminating as heaven or as shadowy as hell. A leader must take special responsibility for what’s going on inside his or her own self, inside his or her consciousness, lest the act of leadership create more harm than good.1

For most of us, leadership has a positive connotation. We have been fortunate enough to benefit from the guidance of teachers or coaches, for example, or we admire noteworthy historical leaders. However, Palmer urges us to pay more attention to the shadow side of leadership. Political figures, parents, clergy, and business executives have the potential to cast as much shadow as they do light. The higher the position, the greater the leader’s discretion or latitude to do harm.2 Refusing to face the dark side of leadership makes abuse more likely. All too often, leaders “do not even know they are making a choice, let alone reflect on the process of choosing.”3

Other scholars have joined Palmer in focusing on the dark or negative dimension of leadership. Claremont Graduate University professor Jean Lipman-Blumen uses the term toxic leaders to describe those who engage in destructive behaviors and who

exhibit dysfunctional personal characteristics.4 These behaviors and qualities (summarized in Table 1.1) cause significant harm to followers and organizations.

Harvard professor Barbara Kellerman believes that limiting our understanding of leadership solely to good leadership ignores the reality that a great many leaders engage in destructive behaviors.5 Overlooking that fact, Kellerman says, undermines our attempts to promote good leadership:

I take it as a given that we promote good leadership not by ignoring bad leadership, nor by presuming that it is immutable, but rather by attacking it as we would a disease that is always pernicious and sometimes deadly.6

According to Kellerman, bad leaders can be ineffective, unethical, or ineffective and unethical. She identifies seven types of bad leaders:

Incompetent. These leaders don’t have the motivation or the ability to sustain effective action. They may lack emotional or academic intelligence, for example, or be careless, distracted, or sloppy. Some cannot function under stress, and their communication and decisions suffer as a result. Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina failed as a leader because she isolated herself from employees, lacked operational skills, and battled board members.

Rigid. Rigid leaders may be competent, but they are unyielding, unable to accept new ideas, new information, or changing conditions. General George Armstrong Custer was one such leader. The headstrong general refused to listen to his scouts or to wait for the rest of his army. Instead, he attacked thousands of Sioux and

Cheyenne warriors with a few hundred troops. Custer and those who charged with him were slaughtered.

Intemperate. Intemperate leaders lack self-control and are enabled by followers who don’t want to intervene or can’t. Former Maine governor Paul LePage demonstrates intemperate leadership in action. LePage gained national attention by comparing the Internal Revenue Service to the Gestapo, saying he wanted to tell President Obama “to go to hell,” blaming people of color for the opioid crisis, and challenging a lawmaker to a duel in a vile voice mail message. LePage served two terms as governor despite his outrageous statements.

Callous. The callous leader is uncaring or unkind, ignoring or downplaying the needs, wants, and wishes of followers. Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro personifies the callous leader. He refuses to accept food shipments from humanitarian organizations even as many of his citizens slowly starve.

Table 1.1 The Behaviors and Personal Characteristics of Toxic Leaders Table 1.1 The Behaviors and Personal Characteristics of

Toxic Leaders

Destructive Behaviors Toxic Qualities

Leaving followers worse off Lack of integrity

Violating human rights Insatiable ambition

Feeding followers’ illusions; creating dependence Enormous egos

Destructive Behaviors Toxic Qualities

Playing to the basest fears and needs of followers Arrogance

Stifling criticism; enforcing compliance

Amorality (inability to discern right from wrong)

Misleading followers Avarice (greed)

Subverting ethical organizational structures and processes

Reckless disregard for the costs of their actions

Engaging in unethical, illegal, and criminal acts

Cowardice (refusal to make tough choices)

Building totalitarian regimes Failure to understand problems

Failing to nurture followers, including successors

Incompetence in key leadership situations

Setting constituents against one another

Encouraging followers to hate or destroy others

Identifying scapegoats

Making themselves indispensable

Ignoring or promoting incompetence, cronyism, and corruption

Source: Adapted from Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—and how we can survive them. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–23.

Corrupt. These leaders and (at least some of their followers) lie, cheat, and steal. They put self-interest ahead of the public interest. Brazil’s ex-president Lula da Silva is an example of this type of leader. At one time one of the most powerful people in Latin America, he is now serving prison time. He and his wife received over a million dollars in free home improvements from a construction company in exchange for contracts with Petrobras, Brazil’s state-run oil company.

Insular. The insular leader draws a clear boundary between the welfare of his or her immediate group or organization and outsiders. Australian senator Fraser Anning expressed insular sentiments when he called for a ban on all immigrants of non-European descent. He singled out Muslims in particular, declaring that a vote to ban Muslims would be “the final solution to the immigration problem.” His words echoed that of the Nazis, whose plan to eliminate Jews was called “The Final Solution to the Jewish Question.”

Evil. Evil leaders commit atrocities, using their power to inflict severe physical or psychological harm. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is one example of an evil leader. He heads ISIS, the Middle Eastern terrorist group known for beheading male captives and turning female captives into sex slaves for ISIS soldiers. Al-Baghdadi told his followers that Muslim believers have the right to enslave all nonbelievers.

Lipman-Blumen and Kellerman developed their typologies based on case studies of prominent leaders. Other investigators focus on

ordinary leaders, particularly in organizational settings. In one project, two researchers at Bond University in Australia (along with a colleague from the United States) asked employees to explain why they would label someone as a bad leader, describe how a bad leader made them feel, and describe the impact bad leaders had on them and the organization as a whole.7 Respondents reported that bad leaders are incompetent (they are unable to use technology, for example, and can’t work with subordinates or plan strategy) and unethical (they demonstrate poor ethics as well as poor personal and interpersonal behavior). Such leaders made respondents angry and frustrated while lowering their self-esteem. Individual and collective performance suffered as a result. Those working under bad leaders reported feeling more stress at home. They had trouble sleeping, for instance, and felt fatigued. Negative emotions toward their leaders consumed their thoughts and hurt their family relationships. According to the survey, bad leaders often go unpunished; instead, many are promoted or rewarded.

Using information generated by this study, the researchers developed a tool to measure destructive organizational leadership. They discovered that demonstrating just a couple of bad behaviors was enough to label a leader as destructive, even though he or she might also have lots of positive qualities. The Bond scholars identified seven clusters of destructive leader behaviors:8

Cluster 1: This type of leader makes poor decisions (often based on inadequate information), lies and engages in other unethical behavior, cannot deal with new technology, and typically fails to prioritize and delegate. Cluster 2: This type of leader lacks critical skills. She or he is unable to negotiate or persuade and cannot develop or motivate subordinates. Cluster 3: This type of leader makes good decisions and has the necessary leadership skills but is overly controlling and micromanages followers. Cluster 4: This type of leader can’t deal with conflict but plays favorites and behaves inconsistently.

Cluster 5: This type of leader isn’t all that bad but isn’t all that good either. Leaders in this category don’t seek information from others, don’t change their minds, and don’t do a good job of coordinating followers. Cluster 6: This type of leader isolates the group from the rest of the organization. Cluster 7: This type of leader creates a situation of significant misery and despair. Leaders in this group are brutal and bullying, frequently lying and engaging in other unethical behavior.

Ståle Einarsen and his Norwegian colleagues offer an alternative classification of bad leadership based on its negative effects either on the organization or on followers. Destructive leaders can be antiorganization, antisubordinates, or both.9 Tyrannical leaders reach organizational goals while abusing followers. Supportive- disloyal leaders care for the welfare of subordinates at the expense of organizational goals. They may tolerate loafing or stealing, for example. Derailed leaders act against the interests of both subordinates and the organization. As they bully, manipulate, deceive, and harass followers, they may also be stealing from the organization, engaging in fraudulent activities, and doing less than expected. Laissez-faire leaders engage in passive and indirect negative behavior. They occupy leadership positions but don’t exercise leadership, therefore hurting followers and their organizations. Constructive leaders, on the other hand, care about subordinates and help the organization achieve its goals while using resources wisely. Einarsen and his fellow researchers found a high rate of bad leadership in Norwegian organizations, with 61% of respondents reporting that their immediate supervisors engaged in ongoing destructive behavior over the past six months. Laissez-faire behavior was by far the most common form of bad leadership, followed by supportive-disloyal leadership, derailed leadership, and tyrannical leadership.10 (Turn to Self- Assessment 1.1 at the end of this chapter to determine whether your leader engages in destructive leadership behavior.) The negative effects of destructive leadership lasted longer than the positive effects of constructive leadership.11

Evidence that bad leaders can cause significant damage continues to grow. In an analysis of the results of 57 studies, investigators found that destructive leader behavior is linked to a wide range of negative outcomes.12 Those serving under destructive leaders have negative attitudes toward their superiors, resist their leaders’ influence attempts, and engage more frequently in counterproductive work behaviors. In addition, these followers have negative attitudes toward their jobs and their organizations. Their personal well-being also suffers as they experience negative emotions and stress.

In sum, Palmer was right to emphasize the importance of the shadow side of leadership. Followers from around the world have lots of firsthand experience with bad leaders and report that such leaders cause significant, long-lasting damage. When it comes to leadership, “the bad overcomes the good.”13 It apparently takes only a few destructive behaviors to overcome a leader’s positive qualities. In addition, the shadows cast by destructive leaders extend beyond the workplace; the home lives of followers are damaged as well.

The Leader’s Shadows When we function as leaders, we take on a unique set of ethical burdens in addition to a set of expectations and tasks. These involve issues of power, privilege, information, consistency, loyalty, and responsibility. How we handle the challenges of leadership determines whether we cause more harm than good or, to return to Palmer’s metaphor, whether we cast light or shadow. Unless we’re careful, we’re likely to cast one or more of the shadows described in this section. (See the Focus on Followers box for more information on the ethical challenges facing followers.)

The Shadow of Power Power is the foundation for influence attempts. The more power we have, the more likely others are to comply with our wishes. Power comes from a variety of sources. One typology, for example, divides power into two categories: hard and soft.14 Hard power uses inducements (bonuses, raises) and threats (arrests, firings) to get people to go along. Soft power is based on attracting others rather than forcing them or inducing them to comply. Leaders use soft power when they set a worthy example, create an inspiring vision, and build positive relationships with subordinates. Typically, those without formal authority rely more heavily on soft power, but even those in formal leadership positions, such as military officers, try to attract followers by acting as role models and emphasizing the group’s mission. Effective leaders combine hard and soft power into smart power to achieve their goals. For instance, a manager may try to persuade an employee to follow a new policy while at the same time outlining the penalties the subordinate will face if he or she does not comply.

The most popular power classification system identifies five power bases.15 Coercive power is based on penalties or punishments such as physical force, salary reductions, student suspensions, or embargoes against national enemies. Reward power depends on being able to deliver something of value to others, whether tangible (bonuses, health insurance, grades) or intangible (praise, trust, cooperation). Legitimate power resides in the position, not the person. Supervisors, judges, police officers, drill sergeants, instructors, and parents have the right to control our behavior within certain limits. A boss can require us to carry out certain tasks at work, for example, but in most cases, he or she has no say in what we do in our free time. In contrast to legitimate power, expert power is based on the characteristics of the individual regardless of that person’s official position. Knowledge, skills, education, and certification all build expert power. Referent (role model) power rests on the admiration one person has for another. We’re more likely to do favors for a supervisor we admire or to buy a product promoted by our favorite sports hero.

Leaders typically draw on more than one power source. The manager who is appointed to lead a task force is granted legitimate power that enables her to reward or punish. Yet in order to be successful, she’ll have to demonstrate her knowledge of the topic, skillfully direct the group process, and earn the respect of task force members through hard work and commitment to the group.

The use of each power type has advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the dispensing of rewards is widely accepted in Western culture but can be counterproductive if the rewards promote the wrong behaviors (see Chapter 10) or go to the wrong people. U.S. workers are more satisfied and productive when their leaders rely on forms of power that are tied to the person (expert and referent) rather than forms of power that are linked to the position (coercive, reward, and legitimate).16 In addition, positional power is more susceptible to abuse. Coercive tactics have the potential to do the most damage, threatening the dignity as well as the physical and mental health of followers. Leaders, then, have important decisions to make about the types of power they use and when. (Complete Self-Assessment 1.2 to determine the types of power you prefer to use.)

Focus on Follower Ethics The Ethical Challenges of Followership

Followers, like leaders, face their own set of ethical challenges. Followers walk on the dark side when they fail to meet the moral responsibilities of their roles. Important ethical challenges confronted by followers include those described below.

The Challenge of Obligation. Followers contribute to a shadowy atmosphere when they fail to fulfill their minimal responsibilities by coming to work late, taking extended breaks, not carrying out assignments, undermining the authority of their leaders, stealing supplies, and so on. However, they can also contribute to an unethical climate by taking on too many obligations. Employees forced to work mandatory overtime and salaried staff at many technology and consulting firms work 70 to 80 hours a week, leaving little time for family and personal interests. They experience stress and burnout, and their family relationships suffer.

Followers also have ethical duties to outsiders. Carpenters and other tradespeople involved in home construction have an obligation to buyers to build high-quality houses and to meet deadlines, for example. Government employees owe it to taxpayers to spend their money wisely by working hard while keeping expenses down.

These questions can help us sort out the obligations we owe as followers:

Am I doing all I reasonably can to carry out my tasks and further the mission of my organization? What more could I do? Am I fulfilling my obligations to outsiders (clients, neighbors, community, customers)? Are there any additional steps I should take? Am I giving back to the group or organization as much as I am taking from it? Am I carrying my fair share of the workload? Am I serving the needs of my leaders? Am I earning the salary and benefits I receive? Can I fulfill my organizational obligations and, at the same time, maintain a healthy personal life and productive relationships? If not, what can I do to bring my work and personal life into balance?

The Challenge of Obedience. Groups and organizations couldn’t function if members refused to obey orders or adhere to policies, even the ones they don’t like. As a result, followers have an ethical duty to obey. However, blindly following authority can drive followers to engage in illegal and immoral activities that they would never participate in on their own. Obeying orders is no excuse for unethical behavior. Therefore, deciding when to disobey is critical. To make this determination, consider the following factors: Does this order appear to call for unethical behavior? Would I engage in this course of action if I weren’t ordered to? What are the potential consequences for others, and for myself, if these directions are followed? Does obedience threaten the mission and health of the organization as a whole? What steps should I take if I decide to disobey?

The Challenge of Cynicism. There is a difference between healthy skepticism, which prevents followers from being exploited, and unhealthy cynicism, which undermines individual and group performance. Followers darken the atmosphere when they become organizational cynics. That’s because cynicism destroys commitment and undermines trust. Collective performance suffers as a result. Few give their best effort when they are disillusioned with the group. Cynical employees feel less identification with and commitment to

their employers while being more resistant to change; they are less likely to go beyond their job duties to help their colleagues and their organizations. The greater the degree of cynicism, the more effort is directed toward attacking the organization at the expense of completing the task at hand.

The Challenge of Dissent. Expressing disagreement is an important ethical duty of followership. Followers should take issue with policies and procedures that are inefficient, harmful, or costly and with leaders who harm others or put the organization at risk. Doing so serves the mission of the organization while protecting the rights of its members and the larger community. Although followers contribute to a shadowy environment when they fail to speak up, they can go too far by generating a constant stream of complaints. Ethical followers know when to speak up (not every issue is worth contesting) and when to wait until a more important issue comes along. They must also determine whether the problem is significant enough to justify going outside the organization (becoming a whistle- blower) if leaders don’t respond.

The Challenge of Bad News. Delivering bad news is risky business. Followers who tell their bosses that the project is over budget, that sales are down, or that the software doesn’t work as promised may be verbally abused, demoted, or fired. Organizations and leaders pay a high price when followers hide or cover up bad news, deny responsibility, or shift blame. Leaders can’t correct problems they don’t know exist. Failure to address serious deficiencies such as accounting fraud, cost overruns, and product contamination can destroy an organization. Leaders who don’t get feedback about their ineffective habits—micromanaging, poor listening skills, indecisiveness—can’t address those behaviors. When leaders deny accountability and shift blame, this undermines trust and diverts people’s focus from solving problems to defending themselves.

To avoid contributing to a shadowy environment, followers must deliver bad news and accept responsibility for their actions. They also need to pay close attention to how they deliver bad tidings, selecting the right time, place, and message channel. Significant problems should be brought to the leader’s attention immediately, when he or she is most receptive, and delivered face-to-face whenever possible, not through e-mail, faxes, and other, less personal channels.

Source: Adapted from Johnson, C. E. (2015). Organizational ethics: A practical approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Ch. 9.

Additional Sources Bedian, A. G. (2007). Even if the tower is “ivory,” it isn’t “white”: Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6, 9–32.

Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 341–352.

Hajdin, M. (2005). Employee loyalty: An examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 259–280.

Peyton Roberts, T. P., & Zigarmi, D. (2014). The impact of dispositional cynicism on job-specific affect and work intentions. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 381–389.

Roloff, M. E., & Paulson, G. D. (2001). Confronting organizational transgressions. In J. M. Darley, D. M. Messick, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Social influences on ethical behavior in organizations (pp. 53–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schrag, B. (2001). The moral significance of employee loyalty. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11 , 41–66.

Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 429–459.

The fact that leadership cannot exist without power makes some Americans uncomfortable. We admire powerful leaders who act decisively but can be reluctant to admit that we have and use power. Sadly, our refusal to face up to the reality of power can make us more vulnerable to the shadow side of leadership. Cult leader Jim Jones presided over the suicide–murder of 909 followers in the jungles of Guyana. Perhaps this tragedy could have been avoided if cult members and outside observers had challenged Jones’s abuse of power.17 Conversely, ignoring the topic of power prevents the attainment of worthy objectives, leaving followers in darkness. Consider the case of the community activist who wants to build a new shelter for homeless families. He can’t help these families unless he skillfully wields power to enlist the support of local groups, overcome resistance of opponents, raise funds, and secure building permits.

I suspect that we are suspicious of power because we recognize that power has a corrosive effect on those who possess it. We’ve seen how U.S. president Richard Nixon used the power of his office to order illegal acts against his enemies and how Russian president Vladimir Putin used military force to take over part of the neighboring country of Ukraine while, at the same time, he allegedly ordered the killing of opposition figures and journalists. Many corporate leaders have been intoxicated by their power, using their positions to abuse their subordinates. One such boss wouldn’t grant time off so an employee could be with her dying grandmother, saying, “Well she’s not dead yet so I don’t have to grant your leave.” Another called the paramedics when an employee had a heart attack and then ordered everyone else to go back to work even as the victim was still lying on the floor. Another wouldn’t let an injured employee get treatment for a broken ankle until she had first finished processing invoices. Yet another berated and humiliated a subordinate who suffered an emotional breakdown and had to be hospitalized. His response? “I can’t help it if she is overly sensitive.”18 (Case Study 1.1 describes a corporate leader who used his power to cover up sexual abuse.)

Unfortunately, abuse of power is an all-too-common fact of life in modern organizations. A survey commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute found that 1 out of every 5 Americans have been targets of bullying. In another survey, nearly 75% of respondents had either been a target or a witness of such behavior. According to one estimate, workplace bullying costs the U.S. economy $360 billion in lost productivity every year.19 “Brutal” bosses regularly engage in the following behaviors, some of which will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter:20

Deceit: lying and giving false or misleading information Constraint: restricting followers’ activities outside work, such as telling them whom they can befriend, where they can live, with whom they can live, and the civic activities they can participate in Coercion: making inappropriate or excessive threats for not complying with the leader’s directives Selfishness: blaming subordinates and making them scapegoats

Inequity: supplying unequal benefits or punishments based on favoritism or criteria unrelated to the job Cruelty: harming subordinates in such illegitimate ways as name-calling or public humiliation Disregard: ignoring normal standards of politeness, obvious disregard for what is happening in the lives of followers Deification: creating a master–servant relationship in which bosses can do whatever they want because they feel superior

The cost of the petty tyranny of bad bosses is high. Victims suffer low self-esteem, psychological distress and poorer health; are less satisfied with their jobs and lives; are less productive; and are more likely to quit. The work unit as a whole is less trusting and cohesive, reducing collective performance.21 Researchers have yet to report any positive outcomes of abusive supervision. Instead, studies conducted in a several different countries link oppressive supervision to depression, emotional exhaustion, counterproductive work behavior, job tension, and feelings of injustice.22 Workers respond to tyranny by surrendering their personal beliefs, keeping a low profile, engaging in revenge fantasies, taking indirect revenge (i.e., not supporting the boss at a critical moment), challenging the supervisor directly, or bringing in outsiders (such as the human resources department or the boss’s boss) to get help in dealing with the abusive leader.23 They also spend a lot of time bemoaning how they are being treated. The majority of employees in one project reported spending 10 or more hours every month complaining about abusive and other kinds of bad bosses or listening to the complaints of fellow workers.24

The greater a leader’s power, the greater the potential for abuse. This prompted Britain’s Lord Acton to observe that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The long shadow cast by absolute power, as in the case of North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, can be seen in censorship, repression, torture, imprisonment, murder, and starvation. (Box 1.1 describes another leader who ruled by terror.) Businesses and other organizations foster centralization of power through top-down structures that emphasize status differences, loyalty, dependence, fear, and

obedience while celebrating “tough” bosses and business practices like hard bargaining and aggressive marketing tactics.25

Psychologists offer several explanations for why concentrated power is so dangerous.26 First, power prompts people to pursue their goals without considering the needs of others. They are likely to justify their actions by claiming that their personal rights and interests take priority over obligations to others. Second, those in power protect their positions by attacking those they perceive as threats. Third, powerful leaders tend to make biased judgments.27

Because they generally make little attempt to find out how followers think and feel, they’re prone to hold and act on faulty stereotypes that justify their authority. Powerful people believe that they deserve their high status because powerless people aren’t as capable as they are. They are also more likely to believe that others like them (even when they don’t). Fourth, possessing power makes individuals more resistant to feedback from others.

Power deprivation exerts its own brand of corruptive influence. Followers with little power become fixated on what minimal influence they have, becoming cautious, defensive, and critical of others and new ideas. In extreme cases, they may engage in sabotage, such as when one group of fast-food restaurant employees took out their frustrations by spitting and urinating into the drinks they served customers.

To wield power wisely, leaders have to wrestle with all the issues outlined here. They have to consider what types of power they should use and when and for what purposes. In particular, they have to meet social, not personal needs, when exercising power. Destructive leaders want power over followers to meet their selfish interests. Ethical leaders desire power in order to work through followers to help the group achieve its collective goals.28 They also have to determine how much power to keep and how much to give away. Finally, leaders must recognize and resist the dangers posed by possessing too much power while making sure that followers aren’t corrupted by having too little.

Fortunately, there is evidence, when it comes to power, that a number of leaders are casting light rather than shadow. They

recognize that sharing power prevents power abuses and improves organizational performance. Executives at Zappos, Johnsonville Sausage, Patagonia, food processor Morning Star, and other successful organizations have relinquished much of their legitimate, coercive, award, and expert power bases to lower-level leaders. At a great many other companies, self- directed work teams have taken over functions—hiring, scheduling, quality control—that used to be the province of mid- and lower-level managers.

Box 1.1 Leadership by Terror

Leaders ruling through terror cast the darkest shadows. Clinical psychologist and leadership scholar Manfred Kets de Vries set out to discover what makes despotic leaders like Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-un, and Bashar al-Assad “tick” by examining the life of Shaka Zulu. Between 1817 and 1824, Shaka Zulu conquered much of southern Africa through military genius and ruthless brutality, creating a kingdom that spread over 100,000 miles. Anyone who opposed his army, including married couples, children, and even dogs, were slaughtered. The victorious warrior then made himself the center of absolute power as king and created his own secret service to eliminate possible enemies. He would randomly select victims for execution and order the deaths of the elderly and the sick. Shaka’s rule ended when he was assassinated by his half-brothers in 1828.

Kets de Vries attributes Shaka Zulu’s brutal behavior to a number of related personality disorders that were magnified as he gained power. Shaka was a malignant narcissist who fought off feelings of low self-worth and depression through the belief that he was someone special. Narcissism became an addiction once he took total command of the kingdom. He demanded constant adoration and claimed to be all powerful and invincible. Shaka was paranoid, constantly seeing threats when none existed. He was also a sociopath who lacked empathy for others and took sadistic pleasure in such acts as burning elderly women prisoners, putting out eyes, and killing those who offended him by what they wore or how they looked. His ruthless, unpredictable violence broke the will of his followers who knew that no one was safe from his wrath.

Professor Kets de Vries concludes his study by noting that Shaka should serve as a warning to all would-be leaders. All of us have a shadow side that can spring to life when we are given access to power.

[W]e all have a Shaka Zulu in the attic. We all have a darker side, a violent streak ready to erupt as circumstances dictate. Shaka is not just a quaint illustration of perverted leadership of bygone years. He is a reminder of what every leader, every individual, can become. (p. 166)

Source: Kets, de Vries, M. F. R. (2004). Lessons on leadership by terror: Finding Shaka Zulu in the attic. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

The Shadow of Privilege Leaders almost always enjoy greater privileges than followers do. The greater the leader’s power, generally the greater the rewards he or she receives. Consider the earnings of corporate CEOs, for example. Top business leaders in the United States are the highest paid in the world. The average pay for chief executives of large U.S. firms skyrocketed to $13.9 million (including salary, bonuses, stock, and stock option grants), up 1000% since the 1950s.29 In a recent salary survey, the highest-paid CEOs were Discovery Communications David Zaslav ($156.1 million), followed by Google’s Sundar Pichai ($150 million), Michael Fries of Liberty Global ($111.9 million), and Nick Woodman of GoPro ($77.4 million). Amazon founder Jeff Bezos became the richest person in world history, with a net worth of nearly $110 billion.

A number of CEOs receive generous payouts when they retire, are fired, or if their companies are taken over. AT&T’s Ed Whitacre retired with a $230 million package along with such perks as use of the company jet and payment of his home security and country club fees. Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnel, who was forced to step down, walked away with over $188 million even though the company lost $140 billion under his leadership. CVS CEO Tom Ryan took home over $185 million after his firm combined with Caremark. As the pay of top leaders soared, the paycheck of the average American was left in the dust. The wages of typical U.S. workers have stagnated since the 1970s. The top 1% of Americans now averages 40 times more income than the bottom 90% of the population.

Nonprofit leaders can also abuse the perks that come from their positions of influence. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, 2,700 nonprofit executives earned over $1 million, up over one third in a three-year period. The highest paying nonprofits were largely in health care, followed by private colleges and universities. Five nonprofits, including the organization managing Harvard University’s endowment, paid executives $10 million or more.30

Most of us would agree that leaders deserve more rewards than followers do because leaders assume greater risks and responsibilities; many would also agree that some leaders get more than they deserve. Beyond this point, however, our opinions are likely to diverge. Americans are divided over questions such as these: How many additional privileges should leaders have? What should be the relative difference in pay and benefits between workers and top management? How do we close the large gap between the haves and the have-nots? We will never reach complete agreement on these issues, but the fact remains that privilege is a significant ethical burden associated with leadership. Leaders must give questions of privilege the same careful consideration as questions of power. The shadow cast by the abuse of privilege can be as long and dark as that cast by the misuse of power. (Turn to the Leadership Ethics at the Movies case in the student study site for evidence of the dangers of privilege.) Conversely, sharing privilege can cast significant light. Every year, for example, thousands of Americans (often members of religious congregations) leave their comfortable homes to spend their vacations serving in developing nations. There they build schools and homes, dig wells, and provide medical care. Some of the world’s richest people, including Warren Buffet, Bill and Melinda Gates, Sheryl Sandburg, and Mark Zuckerberg, have pledged to give the vast majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes.

The Shadow of Mismanaged Information Leaders have more access to information than do others in an organization. They are more likely to participate in decision- making processes, network with managers in other units, review personnel files, and formulate long-term plans. Knowledge is a mixed blessing. Leaders must be in the information loop in order to carry out their tasks, but possessing knowledge makes life more complicated. Do they reveal that they are in the know? When should they release information and to whom? How much do they tell? Is it ever right for them to lie?

No wonder leaders are tempted to think ignorance is bliss! If all these challenges weren’t enough, leaders face the very real temptation to lie. For instance, Ohio State football coach Urban Meyer publicly denied he knew about domestic violence allegations against an assistant coach. Later he admitted that he was aware of the possible abuse but kept the assistant on his staff. Managers at the Veterans Administration falsified patient access records to disguise the long wait times facing veterans seeking medical treatment.31 At other times, leaders are eager to hide the truth. The Panama Papers, a massive data leak, revealed that political leaders and wealthy individuals from around the world are secretly sheltering billions in assets in offshore companies. Other leaders don’t want to reveal that their judgment might be clouded by conflicts of interest. President Trump refuses to entirely divest himself from his real estate business and reports little about income generated by foreign customers. As a result, there are concerns that he might favor countries who stay at Trump hotels and golf clubs when visiting the United States.32

The issues surrounding access to information are broader than deciding whether to lie, to hide the truth, or to tell the truth. Although leaders often decide between lying and truth telling, they are just as likely to be faced with questions related to the release of information. Take the case of a middle manager who has learned about an upcoming merger that will mean layoffs. Her superiors have asked her to keep this information to herself for a couple of weeks until the deal is completed. In the interim,

employees may make financial commitments—such as home and car purchases—that they would postpone if they knew that major changes were in the works. Should the manager voluntarily share information about the merger with such employees despite her orders? What happens when a member of her department asks her to confirm or deny the rumor that the company is about to merge? (Turn to Case Study 1.2 to see how leaders disagree about how much information to release.)

Privacy issues raise additional ethical concerns. Ancestry.com, 23andMe, and other DNA-testing companies are building databases that can be accessed by drug companies and law enforcement. (The suspected Golden State killer was identified through genetic profiles housed at GEDmatch.) Information collected from high school students on college-planning surveys is sold to colleges and those marketing educational programs.33

Hundreds of thousands of cameras track our movements at automated teller machines, in parking lots, at stores, and in other public places (and even in not-so-public places, such as high school bathrooms and hospital rooms). Drones now make it possible for law enforcement officials and private citizens to secretly film our homes and backyards from the sky. Our interactions with police officers are likely to be recorded now that body cameras are becoming standard equipment for many police departments. The Transportation Safety Administration employs air marshals to secretly monitor airline passengers who are not on any terrorist database, looking for suspicious behaviors— excessive sweating and nervousness, frequent bathroom visits— that could signal that someone poses a danger.34

Employers are also gathering more and more information about employee behavior both on and off the job. Technology allows supervisors to monitor computer keystrokes and computer screens, phone calls, website use, voice mail, and e-mail. According to one survey, at least 66% of U.S. companies track employee Internet use, 45% log keystrokes, and 43% track employee e-mails.35 One digital program tracks every move of every waiter and every order at restaurants. Sociometric Solutions conducts research in the banking, pharmaceutical, health care, and technology industries using sensors embedded in ID badges.

These microphones, location sensors, and accelerometers track the communication behaviors of workers—tone of voice, posture, body language, and which employees talk to other employees and for how long. Employers also monitor worker behavior outside the workplace. Employees have been fired for posting offensive comments and pictures on blogs and social networking sites. Employers use personal information on Facebook and other social networking sites to screen out job applicants.

Companies have a right to gather information in order to improve performance and eliminate waste and theft. Organizations are also liable for the inappropriate behavior of members, such as when they send sexist or racist messages using their companies’ e-mail systems. Investigators discovered that the restaurant monitoring not only reduced employee theft but increased revenue substantially as staff, knowing they were being observed, encouraged more patrons to order drinks and dessert. Truck sensors enabled UPS to deliver 1.4 million additional packages a day with 1,000 fewer drivers. And monitoring can also lead to better working conditions. Bank of America added a 15-minute shared coffee break after a Sociometric Solutions study revealed that employees who took breaks together were more productive and less likely to quit.36 However, efforts to monitor employee behavior are sometimes done without the knowledge of workers and are inconsistent with organizational values such as trust and community. Invading privacy takes away the right of employees to determine what they reveal about themselves; unwanted intrusion devalues their worth as individuals.37

In conclusion, leaders cast shadows not only when they lie but also when they mismanage information and engage in deceptive practices. Unethical leaders

deny having knowledge that is in their possession, hide the truth, fail to reveal conflicts of interest, withhold information that followers need, use information solely for personal benefit, violate the privacy rights of followers, release information to the wrong people, and

put followers in ethical binds by preventing them from releasing information that others have a legitimate right to know.

Patterns of deception, whether they take the form of outright lies or the hiding or distortion of information, destroy the trust that binds leaders and followers together. Consider the popularity of conspiracy theories, for example. Many Americans are convinced that the U.S. Air Force is hiding the fact that aliens landed in Roswell, New Mexico. Many also believe that law enforcement officials are deliberately ignoring evidence that John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were the victims of elaborate assassination plots. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones drew millions of visitors monthly to his website and radio show before they were shut down. He accused federal officials of faking mass shootings and bombings at Oklahoma City, the Boston Marathon, Sandy Hook Elementary, and Columbine. These theories are farfetched, but they flourish in part because government leaders have created a shadow atmosphere through deceit. Consider all the falsehoods surrounding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance. It wasn’t until after the first Gulf War that we learned that our “smart bombs” weren’t really so smart and missed their targets. The president and other cabinet officials overstated the danger posed by Saddam Hussein in order to rally support for the second Gulf War. The military covered up the fact that NFL star Pat Tillman was killed by friendly, not enemy, fire.

University of California, Davis history professor Kathryn Olmsted argues that many Americans believe that the government is out to get them in large part because government officials have previously engaged in secret conspiracies.38 In 1962, for example, the Joint Chiefs of Staff cooked up a plan to get citizens to support a war on Fidel Castro’s Cuba by sending a drone plane painted to look like a passenger airliner over the island to be shot down. Fortunately, this plot (dubbed “Operation Northwoods”) never went into effect. However, many others were implemented. According to Olmsted,

By the height of the Cold War, government agents had consorted with mobsters to kill a foreign leader, dropped hallucinogenic drugs into the drinks of unsuspecting Americans in random bars, and considered launching fake terrorist attacks on Americans in the United States. Public officials had denied potentially life-saving treatment to African American men in medical experiments, sold arms to terrorists in return for American hostages, and faked documents to frame past presidents for crimes they had not committed. . . . Later, as industrious congressmen and journalists revealed these actual conspiracies by the government, many Americans came to believe that the most outrageous conspiracy theories about the government could be plausible.39

Leaders must also consider ethical issues related to the image they hope to project to followers. In order to earn their positions and to achieve their objectives, leaders carefully manage the impressions they make on others. Impression management can be compared to a performance on a stage.40 Leader-actors carefully manage everything from the setting to their words and nonverbal behaviors in order to have the desired effects on their follower audiences. For example, presidential staffers make sure that the chief executive is framed by visual images (Mount Rushmore, the Oval Office, enthusiastic crowds of supporters) that reinforce his (or her) messages, popularity and presidential standing. Like politicians, leaders in charge of such high-risk activities as mountain climbing and whitewater kayaking also work hard to project the desired impressions. In order to appear confident and competent, they stand up straight, look others in the eye, and use an authoritative tone of voice.

Impression management is integral to effective leadership because followers have images of ideal leaders called prototypes.41 We expect that the mountain climbing guide will be confident (otherwise, we would cancel the trip!), that the small- group leader will be active in group discussions, and that the military leader will stay calm under fire. The closer the person is to

the ideal, the more likely it is that we will select that person as leader and accept her or his influence. Nonetheless, some people (including a number of students) find the concept of impression management ethically troubling. They particularly value integrity and see such role-playing as insincere because a leader may have to disguise his or her true feelings in order to be successful.

There is no doubt that impression management can be used to reach immoral ends. Disgraced financier Bernie Madoff, for example, convinced investors that he was a financial genius even as he was stealing their money in a gigantic fraud scheme. Careerists who are skilled at promoting themselves at the expense of others are all too common.42 It would be impossible to eliminate this form of influence, however. For one thing, others form impressions of us whether we are conscious of that fact or not. They judge our personality and values by what we wear, for instance, even if we don’t give much thought to what we put on in the morning. Most of us use impression management to convey our identities accurately, not to conceal them or to manipulate others.

When considering the morality of impression management, we need to consider its end products. Ethical impression managers meet group wants and needs, not just the needs of the leaders. They spur followers toward highly moral ends. These leaders use impression management to convey accurate information, to build positive interpersonal relationships, and to facilitate good decisions. Unethical impression managers produce the opposite effects, subverting group wishes and lowering purpose and aspiration. These leaders use dysfunctional impression management to send deceptive messages, to undermine relationships, and to distort information, which leads to poor conclusions and decisions.43

The Shadow of Inconsistency Leaders deal with a variety of constituencies, each with its own set of abilities, needs, and interests. In addition, they like some followers better than others. Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory is based on the notion that a leader develops a closer relationship with one group of followers than with others.44

Members of the “in-group” become the leader’s advisers, assistants, and lieutenants. High levels of trust, mutual influence, and support characterize their exchanges with the leader. Members of the “out-group” are expected to carry out the basic requirements of their jobs. Their communication with the leader is not as trusting and supportive. Not surprisingly, members of in- groups are more satisfied and productive than members of out- groups. For that reason, LMX theorists encourage leaders to develop close relationships with as many of their followers as possible.

Situational variables also complicate leader–follower interactions. Guidelines that work in ordinary times may break down under stressful conditions. A professor may state in a syllabus that five absences will result in a student’s flunking the class, for instance. However, she may have to loosen that standard if a flu epidemic strikes the campus.

Diverse followers, varying levels of relationships, and elements of the situation make consistency an ethical burden of leadership. Should we, as leaders, treat all followers equally even if some are more skilled and committed or closer to us than others? When should we bend the rules and for whom? Shadows arise when leaders appear to act arbitrarily and unfairly when faced with questions such as these, as in the case of a resident assistant who enforces dormitory rules for some students but ignores infractions committed by friends. Of course, determining whether a leader is casting light or shadow may depend on where you stand as a follower. If you are the star player on your team, you may feel justified taking it easy during practices. If you are less talented, you probably resent the fact that the team’s star doesn’t have to work as hard as you.

Too often, inconsistency arises between what a leader advocates and how he or she behaves, such as when rabbis and pastors have affairs at the same time they are encouraging members of their congregations to build strong marriages. Managers at Britain’s EDF energy company sparked a union strike after installing meters in employee company cars to track their location and performance. The issue wasn’t so much the meters as the refusal of managers to put the same tracking devices in their own company vehicles. Duncan Selbie, head of Britain’s National Health Service, was criticized for hiring a taxi to travel less than a mile after giving a lecture on the importance of exercise (particularly brisk walking).45

In recent years, a number of prominent figures seem to have taken inconsistency to a new level. Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert advocated for stronger punishment for sex crimes and sexual abuse of children while paying hush money to a man he molested when working as a high school wrestling coach. Comedian Bill Cosby criticized fellow African Americans for not taking personal responsibility and bad parenting even as he was allegedly drugging and raping a series of women. (He was convicted on three counts of sexual assault.)

Issues of inconsistency can also arise in a leader’s relationships with those outside the immediate group or organization. Misgivings about the current system of financing political elections stem from the fact that large donors can buy access to elected officials and influence their votes. Take the rollback of banking regulations, for example. Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010 to curb the excesses that caused the global financial crash. Eight years later, the House and Senate eliminated many of the provisions of Dodd-Frank, reducing regulation of the banking industry. Banks and credit unions gave twice as much to senators supporting the rollback than to those opposing the bill.46

The Shadow of Misplaced and Broken Loyalties Leaders must weigh a host of loyalties or duties when making choices. In addition to their duties to employees and stockholders, they must consider their obligations to their families, their local communities, their professions, the larger society, and the environment. Noteworthy leaders put the needs of the larger community above selfish interest. For example, outdoor clothing manufacturer Timberland receives praise for its commitment to community service and social responsibility. Company leaders pay employees for volunteer service, partner with community groups, and support nonprofit organizations through the sale of selected products. In contrast, those leaders who appear to put their own interests first (see Case Study 1.3) are worthy of condemnation.

Loyalties can be broken as well as misplaced. If anything, we heap more scorn on those who betray our trust than on those who misplace their loyalties. Many of history’s villains are traitors: Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, Vidkun Quisling (he sold out his fellow Norwegians to the Nazis), and Tokyo Rose, a U.S. citizen who broadcast to American troops on behalf of the Japanese during World War II. More recent examples of leaders who violated the trust of followers include the leaders of Lehman Brothers, who told investors that the firm was strong even as it was struggling to raise money to stave off bankruptcy during the financial crisis, and cyclist Lance Armstrong. Armstrong betrayed his team sponsors, fans, and fellow cancer survivors by doping (and then vehemently denying he had done so) in order to win seven Tour de France races.

Employees are often victimized by corporate betrayal motivated by the bottom line. Individuals commonly develop deep loyalties to their coworkers and to their employers. As a consequence, they may do more than is required in their job descriptions, turn down attractive job offers from other employers, and decide to invest their savings in company stock.47 Unfortunately, companies and their leaders often fail to respond in kind. During economic downturns, they are quick to slash salaries and benefits and to lay off even the most loyal workers. Even if business is good, they

don’t hesitate to merge with other firms, eliminating positions, or to shut down domestic plants and research facilities in order to move their operations overseas, where labor costs are lower. Organizational leaders admit that their organizations aren’t as loyal as they used to be. One survey of senior level North American managers found that only 13% believe that their organizations are more loyal than they were five years ago.48 In response growing corporate disloyalty, many younger workers limit the length of their commitment to their employers, with over 40% expecting to leave in two years or less.

The most egregious cases of betrayal are cases where adults take advantage of children. Catholic priests in the United States, Brazil, Chile, Australia, Ireland, Germany, and elsewhere used their positions as respected spiritual authorities to gain access to young parishioners for sexual gratification.49 Church leaders failed to stop the abusers or themselves engaged in abuse. In far too many instances, they let offending priests continue to minister and to have contact with children. Often, church officials transferred pedophile priests without warning their new congregations about these men’s troubled pasts. Officials at Michigan State, USA Gymnastics, and the United States Olympic Committee turned a blind eye to complaints that team doctor Larry Nassar was sexually molesting young female gymnasts. Over 300 girls and young women were victimized.50

Philosopher George Fletcher argues that we define ourselves through our loyalties to families, sports franchises, companies, and other groups and organizations.51 Fellow philosopher Josiah Royce contends that loyalty to the right cause produces admirable character traits like justice, wisdom, and compassion.52 Loyalty is a significant burden placed on leaders. In fact, well-placed loyalty can make a significant moral statement. Such was the case with Pee Wee Reese. The Brooklyn Dodger never wavered in his loyalty to Jackie Robinson, the first black player in baseball’s major leagues. In front of one especially hostile crowd in Cincinnati, Ohio, Reese put his arm around Robinson’s shoulders in a display of support.53

The Shadow of Irresponsibility Earlier, we observed that breadth of responsibility is one of the factors distinguishing between the role of leader and that of follower. Followers are largely responsible for their own actions or, in the case of a self-directed work team, for those of their peers. This is not the case for leaders. They are held accountable for the performance of entire departments or other units. However, determining the extent of a leader’s responsibility is far from easy. Can we blame a college coach for the misdeeds of team members during the off-season or for the excesses of the university’s athletic booster club? Are clothing executives responsible for the actions of their overseas contractors who force workers to labor in sweatshops? Do employers owe employees a minimum wage level, a certain degree of job security, and safe working conditions? If military personnel are punished for following unethical orders, should those who issue those orders receive the same or harsher penalties?

Leaders act irresponsibly when they fail to make reasonable efforts to prevent misdeeds on the part of their followers, ignore or deny ethical problems, don’t shoulder responsibility for the consequences of their directives, deny their duties to followers, or try to deflect blame onto others. We don’t hold coaches responsible for everything their players do. Nonetheless, we want them to encourage their athletes to obey the law and to punish any misbehavior. Most of us expect Gap, Nike, JC Penney, Walmart, and Banana Republic to make every effort to treat their overseas labor force fairly, convinced that the companies owe their workers (even the ones employed by subcontractors) decent wages and working conditions. When an organization’s employees break the law or make mistakes, we want the group’s leader to take accountability. Penny Lawrence, a top Oxfam executive, accepted blame for failing to stop sexual misconduct by the charity’s staff in Chad and Haiti. “I am ashamed that this happened on my watch,” she said in her resignation statement, “and I take full responsibility.” 54

Unfortunately, far too many leaders try to pin the blame on others for their misdeeds or the unethical behavior of their organizations. Richard Sackler, president and part owner of Purdue Pharma, tried to deny responsibility for his company’s role in the opioid crisis. The firm aggressively marketed OxyContin, encouraged doctors to prescribe the highest amounts of the powerful painkiller, and failed to alert authorities that the drug was being abused and sold on the street. Instead of accepting accountability, Sackler pushed the blame onto addicts. In a company e-mail he said, “We have to hammer on abusers in every way possible. They are the culprits and the problem. They are reckless criminals.”55

Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg also deflected blame by hiring a public relations firm to attack critics of the company.56

Many corporate scandals demonstrate what can happen when boards of directors fail to live up to their responsibilities. Far too many boards in the past functioned only as rubber stamps. Made up largely of friends of the CEO and those doing business with the firm, they were quick to approve executive pay increases and other management proposals. Some board members appeared interested only in collecting their fees and made little effort to understand the operations or finances of the companies they were supposed to be directing. Other members were well intentioned but lacked expertise. Now federal regulations require that the chair of a corporation’s audit committee be a financial expert. The compensation, audit, and nominating committees must be made up of people who have no financial ties to the organization. These requirements should help prevent future abuses, but only if board members take their responsibilities seriously. (I’ll have more to say about effective corporate governance in Chapter 10.)

These, then, are some of the common shadows cast by leaders faced with the ethical challenges of leadership. Identifying these shadows raises two important questions: (1) Why is it that, when faced with the same ethical challenges, some leaders cast light and others cast shadows? (2) What steps can we take as leaders to cast more light than shadow? In the next chapter, we will explore the forces that contribute to the shadow side of leadership and outline ways to meet those challenges.

Implications and Applications

Understanding the dark (bad, toxic) side of leadership is the first step in promoting good or ethical leadership. The contrast between ethical and unethical leadership is as dramatic as the contrast between light and darkness. Toxic or bad leaders engage in destructive behaviors. They may be ineffective, unethical, or both. Common types of bad leaders include incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous, corrupt, insular, and evil. Certain ethical challenges or dilemmas are inherent in the leadership role. If you choose to become a leader, recognize that you accept ethical burdens along with new tasks, expectations, and rewards. Followers face their own set of ethical challenges. When filling a follower role, you will need to determine the extent of your obligations to the group, decide when to obey or disobey, combat cynicism, offer dissent, and deliver bad news to your leaders. Power can have a corrosive effect on values and behavior. You must determine how much power to accumulate, what forms of power to use, and how much power to give to followers. If you abuse power, you will generally overlook the needs of followers as you take advantage of the perks that come with your position. Leaders have access to more information than do followers. In addition to deciding whether or not to hide or tell the truth, as a leader, you’ll have to determine when to reveal what you know and to whom, how to gather and use information, and so on. A certain degree of inconsistency is probably inevitable in leadership roles, but you will cast shadows if you are seen as acting arbitrarily and unfairly. You must also attempt to match your behavior with your words and values—to “walk your talk.” As a leader, you’ll have to balance your needs and the needs of your small group or organization with loyalties or duties to broader communities. Expect condemnation if you put narrow, selfish concerns first. Leadership brings a broader range of responsibility, but determining the limits of accountability may be difficult. You will cast a shadow if you fail to make a reasonable attempt to prevent abuse or to shoulder the blame, deny that you have a duty to followers, or deflect blame onto others.

For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment

1. Create an ethics journal. In it, describe the ethical dilemmas you encounter as a leader and as a follower, how you resolve them, how you feel about the outcomes, and what you learn that will transfer to future ethical decisions. You may also want to include your observations about the moral choices made by public figures. Make periodic entries as you continue to read this text.

2. Harvard professor Rosabeth Kanter argues that “powerlessness corrupts and absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely.” Do you agree? What are some of the symptoms of powerlessness?

3. What does your score on the Destructive Leader Behavior Scale (Self-Assessment 1.1) reveal about your leader? How can you use this information to become a more effective follower? As an alternative, reflect on your Personal Power Profile (Self-Assessment 1.2). What do your scores reveal about your attitude toward power and the ethical issues you might face in exercising power? Would you like to change your power profile? How can you do so?

4. What factors do you consider when determining the extent of your loyalty to an individual, a group, or an organization?

5. Debate the following propositions in class: The federal government should set limits on executive compensation. Coaches should be held accountable for the actions of their players in the off-season. Corporate leaders have an obligation to be loyal to their employees. Married politicians and religious figures who have extramarital affairs should be forced to resign. Employers have the right to monitor the behavior of workers when the workers are not on the job.

6. Evaluate the work of a corporate or nonprofit board of directors. Is the board made up largely of outside members? Are the members qualified? Does the board fulfill its leadership responsibilities? Write up your findings.

7. Write a research paper on the privacy issues surrounding drones, police body cameras, or the use of DNA databases in criminal investigations. Conclude with a set of recommendations on how these issues should be resolved.

8. Look for examples of unethical leadership behavior in the news and classify them according to the six shadows. What patterns do you note? As an alternative, look for examples of ethical leadership. How do these leaders cast light instead of shadow?

9. What is the toughest ethical challenge of being a follower? How do you meet that challenge?

Student Study Site

Visit the student study site at https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE journal articles for further research and information on key chapter topics.

https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

Case Study 1.1 Keeping Harvey Weinstein’s Dark Secrets Powerful leaders are not only more tempted to abuse their power; they have the means to cover up their abuse when they do. For decades, there were rumors that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was a sexual predator. In fact, Seth MacFarlane joked with the Best Supporting Actress nominees at the 2013 Oscar nomination ceremony, telling the women, “Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.”1 Weinstein, the co-founder of Miramax and Weinstein pictures, allegedly would pressure young actresses into sexual encounters in return for casting them in his movies. Victims included Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, and Rose McGowan. Weinstein’s abuses came to light in New York Times and New Yorker articles. Multiple accusers claim that the producer made constant sexual propositions, exposed himself, masturbated in front of them, and forced them into sex. Weinstein apologized for his behavior and was removed from his company.

Producer Weinstein used his wealth and influence as a Hollywood superstar to silence his accusers. In some cases, complainants reached nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) where, in return for a cash payment, they agreed to not further pursue or even to discuss their cases. If they did talk about their settlements, they would have to repay the money they received. In other instances, Weinstein hired private security companies to dig up dirt about the women to use against them. In the case of model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, false information (i.e., charges she was a prostitute) from these investigations was published in the New York Post tabloid. Investigators, some of them former Mossad agents, also investigated reporters and tried to identify their sources with the goal of stopping the New Yorker and New York Times stories. The producer also enlisted the help of former employees to gather information and to stop possible press stories.

Weinstein’s position as a Hollywood gatekeeper made it hard for his victims to speak up. Challenging him could mean being blackballed from the movie industry. On the other hand, “Everyone knew if you were in a Harvey movie, chances are you were going to win or be nominated for an Oscar.”2 Miramax earned best picture awards for The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, and Chicago; the studio notched 58 Oscar wins in all, grossing over $3 billion. The Weinstein Company, founded in 2005, produced The King’s Speech, Inglorious Bastards, The Fighter, The Artist, The Iron Lady, and Undefeated, all which took home awards.

Many were complicit in keeping Weinstein’s dark secrets. His staff— assistants, drivers, and executives—kept quiet in order to keep their jobs. Politicians like Hilary Clinton (who was reportedly warned about Weinstein) apparently looked the other way because he was a major donor and recruited other celebrity contributors. Prosecutors may have decided not to file charges because they received information and donations from Weinstein’s legal team. Journalists didn’t actively pursue leads because they had book deals and other business dealings with Weinstein. Ronan Farrow, who helped break the story, reports that he received pushback from many news outlets for revealing the allegations. Commenting on how the press self-censored when it came to Weinstein, one editor noted, “People don’t want to report on the table; they want a seat at the table.”3

The Weinstein scandal prompted California and New York legislators to introduce legislation banning nondisclosure settlements. Other states could challenge these settlements given that these agreements might hide “public hazards.” Zelda Perkins, a former assistant to Harvey Weinstein, decided to speak up despite signing an NDA. (The producer wanted her in the room while he bathed and often tried to pull her into his bed.) Perkins hopes to draw attention to the harm done by these settlements:

Unless somebody does this there won’t be a debate about how egregious these agreements are and the amount of duress that victims are put under. My entire world fell in because I thought the law was there to protect those who abided by it. I discovered that it had nothing to do with right and wrong and everything to do with money and power.4

There are victims’ advocates who defend NDAs, however. They believe that some women will be more reluctant to come forward if their cases are publicized. Victims may fear negative publicity and retaliation; settlement amounts may drop.

The Weinstein scandal could mark the beginning of a dramatic change in film industry culture. In the past, sexual misbehavior was tolerated. Polish director Roman Polanski received an academy award for The Pianist even though he fled the United States after being convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old. Until recently, major actors would work for reduced rates in Woody Allen films even though Allen had an affair with, and then married, the adopted daughter of ex-partner Mia Farrow and is accused of molesting another stepdaughter. The Weinstein revelations set off a tsunami of other sexual misconduct complaints in the movie industry, involving Amazon producer Ray Price and actors Kevin Spacey, Dustin

100

Hoffman, Casey Affleck, Jeremy Piven, and others. Former Weinstein assistant Perkins hopes that the focus will shift from the producer’s misbehavior to reforming the system: “Money and power enabled, and the legal system has enabled. Ultimately, the reason Harvey Weinstein followed the route he did is because he was allowed to, and that’s our fault. As a culture, that’s our fault.”5

101

Discussion Probes 1. How can we keep superstars in any field from abusing their power

and covering up their actions? How can we protect the powerless? 2. Should nondisclosure agreements be banned? Why or why not? 3. Do you think that the Weinstein scandal marks a significant shift in

Hollywood culture? 4. Do you consider the reputation of actors, directors, and producers

when deciding which movies or television shows to view? Would you refuse to go to a movie or watch a television show if you knew that an important actor, director, or producer was a sexual harasser or predator?

5. How much responsibility do we, as entertainment consumers, have for empowering the bad behavior of movie and television stars and recording artists?

102

Notes 1. Robehmed, N., & Berg, M. (2017, October 13). Oscar hero to zero: How Harvey Weinstein’s power enabled him—and led to his decline. Forbes.

2. Robehmed & Berg.

3. Raphael, T. J. (2917, October 11). The Harvey Weinstein cover-up: How censorship, settlements and silence kept the allegations out of the news. PRI.

4. Fabio, M. (2017, October 26). The Harvey Weinstein Effect: The end of nondisclosure agreements in sexual assault cases? Forbes.

5. Farrow, R. (2017, November 21). Harvey Weinstein’s secret settlements. The New Yorker.

103

Sources Bates, D. (2017, December 7). The complicity files: Devastating report says many top people, including the Clintons, knew about Weinstein’s predatory behavior. Irish Daily Mail, pp. 20, 37.

Farrow, R. (2017, November 6). Harvey Weinstein’s army of spies. The New Yorker.

Rottenberg, J., & Kaufman, A. (2017, October 12). The fallout: How the Harvey Weinstein scandal exposed sexual harassment as Hollywood’s dirty secret. Los Angeles Times.

Scheiber, N. (2017, November 1). Protecting the disgraced. The New York Times, p. B1.

104

Case Study 1.2 Do-It-Yourself Guns In 2013, Cory Wilson of the group Defense Distributed ignited a protracted legal battle. After test firing a plastic gun made with a 3-D printer, he posted the blueprints for making the gun online. The plans were downloaded 100,000 times before the State Department forced Wilson to remove the blueprints, claiming that he violated U.S. law forbidding Americans from exporting sensitive military technology. Wilson then sued the federal government for infringing on his free speech rights. In 2018, the State Department settled the suit and paid a portion of Wilson’s legal expenses. State department officials withdrew their objections because they no longer believed that the blueprints posed a security threat.

Wilson’s legal victory was short lived. The attorneys general from 19 states and Washington, D.C., quickly sought to keep the plans offline. Federal judge Robert Lasnik ruled in their favor by issuing a temporary restraining order. In his ruling, Judge Lasnik declared that Wilson’s First Amendment free speech rights “are dwarfed by the irreparable harms the states are likely to suffer if the existing restrictions are withdrawn.”1 But the judge’s ruling didn’t stop dissemination of the blueprints. Defense Distributed made the files available for purchase to customers in states not covered by the ban. Wilson urged others who had the plans to submit their own files to his platform and receive half of the sales price. While Wilson resigned from Defense Distributed after being charged with having sex with a minor, the new director vows to continue the legal fight.

Those who support the release of 3-D gun plans argue that “code is speech.”2 They compare computer code to the words in books, arguing that the Internet is like a library. Banning the blueprints, then, is a form of censorship. Utah Senator Mike Lee notes that publishing a design for a gun is not the same as possessing such a gun and that plastic guns are already banned by the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. Others point out that making a 3-D gun is expensive and time consuming. A good 3-D printer can cost $10,000 or more and manufacturing a gun can take hours or even days. Criminals who want to arm themselves will likely find it much cheaper and easier to buy illegal weapons. Then, too, current 3-D plastic guns are unreliable because the plastic can’t handle the pressure generated when firing a bullet: “Without technical expertise on how 3D printers work, you’re more likely to end up with an exploding gun than a working one.”3 Even if the gun fires, it is unlikely to shoot a second time.

105

Those who oppose the release of the plans point to the dangers of 3-D guns. Not only are such weapons hard for security devices to detect but they are untraceable, making it impossible for law enforcement to identify their owners. Terrorists could use printers to make weapons to use in their attacks. Gun printers don’t have to go through the background checks required of other gun owners. Bills were introduced in both houses of Congress to ban 3-D guns nationwide. California Senator Dianne Feinstein and three colleagues asked Internet firms to stop hosting 3-D gun blueprints because “doing so will make all of our communities safer.”4 3-D weapons are already illegal in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Japan.

The longer the legal battle continues, the higher the stakes. That’s because printer technology continues to evolve. The cost of 3-D printers is likely to drop, making them more affordable. 3-D guns are becoming increasingly durable with the use of metal parts and stronger plastic that enable them to be fired multiple times.

106

Discussion Probes 1. Do you think that computer code is a form of free speech? Why or

why not? 2. What should take priority—freedom of speech or public safety? 3. Should plans for 3-D guns be banned from all websites? Why or why

not? 4. Is it too late for any ban to be effective? 5. What kind of information (if any) should be kept off the Internet?

107

Notes 1. Hsu, T. (2018, August 28). Blueprints for 3-D printed gun must stay off internet for now, federal judge says. The New York Times.

2. Hsu.

3. Duan, C., & Westling, J. (2018, August 30). The judge in the latest 3D- printed gun case got 3D printing totally wrong. Slate.

4. Kan, M. (2018, August 17). Democrats urge Internet firms to ban 3D- printed gun files. PCMag.com

108

Sources Are 3D-printed guns legal? (n.d.) CriminalDefense Lawyer.com

Doctorow, C. (2013, May 13). 3D printed guns are going to create big legal precedents. The Guardian.

Greenberg, A. (2018, September 25). The 3-D printed gun machine rolls on, with or without Cody Wilson. Wired.

Larson, E. (2018, August 27). Judge extends 3-D printed gun ban pending state challenge. Bloomberg.

Lee, M. (2018, August 6). Why I objected to a bill that would ban 3D gun designs. The Daily Signal.

Printed 3D-gun blueprints back online. BBC News.

Wade, C. M. (2018, August 14). Gun owners group blasts 3D weapons ban. The Salem News.

109

Case Study 1.3 Looking Out for Number One at the EPA Former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt may have set the modern record for the greatest number of scandals by a member of a president’s cabinet. Pruitt served as director of the Environmental Protection Agency during the first two years of the Trump administration. He became the subject of at least 13 civil and criminal investigations during his tenure. Just as outcry from one scandal began to subside, another would surface. Pruitt’s missteps included

– frequently traveling to his home in Oklahoma and around the state at taxpayer expense, sometimes flying on private planes and military jets – flying first class instead of coach when on commercial flights – spending $20,000 for four-day trip to Morocco to promote natural gas exports, a subject unrelated to the work of his agency – assigning EPA staffers to find a job for his wife paying at least $200,000, including reaching out to the Chick-Fil-A CEO to secure a franchise. Others were tasked with purchasing a used mattress from the Trump International Hotel and picking up snacks and dry cleaning for him. – hiring a 24/7 security detail at a cost of $3.5 million a year and then asking security personnel to run personal errands for him, including picking up his favorite lotion from the Ritz Carlton Hotel – purchasing a $43,000 soundproof security booth for his office – spending $10,000 to remodel his office – paying $1,560 for a dozen fountain pens – staying in the apartment of a lobbyist with business before the EPA while paying very little rent – accepting Rose Bowl tickets from a PR firm representing oil and gas companies – refusing to keep records of official meetings and ordering an aide to alter his calendar records, which is against federal law. He fired the scheduler when she refused to comply with his request.

Pruitt’s abuse of power and privilege drew fire from both sides of the aisle. Democratic New York Congressman Paul Tonka told Pruitt, “You have failed as a steward of American taxpayer dollars and of the environment.” 1 Both Republican Senators from Iowa (a state that supported Trump in the 2016 election) publicly criticized the EPA director. Conservative Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham, referring to Trump’s pledge to drain the swamp of corruption in Washington, commented, “Pruitt is the swamp. Drain it.”2

110

Pruitt’s misplaced loyalties apparently drove him to misuse his office. The former director continually put his personal interests ahead of his obligations to his agency, his followers, the American taxpayer, and the environment. Highly ambitious, many of his trips to Oklahoma were to drum up support for a possible race for statewide office. According to one official, his foreign travel was designed to bolster his resume to qualify him to be secretary of state. Pruitt once told staffers that he would be a “great secretary of state” should Rex Tillerson leave the administration. (Tillerson was fired but Trump chose Mike Pompeo to replace him.) The EPA chief’s lavish spending and misuse of personnel reflected a sense of entitlement. Hiding his schedule was a way to protect himself from public scrutiny.

Pruitt’s ties to the gas and oil industry apparently took precedence over his agency’s mission, which is protecting the nation’s air, land, and water. Loyalty to friends and staff members from his home state overrode any obligation to long-term agency employees. He placed two of his business partners in high agency positions and gave 50% raises to two aides who came with him from Oklahoma. In addition, he frequently ignored the findings and recommendations of career agency scientists and staff.

At the same time he was abusing those below him, Pruitt was serving his ambitions by skillfully “managing up.” He regularly praised the president— though he had earlier criticized candidate Trump—and took every opportunity to keep in touch with the chief executive. In hopes of running into the president, for example, he would eat regularly at the White House mess. (Eventually he was asked to stop coming so often.) He acted as a confidant to Trump, participating in discussion of topics ranging from trade agreements to the Russia investigation. He also joined the president in criticizing attorney general Jeff Sessions. Pruitt reportedly was jealous of Sessions and wanted to be appointed attorney general if he didn’t get the secretary of state position. Most importantly, the EPA director faithfully carried out President Trump’s directives. As Oklahoma attorney general, he frequently sued the EPA. At the agency, he initiated massive regulatory rollbacks, including, for instance, lowering mileage requirements for the automobile industry. Pruitt helped convince Trump to back out of the Paris climate treaty to address global warming.

In the end, broken loyalties laid the groundwork for Pruitt’s downfall. During an appearance before Congress, the director blamed his top aides for many of his extravagant purchases, including the secure phone booth. He claimed that he did not push for pay raises for the two aides from Oklahoma. He also denied retaliating against those who challenged his spending on travel and office renovations. Feeling betrayed, most of his closest advisors, including the loyal supporters who came with him from Oklahoma, then resigned. According to one former Pruitt loyalist, “He

111

didn’t have much of anybody left.”3 The disillusioned staffers refused to defend their former boss when they were called upon to testify before Congressional committees. Instead, they defended themselves and clearly spelled out what Pruitt had asked them to do. Their damning testimony, along with the growing bipartisan chorus of critics, apparently forced the president (who was reluctant to fire Pruitt despite the mounting scandals) to act. Ever mindful of the importance of demonstrating his loyalty to those above him, Pruitt wrote the following in his resignation letter:

Mr. President, it has always been an honor to serve you in the Cabinet as Administrator of the EPA. Truly, your confidence in me has blessed me personally and enabled me to advance your agenda. My desire in service to you has always been to bless you as you make important decisions for the American people.4

112

Discussion Probes 1. Did Pruitt’s misplaced and broken loyalties lead to his abuse of

power and privilege or did his desire for power and privilege lead to his misplaced and broken loyalties?

2. What should be the most important obligations of government leaders? How do these differ from the obligations of leaders in business and other fields?

3. What can we do to ensure that the government officials serve the interests of taxpayers and the missions of their agencies rather than themselves?

4. How do you determine if a leader is worthy of your loyalty? How do you determine when she or he no longer deserves that loyalty?

113

Notes 1. Dennis, B., & Eilperin, J. (2018, April 26). Defending his record to Congress, EPA chief Pruitt shifts spending blame to staff. The Washington Post.

2. Davenport, C., Friedman, L, & Haberman, M. (2018, July 5). E.P.A. chief Scott Pruitt resigns under a cloud of ethics scandals. The New York Times.

3. Friedman, L., Lipton, E., & Davenport, C. (2018, July 6). Scott Pruitt’s rocky relationship with his aides set the stage for his fall. The New York Times.

4. Plott, E. (2018, July 6). Inside Scott Pruitt’s tumultuous final months as EPA administrator. The Atlantic.

114

Sources Eilperin, J., & Dennis, B. (2018, July 10). Days after Pruitt resigned, several top aides are also calling it quits at EPA. The Washington Post.

Fleishman, G. (2018, July 5). How Scott Pruitt blew it: A list of scandals that led to the EPA chief’s resignation. Fortune.

Graham, D. A. (2018, July 5). What finally did in Scott Pruitt? The Atlantic.

Stracqualursi, V. (2018, July 3). Reports: EPA aides testify to Congress about how Pruitt enlisted them for personal errands. CNN.

Talbot, M. (2018, March 26). Scott Pruitt’s dirty politics. The New Yorker.

Volcovici, V. (2018, June 13). Senate Republicans call for hearing on Pruitt scandals. Reuters.

Watkins, E., & Foran, C. (2018, July 5). EPA Scott Pruitt’s long list of controversies. CNN.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 1.1 Destructive Leader Behavior Scale

Instructions: Think of a leader, supervisor, or manager you have worked with in the past five years. Rate this individual on each of the following items. A rating of 1 indicates that this person never engages in this behavior; a rating of 5 indicates that he or she engages in this behavior very often.

1 2 3 4 5

Never Very Often

1. Avoids addressing important issues 2. Denies subordinates things they are entitled to (e.g., lunch

breaks, vacation time) 3. Disciplines subordinates a long time after the rule infraction

occurs 4. Discounts feedback or advice from subordinates 5. Fails to defend subordinates from attacks by others 6. Fails to give subordinates credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort 7. Falsely accuses or punishes subordinates for something they

were not responsible for

115

8. Ignores phone calls and/or e-mails 9. Inadequately explains performance reviews

10. Insults or criticizes subordinates in front of others 11. Invades subordinates’ privacy 12. Is confrontational when interacting with subordinates 13. Says one thing and does another 14. Shows no clear standards for administering rewards and

punishments 15. Accepts financial kickbacks 16. At times, appears to be under the influence of alcohol or

recreational drugs while at work 17. Breaks the law while at work 18. Falsifies documents 19. Lets violations of company policy slide 20. Litters the work environment 21. Steals company funds 22. Steals company property and resources 23. Tells people outside the job what a lousy place he or she works

for 24. Uses company property for personal use 25. Violates company policy/rules 26. Brings inappropriate sexual material to work (e.g., pornography) 27. Engages in romantic and/or sexual relationships with others

from work 28. Hints that sexual favors will result in preferential treatment

Scoring: Possible score ranges from 28 to 140. The higher the score, the greater your leader’s destructive behavior. You can also determine the leader’s tendency to engage in three types of destructive behavior. Items 1–14 measure subordinate-directed behavior. Items 15–25 measure organization-directed destructive behavior. Items 26–28 measure sexual harassment behaviors.

Source: Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19, 230–255, p. 241. Used with permission of the publisher.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 1.2 Personal Power Profile

Instructions: Below is a list of statements that describe possible behaviors of leaders in work organizations toward their followers. Read each statement carefully while thinking about how you prefer to influence others. Mark the number that most closely represents how you feel.

116

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

I prefer to influence others by

1. increasing their pay level. 1 2 3 4 5

2. making them feel valued.

1 2 3 4 5

3. giving undesirable job assignments.

1 2 3 4 5

4. making them feel like I approve of them.

1 2 3 4 5

5. making them feel that they have commitments to meet.

1 2 3 4 5

6. making them feel personally accepted.

1 2 3 4 5

7. making them feel important.

1 2 3 4 5

117

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

8. giving them good technical suggestions.

1 2 3 4 5

9. making the work difficult for them.

1 2 3 4 5

10. sharing my experience and/or training.

1 2 3 4 5

11. making things unpleasant here.

1 2 3 4 5

12. making work distasteful.

1 2 3 4 5

13. helping them get a pay increase.

1 2 3 4 5

14. making them feel they should satisfy job requirements.

1 2 3 4 5

15. providing them with sound job- related advice.

1 2 3 4 5

118

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

16. providing them with special benefits.

1 2 3 4 5

17. helping them get a promotion.

1 2 3 4 5

18. giving them the feeling that they have responsibilities to fulfill.

1 2 3 4 5

19. providing them with needed technical knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5

20. making them recognize that they have tasks to accomplish.

1 2 3 4 5

Scoring: Record your responses to the 20 questions in the corresponding numbered blanks below. Total each column, then divide the result by 4 for each of the five types of influence.

Reward Coercive Legitimate Referent Expert

1 3 5 2 8

13 9 14 4 10

119

Reward Coercive Legitimate Referent Expert

16 11 18 6 15

17 12 20 7 19

Total

Divide by 4

Interpretation: A score of 4 or 5 on any of the five dimensions of power indicates that you prefer to influence others by using that particular form of power. A score of 2 or less indicates that you prefer not to employ this particular type of power to influence others. Your power profile is not a simple addition of each of the five sources. Some combinations are more synergistic than the simple sum of their parts. For example, referent power magnifies the impact of other power sources because these other influence attempts are coming from a respected person. Reward power often increases the impact of referent power because people generally tend to like those who can give them things. Some power combinations tend to produce the opposite of synergistic effects. Coercive power, for example, often negates the effects of other types of influence.

Source: Modified version of Hinken, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 561–567. Reprinted with permission.

120

Notes 1. Palmer, P. (1996). Leading from within. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant- leadership (pp. 197–208). New York, NY: Wiley, p. 200.

2. Kaiser, R. B., & Hogan, R. (2007). The dark side of discretion: Leader personality and organizational decline. In R. Hooijberg, J. G. Hunt, J. Antonakis, K. B. Boal & N. Lane (Eds.), Being there even when you are not: Leading through strategy, structures, and systems (pp. 173–193). Oxford, England: JAI Press.

3. Palmer, p. 200.

4. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—and how we can survive them. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

5. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; Kellerman, B. (2008). Bad leadership—and ways to avoid it. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Business leadership (2nd ed., pp. 423– 432). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

6. Kellerman (2004), p. xvi.

7. Erickson, A., Shaw, J. B., & Agabe, Z. (2007). An empirical investigation of the antecedents, behaviors, and outcomes of bad leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1, 26–43.

8. Shaw, J. B., Erickson, A., & Harvey, M. (2011). A method for measuring destructive leadership and identifying types of destructive leaders in organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 575–590.

9. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216.

121

10. Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielson, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of destructive leadership behavior. British Journal of Management, 21, 438–452. For a closely allied approach, see Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19, 230–255.

11. Skogstad, A., Schanke Aasland, M., Birkeland Nielsen, M., Hetland, J., Berge Matthiesen, S., & Einarsen, S. (2014). The relative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership on subordinate job satisfaction: Results from two prospective and representative studies. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 222, 221–232.

12. Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.

13. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.

14. Nye, J. S. (2008). The powers to lead. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

15. French, R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

16. Johnson, C. E., & Hackman, M. Z. (2018). Leadership: A communication perspective (7th ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, Ch. 5.

17. Pfeffer, J. (1992, Winter). Understanding power in organizations. California Management Review, 34, 29–50.

18. Examples taken from Caudron, S. (1995, September 4). The boss from hell. Industry Week, pp. 12–16; Terez, T. (2001, December). You could just spit: Tales of bad bosses. Workforce,

122

24–25; Bruzzese (2012, August 16). Employees share stories of worst bosses ever. QuickBase.

19. Townsend, M., & Deprez, E. E. (2018, May 9). Companies have an aha! moment: Bullies don’t make the best managers. Bloomberg; Comaford, C. (2016, August 27). 75% of workers affected by bullying—here’s what to do about it. Forbes; Williams, D. K. (2012, September 24). How much do bad bosses cost American businesses? Forbes.

20. Hornstein, H. A. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey. New York, NY: Riverhead.

21. Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 126–140; Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteem and abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Science, 3, 340– 355; Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190; Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261 –289.

22. Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management 43, 1940–1965. See also Zhang, Y., & Liao, Z. (2015). Consequences of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 32, 959 –987.

23. For a complete typology of responses to abusive supervisors, see Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Two faces of the powerless: Coping with tyranny in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp. 203–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24. Bad bosses drain productivity. (2005, November). Training & Development, p. 15.

123

25. Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Bullying and harassment in the workplace. In R. E. Kidwell, Jr., & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing organizational deviance (pp. 183–203). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26. Keltner, D., Langner, C. A., & Allison, M. L. (2006). Power and moral leadership. In D. L. Rhode (Ed.), Moral leadership: The theory and practice of power, judgment, and policy (pp. 177–194). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33–41; Galinsky, A. D., Guenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466; Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377.

27. Bailon, R. R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2000). Why do superiors attend to negative stereotypic information about their subordinates? Effects of power legitimacy on social perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 651–671; Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.

28. Kaiser, R. B., & Craig, S. B. (2014). Destructive leadership in and of organizations. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 260–284). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

29. Information on income disparities is taken from the following sources: Income inequality in the United States. (2018, September 12). Inequality.org; Berman, N. (2016). 10 of the largest golden parachutes CEOs ever received. MoneyInc; Hidayat, A. (2018, May 16). Top 5 highest paid CEOs of 2018. StartupStories; Langone, A. (2018, January 16). The 10 richest people in America. Money; Hembree, D. (2018, May 22). CEO pay skyrockets to 361 times that of the average worker. Forbes.

30. Wyland, M. (2017, March 6). Million-dollar compensation for nonprofit CEOS. Nonprofit Quarterly.

124

31. Lauletta, T. (2018, August 24). Urban Meyers press conference was a disaster and only highlighted how poorly Ohio State handled the situation. Business Insider; Wagner, D. (2014, June 9). VA scandal audit: 120,000 veterans experience long waits for care. The Arizona Republic.

32. Garside, J. (2016, April 3). A world of hidden wealth: Why we are shining a light offshore. The Guardian; The Panama Papers: Here’s what we know. (2016, April 4). The New York Times; Farenthold, D. A, & O’Connell, J. (2018, August 3). At president Trump’s hotel in New York, revenue went up this spring—thanks to a visit from big-spending Saudis. The Washington Post.

33. Popular DNA-testing companies build databases accessible by law enforcement, third-party companies. Theblaze; Singer, N. (2018, August 3). For sale: Survey data on millions of high school students. The New York Times.

34. Carter, S. (2014, August 3). A battlefield of drones and privacy in your backyard. Chicago Tribune; Pearce, M. (2014, September 27). Growing use of police body cameras raises privacy concerns. Los Angeles Times; Zhang, B. (2018, July 30). The TSA has been secretly monitoring US airline passengers using air marshals. Business Insider.

35. See, for example, the following: Lohr, S. (2014), Unblinking eyes track employees. The New York Times, p. A1; Rainey, M. (2012, April/May). Fired before you’re hired. INSIGHT into Diversity, 18–21; Rosenberg, T. (2011, November 24). An electronic eye on hospital hand-washing. The New York Times, Opinionator blog; The rise of workplace spying. (2015, July 5). The Week.

36. The rise of workplace spying; Lohr.

37. Hubbartt, W. S. (1998). The new battle over workplace privacy. New York, NY: AMACOM.

38. Olmsted, K. S. (2009). Real enemies: Conspiracy theories and American democracy, World War I to 9/11. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

125

39. Olmsted, pp. 8–9.

40. Brissett, D., & Edgley, C. (1990). The dramaturgical perspective. In D. Brissett & C. Edgley (Eds.), Life as theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

41. Brown, D. J., Scott, K. A., & Lewis, H. (2004). Information processing and leadership. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 125–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42. Bratton, V. K., & Kacmar, K. M. (2004). Extreme careerism: The dark side of impression management. In W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 291–308). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

43. Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in organizations: Theory, measurement, practice. London, England: Routledge.

44. For more information on LMX theory, see Graen, G. B., & Graen, J. A. (Eds.). (2007). New multinational network sharing. Charlotte, NC: Information Age; Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1998). Relationship-based approach to leadership. Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple- level approaches (pp. 103–158). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

45. Wooller, S. (2018, March 15). Health boss claims back 5.90 for short taxi ride after telling nation to exercise more. The Sun.

46. Werner, E., & Paletta, D. (2018, March 4). 10 years after financial crisis, Senate prepared to roll back banking rules. The Washington Post.

47. Caldwell, C. (2011). Duties owed to organizational citizens— ethical insights for today’s leader. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 343–356; Elegido, J. M. (2013). Does it make sense to be a loyal employee? Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 495–511; Rosanas, J.

126

M., & Velilla, M. (2003). Loyalty and trust as the ethical bases of organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 49–59.

48. Carter, B. (2018, February 9). Millennial employee engagement & loyalty statistics: The ultimate collection . Access Perks.

49. Ghosh, B. (2010, March 29). Sins of the fathers. Time, 34–37; Pogatchnik, S. (2010, March 14). Abuse scandals hit Catholic Church across Europe. The Oregonian, p. A11; Povoledo, E., & Otterman, S. (2018, July 28). Cardinal Theodore McCarrick resigns amid sexual abuse scandal. The New York Times.

50. Graham, B. A. (2018, May 16). Michigan State reaches $500m settlement with survivors of Larry Nassar abuse. The Guardian.

51. Fletcher, G. (1993). Loyalty: An essay on the morality of relationships. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

52. Royce, J. (1920). The philosophy of loyalty. New York, NY: Macmillan. See also Foust, M. A. (2012). Loyalty to loyalty. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.

53. Rampersad, A. (1997). Jackie Robinson. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

54. Perez-Pena, R. (2018, February 13). British charity’s executive resigns over aid workers’ misconduct. The New York Times.

55. Joseph, A., (2019, January 15). ‘Blizzard of prescriptions’: New details revealed about Purdue’s marketing of OxyContin. Stat.

56. Shephard, A. (2018, November 16). The punctured myth of Sheryl Sandberg. The New Republic.

127

128

2 Stepping In and Out of the Shadows

129

Learning Objectives > Identify the types of unhealthy leader motivations. > Explain how the “dark triad” of personality traits contributes to unethical leadership. > Classify the faulty assumptions that produce unethical decisions. > Assess the role that moral imagination plays in moral reasoning. > Describe the eight mechanisms of moral disengagement. > Name situational/contextual factors that contribute to unethical leadership. > Create a definition of ethical competence. > Develop a plan to expand personal ethical competence.

Most people are selfish some of the time and some people are selfish most of the time.

—LEADERSHIP RESEARCHERS ROBERT KAISER AND ROBERT HOGAN

Goodness is stronger than evil;

Love is stronger than hate;

Light is stronger than darkness;

Life is stronger than death.

—SOUTH AFRICAN ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU

130

What’s Ahead In this chapter, we look at why leaders step into the shadows and how they can step out of the darkness. Shadow casters include (1) unhealthy motivations, (2) personality disorders, (3) faulty thinking caused by mistaken assumptions, (4) failure of moral imagination, (5) moral disengagement, (6) lack of ethical expertise, and (7) contextual (group, organizational, societal) factors that encourage people to engage in destructive behaviors. We can begin to address these shadow casters by developing our ethical competence. Ethical development, like other forms of leader development, incorporates assessment, challenge, and support. We can track our progress by adopting the skills and strategies used by ethical experts.

In Chapter 1, we looked at how leaders cast shadows. In this chapter, we look at why they do so. If we can identify the reasons for ethical failures (what I’ll call shadow casters), we can then step out of the darkness they create. With that in mind, we’ll first examine common shadow casters. Then we’ll see how developing our ethical competence can equip us to meet these challenges.

Remember that human behavior is seldom the product of just one factor. For example, leaders struggling with insecurities are particularly vulnerable to external pressures. Faulty decision making and inexperience often go hand in hand; we’re more prone to make poor moral choices when we haven’t had much practice. To cast more light and less shadow, we need to address all the factors that undermine ethical performance.

131

Shadow Casters

132

Unhealthy Motivations A good deal of the unethical behavior of leaders is driven by unhealthy motivations. Destructive motivations include inner monsters, unmet needs, self-centeredness, and greed.

Inner Monsters Parker Palmer believes that leaders project shadows out of their inner darkness. That’s why he urges leaders to pay special attention to their motivations, lest “the act of leadership create more harm than good.” Palmer identifies five internal enemies or “monsters” living within leaders that produce unethical behavior.1 I’ll include one additional monster to round out the list.

Monster 1: Insecurity. Leaders often are deeply insecure people who mask their inner doubts through extroversion and by tying their identities to their roles as leaders. Who they are is inextricably bound to what they do. Leaders project their insecurities on others when they use followers to serve their selfish needs. Monster 2: Battleground mentality. Leaders often use military images when carrying out their tasks, speaking of wins and losses, allies and enemies, and doing battle with the competition. For example, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is one leader who is ready to declare war on the competition. He is willing to lose millions in order to undercut competitors and capture product categories. He suggested that Amazon attack small publishing houses in the same way a cheetah attacks a sick gazelle.2 Acting competitively becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; competition begets competitive responses in return. This militaristic approach can be counterproductive. More often than not, cooperation is more productive than competition (see Chapter 9). Instead of pitting departments against each other, for instance, a number of companies use cross-functional project teams and task forces to boost productivity.

133

Monster 3: Functional atheism. Functional atheism is a leader’s belief that she or he has the ultimate responsibility for everything that happens in a group or an organization. As Palmer describes it, “It is the unconscious, unexamined conviction within us that if anything decent is going to happen here, I am the one who needs to make it happen.”3 This shadow destroys both leaders and followers. Symptoms include high stress, broken relationships and families, workaholism, burnout, and mindless activity. Monster 4: Fear. Fear of chaos drives many leaders to stifle dissent and innovation. They emphasize rules and procedures instead of creativity and consolidate their power instead of sharing it with followers. Monster 5: Denying death. Our culture as a whole denies the reality of death, and leaders, in particular, don’t want to face the fact that projects and programs should die if they are no longer useful. Leaders also deny death through their fear of negative evaluation and public failure. Those who fail should be given an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, not be punished. Only a few executives display the wisdom of IBM founder Thomas Watson. A young executive entered his office after making a $10 million blunder and began the conversation by saying, “I guess you want my resignation.” Watson answered, “You can’t be serious. We’ve just spent $10 million educating you!”4

Monster 6: Evil. There are lots of other demons lurking in leaders and followers alike—jealousy, envy, rage—but I want to single out evil for special consideration, making it the focus of Chapter 4. Palmer doesn’t specifically mention evil as an internal monster, but it is hard to ignore the fact that some people seem driven by a force more powerful than anxiety or fear. Evil may help us answer the question “Why?” when we’re confronted with monstrous shadows such as those cast by the Holocaust, genocide in Myanmar, and ISIS terrorist attacks.

134

Unmet Needs Public administration professor Marcia Lynn Whicker ties the motivation of toxic leaders to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow identified five levels of need from low to high: (1) physiological (food, water, air), (2) safety (security, predictability), (3) social (belonging), (4) self-esteem (competence and respect), and (5) self-actualization (self-fulfillment). Trustworthy leaders operate at the highest levels of Maslow’s hierarchy—self-esteem and self-actualization.5 They have the emotional resources and stamina to provide support to their followers. Toxic leaders, on the other hand, experience arrested development due to a sense of inadequacy. They focus solely on their security needs. Giving to others is “alien” to them. Instead, they are out to protect themselves through domination and control. Transitional leaders fall between trustworthy and toxic. They are fixed on meeting social needs. They want to belong and will serve the organization’s objectives only if doing so will meet their personal needs.

Signs of untrustworthy leaders, both toxic and transitional, include these mals: (1) maladjusted (poor fits with their positions and organizations), (2) malcontent (continually dissatisfied with themselves, their circumstances and others), (3) malfunction (personal interests take precedence over those of the organization, which then begins to suffer), (4) malevolent (produce fear in others), (5) malicious (vindictive, wishing to harm others who challenge them), and (6) malfeasance (engage in unethical, unprofessional and illegal behavior).

135

Self-Centeredness Self-centered leaders are proud of themselves and their accomplishments. They lack empathy for others and can’t see other points of view or learn from followers. They are too important to do “little things” such as making their own coffee or standing in line, so they hire others to handle these tasks for them.6 Their focus is on defending their turf and maintaining their status instead of on cooperating with other groups to serve the common good. Ego-driven leaders ignore creative ideas and valuable data that come from outside their circles of influence.

Goal blockage helps explain the impact of self-centeredness on bad leadership. If self-centered leaders believe that they can’t achieve money, status, organizational recognition, or other goals, they often respond with deviant and aggressive behavior. They might engage in fraud and embezzlement, for instance, or mistreat followers who appear to be keeping them from reaching their goals.7 However, success may pose just as great a danger. Successful leaders who reach their objectives often become complacent and lose their focus. They shift their attention to leisure, entertainment, and other self-centered pursuits and fail to provide adequate supervision. They begin to use resources— information, people, power—to fulfill their personal desires instead of serving the group. Overconfident, they have the inflated belief that they can control the outcomes of a situation even when they can’t.8

Hubris describes the excessive pride of top leaders. The term first appears in Greek mythology to refer to “a sense of overweening pride, a defiance of the gods,” which generally ends in death and destruction.9 The myth of Icarus is the best known of these myths. Icarus’s father fashioned a set of artificial wings out of wax and feathers so that he and his son could escape the island where they were being held captive. Icarus ignored his father’s warning not to fly too close to the sun. Infatuated with his ability to soar and the adoration of onlookers who mistook him for a god, Icarus rose too high. The wax on his wings melted and he crashed to his

136

death in the sea. Modern hubristic leaders equate themselves with their organizations and resist attempts to step down from power. Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner, for example, had a reputation for arrogance, engaging in nasty court fights with top executives he hired and then fired. He had to be forced to retire and few mourned his exit.10 CEOs driven by hubris are more likely to engage in unethical behavior because they ignore moral considerations when making decisions.11

Greed is another hallmark of self-oriented leaders. They are driven to earn more (no matter how much they are currently paid) and to accumulate additional perks. Greed focuses attention on making the numbers—generating more sales, increasing earnings, boosting the stock price, recruiting more students, collecting more donations. In the process of reaching these financial goals, the few often benefit at the expense of the many, casting the shadow of privilege described in Chapter 1.

The international financial crisis of 2008, which stemmed from the collapse of the U.S. housing market, can largely be attributed to greed.12 Mortgage brokers generated higher commissions and profits by making risky and fraudulent loans. Borrowers often took on too much credit, buying homes or consumer items they couldn’t afford. Wall Street banks, eager to make money off of the mortgage market, repackaged mortgages and sold them to investors as “low-risk” products in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere. AIG and other insurers generated revenue by guaranteeing what turned out to be toxic investments. The financial system nearly collapsed when housing prices dropped and consumers defaulted on their loans, putting lenders, investment bankers, investors, and insurers at risk. Economic observers worry that the pattern could repeat itself as the U.S. housing market heats up again with soaring prices and lower down payment requirements. (Case study 2.1 describes a prominent organization that fell victim to both hubris and greed.)

137

Personality Disorders A number of psychologists believe that unethical leadership is the product of destructive personality traits. They identify three closely related traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy— as the “dark triad” behind the dark side of leadership.13 (Box 2.1 describes other personality traits that have also been linked to the darker dimension of leadership.)

Narcissism has its origins in an ancient Greek fable. In this tale, Narcissus falls in love with the image of himself he sees reflected in a pond. Like their ancient namesake, modern-day narcissists are self-absorbed and self-confident. A certain degree of narcissism is normal and healthy, giving us faith in our own abilities and enabling us to recover from setbacks. Moderate narcissism appears to be a positive trait for leaders. Confident and outgoing, narcissists often as emerge as leaders. They exude confidence, take bold action, and craft inspirational visions for their followers.14

High narcissism poses the most danger to leaders and followers. Extreme narcissists have a grandiose sense of self-importance, believe that they are special, like attention, constantly seek positive feedback, lack empathy, and feel entitled to their power and positions. They also have an unrealistic sense of what they can accomplish. Narcissistic leaders engage in a wide range of unethical behaviors. They seek special privileges, demand admiration and obedience, abuse power for their personal ends, fail to acknowledge the contributions of subordinates, claim more than their fair share, lash out in anger, are dishonest, ignore the welfare of others, and have an autocratic leadership style.15

A number of psychologists and ordinary citizens believe that Donald Trump is America’s Narcissist-in-Chief.16 Mr. Trump clearly likes to be the center of attention and is quick to claim credit for achievements, real or imagined. When asked to rate his performance, he gives himself an A+. (He generally doesn’t apologize or admit mistakes.) The president is quick to lash out at critics in tweets while embracing those who praise him. Even

138

working for the White House is risky, as Trump frequently turns on former friends, colleagues, and supporters like Jeff Sessions, Jim Mattis, and Rex Tillerson. Mr. Trump frequently rejects the advice of experts and advisors. For instance, he claimed to know more than defense and intelligence officials who opposed his decision to pull troops from the fight against ISIS in Syria. Nevertheless, millions of Americans continue to support the president, believing that his policies and accomplishments outweigh the risk posed by his self-absorption. (The Leadership Ethics at the Movies case in the student study site describes another narcissistic leader.)

Machiavellianism, like narcissism, is highly self-centered. Richard Christie and Florence Geis first identified this personality factor in 1970. Christie and Geis named this trait after Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, who argued in The Prince that political leaders should maintain a virtuous public image but use whatever means necessary—ethical or unethical—to achieve their ends.17

Highly Machiavellian individuals are skilled at manipulating others for their own ends. They have a better grasp of their abilities and reality than narcissists but, like their narcissistic colleagues, engage in lots of self-promotion, are emotionally cold, and are prone to aggressive behavior. Machiavellian leaders often engage in deception because they want to generate positive impressions while they get their way. They may pretend to be concerned about others, for example, or they may assist in a project solely because they want to get in good with the boss. Machiavellians often enjoy a good deal of personal success—organizational advancement, higher salaries—because they are so skilled at manipulation and at disguising their true intentions. Nonetheless, Machiavellian leaders put their groups in danger. They may be less qualified to lead than others who are not as skilled as they in impression management. They are more likely to engage in unethical practices that put the organization at risk because they want to succeed at any cost. If followers suspect that their supervisors are manipulating them, they are less trusting and cooperative, which can make the organization less productive.18

Psychopathy makes up the third side of the dark triangle. Psychopaths have a total lack of conscience, which distinguishes them from narcissists and Machiavellians, who are less ruthless

139

and may experience at least some feelings of guilt and remorse for their actions.19 Psychopaths are attracted to organizations by their desire for power and wealth. Getting to positions of high power is a game to them, and they are prepared to use any tactic to win. Extroverted, energetic, and charming, they find it easy to enter organizations. Once hired, they lie and manipulate others in their single-minded pursuit of power and prestige. As a result of their surface charm, social abilities, and political skill, they often rise to the top of their companies. One study of Australian managers found that the percentage of psychopaths rose at every step up the organizational hierarchy, with the highest percentage found in senior management.20 Such leaders can undermine the ethical decision-making processes and climate of entire groups. The destructive behaviors of psychopaths include the following:

Engaging in fraud Unfairly firing employees Claiming credit for the work of others Using the system to their own advantage Increasing employee workloads Failing to care for the needs of employees Exploiting employees Creating conflicts between groups, generating chaos Bullying and humiliating workers Focusing on short-term gain (their wealth and power) Disregarding the interests of investors Damaging the environment Disrupting organizational communication Partnering with other psychopaths

Box 2.1 Dark Side Personality Traits

Robert and Joyce Hogan designed a widely used survey to measure dark side personality factors beyond narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. The Hogan Development Scale (HDS) tests for the following dark side personality traits, each of which is related to a personality disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. These traits can have short-term advantages but, in the long term, undermine leader performance. For example, highly diligent leaders

140

are hardworking and careful but tend to micromanage, find it hard to delegate, and fail to see the big picture.

Excitable

Moody and hard to please; intense, short-lived enthusiasm for people, projects, or things

Sample scale items:

“Yells at people when they make mistakes.”

“Is easily upset.”

Skeptical

Cynical, distrustful, and doubts others’ intentions

Sample scale items: “Needs attention.”

“Feels mistreated.”

Cautious

Reluctant to take risks for fear of rejection or negative evaluation

Sample scale items: “Pessimistic.”

“Tense and fearful.”

Reserved

Aloof, detached, and uncommunicative; lacking interest in or awareness of the feelings of others

Sample scale items: “Reserved and formal.”

“Withdrawn.”

Leisurely

Independent; ignores requests from others and becomes irritated if they persist

Sample scale items: “Feels overburdened.”

“Holds grudges.”

141

Bold Unusually self-confident; feels grandiose and entitled; overestimates capabilities

Sample scale items: “Takes advantage of others.”

“Expects special consideration.”

Mischievous

Enjoys risk taking and testing the limits; needs excitement; manipulative, deceitful, cunning, and exploitive.

Sample scale items: “Bends the rules.”

“Has no regrets.”

Colorful

Expressive, animated and dramatic; wants to be noticed and needs to be the center of attention

Sample scale items: “Craves attention.”

“Life of the party.”

Imaginative

Acts and thinks in creative, and sometimes odd or unusual ways

Sample scale items: “Is eccentric.”

“Is flighty.”

Diligent:

Meticulous, precise, and perfectionistic; inflexible about rules and procedures; critical of others’ performance

Sample scale items: “Overly conscientious.”

“Resistant to change.”

142

Dutiful Eager to please and relies on others for support and guidance; reluctant to take independent action or to go against prevailing opinion

Sample scale items: “Is predictable.”

“Is indecisive.”

The Hogans believe that identifying incompetent or dark leadership serves a moral purpose. “Bad leaders make life miserable for those who must work for them,” the Hogans note. “By developing methods of identifying bad managers we can help alleviate some of the unnecessary suffering of the working class.”

Source: Adapted from Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001) Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–51. Used by permission.

See also

Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 495–509.

Kaiser, R. B., & Craig, S. B. (2014). Destructive leadership in and of organizations. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 260–284). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

143

Faulty Decision Making Identifying dysfunctional motivations and personality traits is a good first step in explaining the shadow side of leadership. Yet well-meaning, well-adjusted leaders can also cast shadows, as in the case of Shell UK. In 1995, company officials decided to dispose of the Brent Spar, a large floating oil storage buoy in the North Sea, by sinking it in deep water.21 This was the least expensive option for disposing of the structure, and the British government signed off on the project. However, Shell and British government leaders failed to give adequate consideration to the environmental impact of their proposal. Greenpeace activists, who were trying to curb the dumping of waste and other contaminants into the world’s oceans, argued that deep-water disposal set a bad precedent. They worried that scuttling the Brent Spar would be the first of many such sinkings, and Greenpeace members twice occupied the Brent Spar in protest. Consumers in continental Europe began boycotting Shell gas stations, and representatives of the Belgian and German governments protested to British officials. Shell withdrew its plan to sink the buoy, and it was towed to Norway instead, where it was cut apart and made part of a quay. Shell later noted that this was a defining event in the company’s history, one that made it more sensitive to outside groups and possible environmental issues.

Blame for many ethical miscues can be placed on the way in which decisions are made. Moral reasoning, though focused on issues of right and wrong, has much in common with other forms of decision making. Making a wise ethical choice involves many of the same steps as making other important decisions: identifying the issue, gathering information, deciding on criteria, weighing options, and so on. A breakdown anywhere along the way can derail the process. Problems typically stem from (1) unsound assumptions and (2) failure of moral imagination.

Decision-making experts David Messick and Max Bazerman speculate that many unethical business decisions aren’t the products of greed or callousness but stem instead from widespread weaknesses in how people process information and

144

make decisions. In particular, executives have faulty theories about how the world operates, about other people, and about themselves.22

Theories About How the World Operates These assumptions have to do with determining the consequences of choices, judging risks, and identifying causes. Executives generally fail to take into account all the implications of their decisions. They overlook low-probability events, fail to consider all the affected parties, think they can hide their unethical behavior from the public, and downplay long-range consequences. In determining risk, decision makers generally fail to acknowledge that many events happen by chance or are out of their control. America’s involvement in Vietnam, for example, was predicated on the mistaken assumption that the United States could successfully impose its will in the region. Other times, leaders and followers misframe risks, thus minimizing the dangers. For instance, a new drug seems more desirable when it is described as working half of the time rather than as failing half of the time.

The perception of causes is the most important of all our theories about the world because determining responsibility is the first step to assigning blame or praise. In the United States, we’re quick to criticize the person when larger systems are at fault. We may blame salespeople for trying to sell us extended warranties that are generally a waste of money. However, executives should be blamed for requiring their employees to push these products. Messick and Bazerman also point out that we’re more likely to criticize someone else for acting immorally than for failing to act. We condemn the executive who steals, but we are less critical of the executive who doesn’t disclose the fact that another manager is incompetent.

Theories About Other People These are our organized beliefs about how we differ from they (competitors, suppliers, managers, employees, ethnic groups).

145

Such beliefs, of which we may not be aware, influence how we treat other people. Ethnocentrism and stereotyping are particularly damaging.

Ethnocentrism is the tendency to think that our group is better than other groups, that our way of doing things is superior to theirs. We then seek out (socialize with, hire) others who look and act like us. Military leaders often fall into the trap of ethnocentrism when they underestimate the ability of the enemy to resist hardships. For example, commanders have no trouble believing that their own citizens will survive repeated bombings but don’t think that civilian populations in other nations can do the same. Such was the case in World War II. The British thought that bombing Berlin would break the spirit of the Germans, forgetting that earlier German air raids on London had failed to drive Britain out of the war. American leaders believed that they could quickly overcome Iraqi resistance in the second Gulf War. Instead, fighting continued for years.

Stereotypes, our beliefs about other groups of people, are closely related to ethnocentrism. These theories (women are weaker than men, the mentally challenged can’t do productive work) can produce a host of unethical outcomes, including sexual and racial discrimination. (We’ll take a closer look at ethnocentrism and stereotyping in Chapter 11.)

Theories About Ourselves These faulty theories involve self-perceptions. Leaders need to have a degree of confidence to make tough decisions, but their self-images are often seriously distorted. Executives tend to think that they (and their organizations) are superior, are immune to disasters, and can control events. No matter how fair they want to be, leaders tend to favor themselves when making decisions. Top- level managers argue that they deserve larger offices, more money, and stock options because their divisions contribute more to the success of the organization. Overconfidence is also a problem for decision makers because it seduces them into thinking that they have all the information they need, so they fail to

146

learn more. Even when they do seek additional data, they’re likely to interpret new information according to their existing biases.

Unrealistic self-perceptions of all types put leaders at ethical risk. Executives may claim that they have a right to steal company property because they are vital to the success of the corporation. Over time, they may come to believe that they aren’t subject to the same rules as everyone else. University of Richmond leadership studies professor Terry Price argues that leader immorality generally stems from such mistaken beliefs.23 Leaders know right from wrong but often make exceptions for (justify) their own actions. They are convinced that their leadership positions exempt them from following traffic laws or from showing up to meetings on time, for example.

Leaders may justify immoral behavior such as lying or intimidating followers on the grounds that it is the only way to protect the country or to save the company. Unethical leaders may also decide, with the support of followers, that the rules of morality apply only to the immediate group and not to outsiders. Excluding others from moral considerations—from moral membership— justified such unethical practices as slavery and colonization in the past. In recent times, this logic has been used to justify separating children from their parents seeking asylum in the United States. (Turn to Chapter 4 for an in-depth look at moral exclusion.)

The loftier a leader’s position, the greater the chances that he or she will overestimate his or her abilities. Powerful leaders are particularly likely to think they are godlike, believing they are omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and invulnerable (safe from all harm).24 Top leaders can mistakenly conclude they know everything because they have access to many different sources of information and followers look to them for answers. They believe that they can do whatever they want because they have so much power. Surrounded by entourages of subservient staff members, these same officials are convinced that they will be protected from the consequences of their actions. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd, for example, believed that he could get away with billing the company for unauthorized

147

travel expenses for a female employee who may have been his lover.

148

Failure of Moral Imagination According to many ethicists, moral imagination—recognizing moral issues and options—is key to ethical behavior and works hand in hand with moral reasoning in the decision-making process.25 Moral imagination consists of three related components: (1) sensitivity to ethical dimensions of the situation, (2) perspective taking (considering other people’s point of view), and (3) creation of novel solutions.

Former Merck & Co. CEO Roy Vagelos is one example of a leader with a vivid moral imagination. He proceeded with the development of the drug Mectizan, which treats the parasite that causes river blindness in Africa and South America, even though developing the product would be expensive and there was little hope that patients in poor countries could pay for it.26 When relief agencies didn’t step forward to fund and distribute the drug, Merck developed its own distribution systems in poor nations. Lost income from the drug totaled more than $200 million, but the number of victims (who are filled with globs of worms that cause blindness and death) dropped dramatically. In contrast, NASA engineer Roger Boisjoly recognized the ethical problem of launching the space shuttle Challenger in cold weather in 1985 but failed to generate a creative strategy for preventing the launch. He stopped objecting and deferred to management (normal operating procedure). Boisjoly made no effort to go outside the chain of command to express his concerns to the agency director or to the press. The Challenger exploded soon after liftoff, killing all seven astronauts aboard. Failure of moral imagination also contributed to the crash of the space shuttle Columbia 17 years later, as lower-level employees once again failed to go outside the chain of command to express safety concerns.

Moral imagination facilitates ethical reasoning because it helps leaders step away from their typical mental scripts or schemas and to recognize the moral elements of events. Unfortunately, our scripts can leave out the ethical dimension of a situation. Shell officials failed to take into account the ethical considerations of their decision to sink the Brent Spar, for instance. To them, this

149

was a routine business decision, largely based on cost, that would solve an oil industry problem—how to dispose of outdated equipment cheaply. Or consider the case of Ford Motor Company’s failure to recall and repair the gas tanks on the Pintos it manufactured between 1970 and 1976. The gas tank on this subcompact was located behind the rear axle. It tended to rupture during any rear-end collision, even at low speed. When this happened, sparks could ignite the fuel, engulfing the car in flames. Fixing the problem would have only cost $11 per vehicle, but Ford refused to act. The firm believed that all small cars were inherently unsafe and that customers weren’t interested in safety. Furthermore, Ford managers conducted a cost–benefit analysis and determined that the costs in human life were less than what it would cost the company to repair the problem.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finally forced Ford to recall the Pinto in 1978, but by that time, the damage had been done. The company lost a major lawsuit brought by a burn victim. In a trial involving the deaths of three Indiana teens in a rear-end crash, Ford became the first major corporation to face criminal, not civil, charges for manufacturing faulty products. The automaker was later acquitted, but its image was severely tarnished.

Business professor Dennis Gioia, who served as Ford’s recall coordinator from 1973 to 1975, blames moral blindness for the company’s failure to act.27 Ethical considerations were not part of the safety committee’s script. The group made decisions about recalls based on the number of incidents and cost–benefit analyses. Because there were only a few reports of gas tank explosions and the expense of fixing all Pinto tanks didn’t seem justified, members decided not to act. At no point did Gioia and his colleagues question the morality of putting a dollar value on human life or of allowing customers to die in order to save the company money. (Turn to Case Study 2.2, Wrecking the Rec Center, for another example of failed moral imagination.)

Moral imagination also enhances moral reasoning by encouraging the generation of novel alternatives. Recognizing our typical problem-solving patterns frees us from their power. We are no

150

longer locked into one train of thought but are better able to generate new options. Consider the response of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to the danger of possible violent demonstrations during the 2004 Republican National Convention. Instead of trying to control the movement of protestors and putting more officers on the street (the typical response of mayors), Bloomberg offered peace demonstrators discounts at select hotels, museums, and restaurants during the week of the convention.

151

Moral Disengagement While moral decision making has much in common with other forms of reasoning, it does have unique features. Most important, morality involves determining right and wrong based on personal ethical standards. Normally, we feel guilt, shame, and self- condemnation if we violate our moral code by lying when we believe in truth telling, telling a racist joke when we believe in treating others with dignity, and so on. According to Stanford University social psychologist Albert Bandura, we frequently turn off or deactivate these self-sanctions through the process of moral disengagement. Moral disengagement helps account for the fact that individuals can have a clear sense of right and wrong yet engage in immoral activities. “People do not ordinarily engage in reprehensible conduct,” says Bandura, “until they have justified to themselves the rightness of their actions.”28 As a result, they are able to commit unethical behavior with a clear conscience. Using the following mechanisms, they convince themselves that their immoral conduct is moral, minimize their role in causing harm, and devalue the victims of their destructive behavior.29

Turning Immoral Conduct Into Moral Conduct

Moral justification. Moral justification is a process of self-persuasion. Leaders convince themselves that their harmful behavior is actually moral and beneficial. Team captains justify cheating and dirty play as a way of protecting the team members or team honor. Hiding product defects is defended as a way to keep sales up and thus save the company and jobs.

Euphemistic labelling. Euphemistic language has a sanitizing function, making harmful behavior appear more respectable and reducing personal responsibility. Examples include referring to civilians accidently

152

killed in war as collateral damage and using the term disfellowshipped to describe those kicked out of some Christian churches. Leaders may also try to exonerate themselves by speaking as if what they did was the product of nameless outside forces. For instance, instead of saying, “I laid employees off,” they say, “There were layoffs.” Or they may use language associated with legitimate enterprises to lend an aura of respectability to illegitimate ones. Members of the Mafia call themselves “businessmen” instead of criminals, for example, to make their activities appear more acceptable.

Advantageous comparison. Contrast involves comparing unethical or criminal acts with even worse activities, thus making them appear more tolerable. In sports, coaches and players excuse their use of bad language by comparing this offense to more serious violations like fighting with opponents.

Minimizing harm. Displacement of responsibility. Individuals are most likely to sanction themselves for bad behavior if they acknowledge their role in causing harm. Therefore, they often put the blame on someone else so as to minimize their responsibility for doing damage to others. Followers may claim that they were following orders when they inflated sales figures, for instance. Leaders often distance themselves from illegal activities by remaining “intentionally uninformed.” They don’t go looking for evidence of wrongdoing and, if wrongdoing occurs, dismiss these cases as “isolated incidents” caused by followers who didn’t understand corporate policies.

Diffusion of responsibility. Diffusing or spreading out responsibility also lessens personal accountability for immoral behavior. In large organizations, division of labor reduces responsibility. For over a decade, employees in many different divisions of General Motors—

153

engineering, customer service, the legal department—knew about a faulty ignition switch on the company’s small cars. However, they failed to notify their superiors, to communicate with each other, to reach out to victims, or to offer a fix to the problem. Over a hundred deaths have been linked to the defective switch.30

Disregard or distortion of consequences. Hiding suffering is one way to disregard the consequences of harmful actions and reduce the likelihood of self-recrimination. For example, in drone warfare, plane operators cause death and destruction thousands of miles away. Such physical separation makes it easier to kill without remorse. Organizational hierarchies also hide destructive consequences, as executives may not see the outcomes of their choices. They may never visit their oppressive overseas manufacturing facilities, for instance. Or if they order layoffs, they may never come face to face with the distraught employees they eliminated from the payroll.

Devaluing Victims

Dehumanization. It is easier to mistreat others if they are seen as less than fully human. In extreme cases, dehumanization leads to rape, genocide, and other acts of atrocity. Viewing outsiders as savages, degenerates, or fiends encourages brutality. Dehumanization can be much more subtle, however. Many societal forces, such as urbanization, mobility, and technology, make it hard to relate to others in personal ways. When people are strangers, they are more likely to be targeted for mild forms of exclusion such as disparaging comments and unfair comparisons.

Attribution of blame. Blaming others is an expedient way to excuse unethical behavior. In a conflict, each party generally blames the other for starting the dispute and each side considers itself faultless. Blaming the victim

154

is also common. If the victim is to blame, then the victimizer is freed from guilt. Some sexual harassers, for instance, excuse their behavior by saying that certain women invite sexual harassment by the way that they dress.

Moral disengagement is the product of personal and social forces. Society helps determine personal standards (e.g., it is wrong to cheat or to hurt innocent people), but groups and organizations commonly weaken sanctions for violating personal values. As noted above, leaders who engage in unethical acts often declare that such behavior is essential to achieving worthy goals. They help displace responsibility when they order followers to engage in illegal activities. When some group members dehumanize outsiders, others in the group are more likely to do the same. (Turn to the Focus on Follower Ethics box for a closer look at how leaders encourage followers to disengage.)

Using scales like the one found in Self-Assessment 2.2, researchers have discovered a strong link between moral disengagement and unethical behavior in a variety of settings.31

Disengaged children tend to be aggressive and delinquent. Not only are they more likely to bully and to cyberbully, they have less empathy for the victims of bullying. Morally disengaged gamers are more likely to torture and kill innocent civilians when playing. Males are more likely to choose “bad guys” as their avatars when gaming. Morally disengaged high school and college athletes are more prone to antisocial behaviors, such as trying to injure opponents and breaking the rules of the game. At the same time, they are less likely to demonstrate such prosocial behaviors as helping injured opponents or congratulating them for good play. In the work setting, the tendency to morally disengage increases the likelihood of lying, deception, cheating, stealing, computer hacking, favoring the self at the expense of others, damaging company property, using illegal drugs, and making racist remarks. Citizens with a propensity for moral disengagement show higher support for military aggression and harsh punishment for criminals.

Focus on Follower Ethics Why Good Followers Go Bad (and What to Do About It)

155

Followers are key to any large-scale criminal enterprise, major scandal, or significant atrocity. Former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, for example, looted a nonprofit fund for children and netted $9.6 million in an extortion scheme involving city contracts. To run his criminal operation, he enlisted the help of family, staff members, private contractors, and vendors. Thirty-four government officials were convicted along with the mayor. Thousands of Wells Fargo employees created fake customer accounts to boost corporate earnings. ISIS rebels photographed themselves beheading captured Iraqi soldiers.

Since most people claim to have high personal standards, why do so many “good” followers engage in “bad” (illegal, unethical, cruel, inhuman) behavior? Moral disengagement is one answer to this question. Followers appear particularly vulnerable to the influence of moral disengagement. They have less power, information, and status, which makes them susceptible to the manipulation of unethical leaders who use the following tactics to persuade them to disengage:

Disengagement Mechanism Leader Tactic

Cognitive Construal Emphasize that criminal activities serve moral ends (e.g., a larger vision)

Make loyalty to the leader and organization the ultimate moral obligation

Frame morally questionable activities as socially acceptable

Re-label harmful actions as harmless or beneficial

Diffusion/Displacement of Responsibility

Rely on legitimate power to demand obedience

Force subordinates to comply through threats, persuasion, rewards, and punishments

156

Disengagement Mechanism Leader Tactic

Create bureaucratic structures which obscure criminal and unethical outcomes

Focus on positive benefits of compliance (e.g., earning money to support family) and not the negative consequences (e.g., consumers hurt by the product)

Dehumanization of Victims

Encourage followers to ignore victims by focusing on profits and other goals

As followers, we can resist the power of moral disengagement by recognizing that we are always responsible for our actions. We can resist situational influences, as in the case of the Phoenix Veterans Affairs doctor who alerted authorities of falsified patient waiting lists even though his initial letters were ignored. To build your resistance, be alert to the danger of disengagement and your vulnerability as a follower. Never lose sight of personal your responsibility. Engage in self-questioning to short circuit the mechanisms of moral disengagement. Periodically ask yourself the following:

Mechanism: Moral justification. Query: Would I normally think this action is wrong? Mechanism: Euphemistic labeling. Query: Does my language hide what is really going on? Mechanism: Advantageous comparison. Query: Who am I comparing myself to and am I making this comparison to excuse my behavior? Mechanism: Displacement of responsibility. Query: Am I responsible for doing harm or damage even though I want to put blame on others? Mechanism: Diffusion of responsibility. Query: Am I refusing to take responsibility by trying to share the blame with others? Mechanism: Disregard or distortion of consequences. Query: Am I aware of all the possible harmful consequences of my actions?

157

Mechanism: Dehumanization. Query: Am I treating others as less than fully human individuals? Mechanism: Attribution of blame. Query: Am I blaming the other party or a victim to excuse my harmful actions?

158

Sources Adapted from Johnson, C. E. (2014). Why “good” followers go “bad”: The power of moral disengagement. Journal of Leadership Education, 13(4), 36–50. See also Beu, D. S., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). This is war: How the politically astute achieve crimes of obedience through the use of moral disengagement. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 551–568.

Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374–391.

Hinrichs, K. T., Wang, L., Hinrich, A. T., & Romero, E. J. (2012). Moral disengagement through displacement of responsibility: The role of leadership beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 62–80.

159

Lack of Ethical Expertise Leaders may unintentionally cast shadows because they lack the necessary knowledge, skills, and experience. Many of us have never followed a formal, step-by-step approach to solving an ethical problem in a group. Or we may not know what ethical perspectives or frameworks can be applied to ethical dilemmas. When you read and respond to Case Study 2.3, for example, you may have a clear opinion about whether or not you would support putting company names and logos on space craft. You may be less clear about the standards you use to reach your conclusion, however. You might use a common ethical guideline (“some things should never be commercialized”; “the public and private sectors should remain separate”; “the benefits of branding outweigh the costs”) but not realize that you have done so.

Emotions are critical to ethical decision making and action, as we’ll see in Chapter 6. And it is possible to blunder into good ethical choices. Nevertheless, we are far more likely to make wise decisions when we are guided by some widely used ethical principles and standards. These ethical theories help us define the problem, highlight important elements of the situation, force us to think systematically, encourage us to view the problem from a variety of perspectives, and strengthen our resolve to act responsibly.

Lack of expertise undermines our confidence to act ethically—our ethical efficacy. Ethical efficacy is the conviction that we have the motivation and skills to make an ethical choice and follow through on it. Our level of ethical efficacy has a direct impact on our moral behavior. The lower our sense of ethical efficacy, the less likely we will engage in such ethical behaviors as helping coworkers, confronting abusive supervisors, and trying to improve the ethical climate of our organizations.32

160

Contextual Factors Not all shadow casters come from individual forces like unhealthy motivations, faulty decision making, and lack of expertise. Ethical failures are the product of group, organizational, and cultural factors as well. Conformity is a problem for many small groups. Members put a higher priority on group cohesion than on coming up with a well-reasoned choice. They pressure dissenters, shield themselves from negative feedback, keep silent when they disagree, and so on. Alternatively, they may be convinced there is agreement among group members when none exists.33 Members of these shadowy groups engage in unhealthy communication patterns that generate negative emotions while undermining the reasoning process.

Organizations can also be shadow lands. For instance, pay day lenders are known for taking advantage of the poor, as are rent-to- own furniture outlets. Although working in such environments makes moral behavior much more difficult, no organization is immune to ethical failure. Some companies focus solely on results without specifying how those results are to be achieved, leaving employees in a moral vacuum. Others reward undesirable behavior or fail to punish those who break the rules. Instead, their leaders punish employees who question actions and policies. Such was the case at Volkswagen. Managers and workers were afraid to speak up about a device, installed in 11 million vehicles, that enabled the manufacturer to defeat emissions tests.34 Top managers may fire employees who talk about ethical issues so that they can claim ignorance if followers do act unethically. This “don’t ask, don’t tell” atmosphere forces workers to make ethical choices on their own, without the benefit of interaction. Members of these organizations seldom challenge the questionable decisions of others and assume that everyone supports the immoral acts.

Socialization, as we’ll see in Chapter 10, can be an important tool for promoting ethical climate. However, this process can also encourage employees to set their personal codes aside. Organizations use orientation sessions, training seminars,

161

mentors, and other means to help new hires identify with the group and absorb the group’s culture. Loyalty to and knowledge of the organization are essential. Nonetheless, the socialization process may blind members to the consequences of their actions. For example, leaders at Walmart, who are proud of the company’s culture and accomplishments, are often puzzled when neighborhoods oppose their new supercenters and activists criticize the company for low wages and poor treatment of suppliers. Some organizations may deliberately use the socialization process to corrupt new members.

Cultural differences, like group and organizational forces, also encourage leaders to abandon their personal codes of conduct. (We’ll examine this topic in more depth in Chapter 11.) A corporate manager from the United States may be personally opposed to bribery. Her company’s ethics code forbids such payments, and so does federal law. However, she may bribe customs officials and government officials in her adopted country if such payments are an integral part of the national culture and appear to be the only way to achieve her company’s goals.

The toxic triangle is one attempt to explain how contextual factors contribute to the process of destructive leadership.35 In the toxic triangle, destructive leadership is not only the product of toxic leaders, but of two additional forces: susceptible followers and conducive environments. Susceptible followers either conform or collude with destructive leaders. Conformers go along because they have unmet needs and low self-esteem, identifying with the leader who offers them a sense of direction and community. Conformers may also have an unconditional respect for authority or fear punishment if they don’t obey. Colluders actively support their leaders out of ambition (hoping to be rewarded) or because they believe in the leader’s goals and values. Conducive environments incorporate four factors: instability, perceived threat, cultural values, and the absence of checks and balances and institutionalization. Instability and threats (i.e., bankruptcy, terrorism) allow leaders to centralize power in order to restore order and deal with the danger. If there are weak values or no institutionalized checks on the power of leaders, such as different

162

branches of government and strong corporate boards of directors, destructive leaders have more discretion to operate.

So far, our focus has been on how external pressures can undermine the ethical behavior of leaders and followers. However, this picture is incomplete, as we will explore in more depth in the last section of the text. Leaders aren’t just the victims of contextual pressures but are the architects of the unethical climates, structures, policies, and procedures that cause groups and organizations to fail in the first place. Corporate scandals are typically the direct result of the actions of leaders who not only engage in immoral behavior but also encourage subordinates to follow their example. They are poor role models, pursue profits at all costs, punish dissenters, reward unethical practices, and so on.

163

Stepping Out of the Shadows Now that we’ve identified the factors that cause us to cast shadows as leaders, we can begin to master them. To do so, we will need to look inward to address our motivations; improve our ethical decision making; acquire ethical knowledge, strategies, and skills; and resist negative contextual influences as we create healthy ethical climates. The remainder of this text is designed to help you accomplish all of these tasks.

I hope you will view your ethical development as part of your overall development as a leader. According to researchers at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), we can expand our leadership competence. The skills and knowledge we acquire— including those related to ethics—will make us more effective in a wide variety of leadership situations, ranging from business and professional organizations to neighborhood groups, clubs, and churches.36 CCL staff members report that leader development is based on assessment, challenge, and support. Successful developmental experiences provide plenty of feedback that lets participants know how they are doing and how others are responding to their leadership strategies. Such feedback can be formal (360-degree feedback, surveys) and informal (feedback from colleagues, observing the reactions of coworkers). Assessment data provoke self-evaluation (“What am I doing well?” “How do I need to improve?”) and provide information that aids in self-reflection. Simply put, a leader learns to identify gaps between current performance and where he or she needs to be and then learns how to close those gaps.

The most powerful leadership experiences also stretch or challenge people. As long as people don’t feel the need to change, they won’t. Difficult and novel experiences, conflict situations, and dealing with loss, failure, and disappointment force leaders outside their comfort zones and give them the opportunity to practice new skills. Each type of challenge teaches a different lesson, so leaders need a variety of experiences. A formal leadership program can reveal a leader’s ethical blind spots, for

164

example, and experiencing failure can develop perseverance and resilience.

To make the most of feedback and challenges, leaders need support. Supportive comments (“I appreciate the effort you’re making to become a better listener.” “I’m confident that you can handle this new assignment.”) sustain the leader during the struggle to improve. The most common source of support is other people (family, coworkers, bosses), but developing leaders can also draw on organizational cultures and systems. Supportive organizations believe in continuous learning and staff development, provide funds for training, reward progress, and so on.

All three elements—assessment, challenge, and support—should be part of your plan to increase your ethical competence. You need feedback about how well you handle ethical dilemmas, how others perceive your personality and character, and how your decisions affect followers. You need the challenges and practice that come from moving into new leadership positions. Seek out opportunities to influence others by engaging in service projects, chairing committees, teaching children, or taking on a supervisory role. You also need the support of others to maximize your development. Talk with colleagues about ethical choices at work, draw on the insights of important thinkers, and find groups that will support your efforts to change.

Emeritus Wright State University ethics professor Joseph Petrick believes that we should develop three broad types of ethical competencies.37 Cognitive decision-making competence encompasses all the skills needed to make responsible ethical choices, including moral awareness, moral understanding, moral reasoning and dialogue, and the resolution of competing arguments and demands. Affective prebehavioral disposition competence describes the motivation needed to act on ethical choices. To match our words with our deeds, we need to be morally sensitive, empathetic, courageous, tolerant, and imaginative. Context management competence focuses on creating and shaping moral environments. Essential context management skills involve managing formal compliance and

165

ethics systems, overseeing corporate governance, and exercising global citizenship.

Donald Menzel, former president of the American Society of Public Administration, identifies five important moral competencies for those serving in government, which can apply to those in other professions as well.38 First, as leaders, we should be committed to high standards of personal and professional behavior. Second, we ought to understand relevant ethics codes and laws related to our organizations. Third, we have to demonstrate the ability to engage in ethical reasoning when confronted with moral dilemmas. Fourth, we must identify and then act on important professional values. Fifth, we have to demonstrate our commitment to promoting ethical practices and behaviors in our organizations. In order to demonstrate competence, we need to39

– strengthen our knowledge of ethics codes and standards; – strengthen our reasoning skills and the ability to identify difficult ethical situations; – strengthen our problem-solving skills when a variety of moral principles, laws, principles, constituencies and the public interest must be considered; – strengthen our ability to advocate for principled decisions; – strengthen our self-awareness and consensus building skills to consider other positions and to work together on solutions; – strengthen our ethics-focused attitudes and commitment.

University of Notre Dame psychologists Darcia Narvaez and Daniel Lapsley offer the novice–expert continuum as one way to track our ethical progress.40 They argue that the more we behave like moral experts, the greater our level of ethical development. Ethical authorities, like experts in other fields, think differently than novices. First, they have a broader variety of schemas (mental frameworks) to draw from, and they know more about the ethical domain. Their networks of moral knowledge are more developed and connected than those of beginners. Second, they see the world differently than novices. While beginners are often overwhelmed by new data, those with expertise can quickly identify and act on relevant information, such as what ethical

166

principles might apply in a given situation. Third, experts have different skill sets. They are better able than novices to define the moral problem and then match the new dilemma with previous ethical problems they have encountered. “Unlike novices,” Narvaez and Lapsley say, “they know what information to access, which procedures to apply, how to apply them, and when it is appropriate.”41 As a result, they make faster, better moral decisions.

Narvaez and Lapsley argue that to become an ethical expert, you should learn in a well-structured environment (like a college or university) where correct behaviors are rewarded and where you can interact with mentors and receive feedback and coaching. You will need to master both moral theory and skills (see Box 2.2). You should learn how previous experts have dealt with moral problems and how some choices are better than others. As you gain experience, you’ll not only get better at solving ethical problems but will also be better able to explain your choices. Finally, you will have to put in the necessary time and focused effort. Ethical mastery takes hours of practice wrestling with moral dilemmas.

Box 2.2 Ethical Skills: A Sampler

Darcia Narvaez developed the following list of ethical skills that should be incorporated into the training offered in ethical education programs. These are also the abilities that we need to develop as leaders and are addressed in this text. Narvaez developed the list after surveying moral exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr. and virtue theory, as well as scholarship in morality, moral development, positive psychology, and citizenship. Taken together, these skills help us function well in a pluralistic democracy while promoting the health of society as a whole.

167

Ethical Sensitivity (Recognition of Ethical Problems)

Understanding emotional expression Taking the perspective of others Connecting to others Responding to diversity Controlling social bias Interpreting situations Communicating effectively

168

Ethical Judgment (Decision Making) Understanding ethical problems Using codes and identifying judgment criteria Reasoning generally Reasoning ethically Understanding consequences Reflecting on process and outcome Coping and resilience

169

Ethical Focus (Motivation to Act Ethically)

Respecting others Cultivating conscience Acting responsibly Helping others Finding meaning in life Valuing traditions and institutions Developing ethical identity and integrity

170

Ethical Action (Following Through on Moral Decisions)

Resolving conflicts and problems Asserting respectfully Taking initiative as a leader Implementing decisions Cultivating courage Persevering Working hard

Source: Narvaez, D. (2006). Integrative ethical education. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 717 –728). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, p. 717. Used with permission of the publisher.

It is important to note that making and implementing ethical decisions takes communication as well as critical thinking skills, as the list in Box 2.2 illustrates. We must be able to articulate our reasoning, convince other leaders of the wisdom of our position, and work with others to put the choice into place. For instance, a manager who wants to eliminate discriminatory hiring practices will have to listen effectively, gather information, formulate and make arguments, appeal to moral principles, and build relationships. Failure to develop these skills will doom the reform effort.

Implications and Applications

Unethical or immoral behavior is the product of a number of factors, both internal and external. You must address all of these elements if you want to cast light rather than shadow. Unhealthy motivations that produce immoral behavior include internal enemies (insecurity, battleground mentality, functional atheism, fear, denying death, evil) and selfishness (pride, hubris, greed). The dark triad—narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy—is three personality disorders linked to the dark side of leadership. Good leaders can and do make bad ethical decisions because of defective reasoning. Beware of faulty assumptions about how the world operates, about other people, and about the self. These can lead you to

171

underestimate risks and overestimate your abilities and value to your organization. Avoid the temptation to excuse or justify immoral behavior based on your leadership position. Exercise moral imagination: Be sensitive to ethical issues, step outside your normal way of thinking, and come up with creative solutions. Be alert to the process of moral disengagement, which involves persuading yourself that immoral conduct is actually moral, minimizing the harm you cause, and devaluing the victims of your destructive actions. Leaders may unintentionally cast shadows because they lack the necessary knowledge, skills, and experience. Conformity, supportive followers, socialization, cultural differences and other contextual pressures encourage leaders to engage in unethical behavior. Make your ethical development part of your larger leadership development plan. The three key elements of any development strategy are (1) assessment or feedback that reveals any gaps between current and ideal performance, (2) challenging (difficult, new, demanding) experiences, and (3) support in the form of resources and other people. Key ethical competencies involve making responsible ethical decisions, being motivated to follow through on moral choices, and shaping the moral environment. Be committed to high standards of personal and professional behavior, understand relevant codes and laws, demonstrate ethical reasoning, act on values, and promote ethical organizational practices and behavior. To become more of an ethical expert, learn in a well-structured environment, master moral theory and skills, and devote the necessary time and effort to the task of ethical improvement.

For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment

1. In a group, identify unhealthy motivations to add to the list provided in this chapter.

2. Are you working with a narcissistic leader or colleague based on the results of Self-Assessment 2.1? What steps can you take to more effectively work with this individual?

3. Evaluate a well-publicized ethical decision you consider to be faulty. Determine whether mistaken assumptions and/or lack of moral imagination were operating in this situation. Write up your analysis.

172

4. Complete Self-Assessment 2.2, the Propensity to Morally Disengage Scale. What do your results reveal about your tendency to excuse your unethical behavior? What steps can you take to avoid this form of faulty thinking?

5. Analyze a time when you cast a shadow as a leader. Which of the shadow casters led to your unethical behavior? Write up your analysis.

6. Rate your ethical development based on your past experience and education. Where would you place yourself on the continuum between novice and expert? What in your background contributes to your rating?

7. How much responsibility do followers have for supporting destructive leaders? Are they more likely to morally disengage than leaders? Discuss with a partner.

8. Does your employer pressure you to abandon your personal moral code of ethics? If so, how? What can you do to resist such pressure?

9. Create a plan for becoming more of an ethical expert. Be sure that it incorporates assessment, challenge, and support. Revisit your plan at the end of the course to determine how effective it has been.

Student Study Site

Visit the student study site at https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE journal articles for further research and information on key chapter topics.

https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

173

Case Study 2.1 Hubris and Greed at The Firm McKinsey & Company is the world’s most prestigious and influential consulting business. McKinsey consultants (called partners) offer advice to many of the world’s largest corporations, including General Motors, General Electric, and Allstate, and such public-sector clients as the U.S. Department of Defense and the British Department of Health. McKinsey is credited with being the driving force behind such modern management trends as strategic planning, downsizing, cost cutting, multidivisional management structure, and high CEO salaries. According to author Duff McDonald, who chronicled McKinsey’s history, “So pervasive is the firm’s influence today that it is hard to imagine the place of business in the world without McKinsey.”1 Its alumni have served as CEOs or high-level executives at Google, American Express, PepsiCo, Boeing, Sears, and AT&T. According to a USA Today survey, McKinsey is the best place to work if you want to become the CEO of a major corporation. (The odds are 1 out of 690.) In Search of Excellence, The War for Talent and other best-selling business books were authored by McKinsey partners.

Company employees and alumni take great pride in their association with McKinsey. They refer to McKinsey, not by name, but as “The Firm.” The Firm claims to hire only the best and brightest, many of them Harvard MBAs, who must undergo a rigorous “up or out” yearly review. (One fifth of newcomers fail and are released every year.) One senior partner called the company’s consultants “the greatest collection of talent the world has ever seen.”2 Convinced of its superior talent and services, McKinsey charges more than other consulting companies. It rarely admits failure, putting the blame, instead, on clients. Said another partner, “It’s almost never that we fail because we come up with the wrong answer. We fail because we don’t properly bring along management.”3 Apparently businesses and governments believe that McKinsey’s advice is worth the premium price even though McKinsey has been behind many of the “most spectacular corporate and financial debacles of recent decades.”4 It told AT&T that mobile phones had little future, for example, pushed for the failed merger of AOL and Time Warner, and encouraged banks to make risky loans (which contributed to the global recession of 2008). Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling was a former McKinsey partner who hired The Firm to carry out a number of projects at the energy company.

Marvin Bower established the company’s values in the 1930s. His rules included these: Put clients before profits, maintain client confidentiality, tell

174

the truth even if it offends the client, and only do necessary work that the firm can do well. However, his successors as managing partner (CEO) often put more emphasis on making money, sometimes at the expense of clients. Between 1994 and 2003, for example, managing partner Rajat Gupta focused on expansion and cost cutting. He ended “money wasting research” and pushed consultants to avoid projects worth less than $1 million. Later managing partners tried to reemphasize corporate values but the damage was done. In 2009, former McKinsey director Anil Kumar was convicted of supplying inside information to a hedge fund manager in return for pay offs. In 2011, Rajat Gupta (after he left the firm) was convicted of leaking information he obtained while serving on the boards of Goldman Sachs and Procter & Gamble.

McKinsey employees and alumni, while shocked at how Kumar and Gupta violated client confidentiality, could console themselves that both men acted on their own and not on behalf of the firm. That was not the case when the company decided to do business with the government of South Africa. McKinsey entered into an agreement with the nation’s underperforming electricity supplier, Eskom. Needing a local partner to secure the contracts, McKinsey worked with Trillian, a consulting firm connected to the powerful Gupta family. In addition, the fee structure, rather than a set amount, was to be based on results, which would potentially generate higher profits but could mean no payout if the firm failed.

The South African partnership and fee structure soon embroiled McKinsey in the greatest crisis in its history, one that eclipsed the insider trading scandal. The Guptas are accused of using their connections to South Africa’s former president Jacob Zuma and his son to secure political appointments and contracts. Critics claim the Gupta family has engaged in “state capture”—taking over South Africa’s economy and government for their personal benefit. Some of the money paid to Trillian allegedly went to bribe government officials and to line the pockets of the Guptas. The contract was never approved by the South African government. South Africans—many of them impoverished—were outraged at the fee ($117 million) collected by McKinsey from Eskom. The financial condition of the electric company worsened after McKinsey was hired and the price of electricity went up.

McKinsey’s leaders ignored a number of warning signs when deciding to enter the South African market. Some partners objected to the contract with Eskom, noting the country’s corruption and that the contract was awarded without competitive bidding. They worried that Eskom was so troubled that it couldn’t be fixed. Said one former partner who objected to the deal, “Trying to a 100 percent at-risk contract at Eskom is trying to play God. You are really guaranteeing that I can turn around everything,

175

no problem.”5 Another warned that the South African office would be “slaughtered” for the size of the contract. However, the firm decided to go forward, apparently driven in large part by hubris and greed. South African staff overestimated their knowledge of the local political situation and their ability to turn Eskom around. The partners in charge of energy projects for McKinsey apparently couldn’t resist a contract that had the potential to be the biggest ever in Africa. According to David Lewis, director of the South African nonprofit Corruption Watch, “For the scale of the fee, they were prepared to throw caution to the wind, and maybe because they thought they couldn’t be touched.”6

The scandal seriously damaged the firm’s reputation. It also lost a number of South African clients, including Coca Cola and petrochemical company Sasol Ltd. Social activists picketed McKinsey and the company was pilloried on social media. Current managing partner Kevin Sneader acknowledges that the trust of South Africans in McKinsey is “understandably, very low.”7 He pledged to address mistakes, including the failure of the firm’s governance structure. He also admitted that the company had failed to improve Eskom and that the fee was too large. Sneader further noted that McKinsey was “too distant to understand the growing anger in South Africa” over state corruption.8 He appointed a new director of the Africa division and replaced much of its staff. McKinsey repaid the 11.7 million it charged Eskom. However, these steps may not be enough to satisfy South Africans. South African parliamentary leaders filed fraud and racketeering charges and urged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Britain’s Serious Fraud Office to investigate. Corruption Watch’s Lewis echoed the thoughts of many South African critics when he declared, “We will not be satisfied with anything other than criminal convictions.”9

176

Discussion Probes 1. When does healthy pride become hubris? How can you tell the

difference? 2. What steps should leaders take to make sure that profit doesn’t

become more important than values? 3. How can leaders and organizations keep from becoming

overconfident? 4. Given South Africa’s widespread poverty, was McKinsey’s fee

unethical? 5. What can other leaders and organizations learn from the experience

of The Firm?

177

Notes 1. McDonald, D. (2013). The firm: The story of McKinsey and its secret influence on American business. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster.

2. Chu, B. (2014, February 7). McKinsey: How does it always get away with it? The Independent.

3. Chu.

4. Chu.

5. Bogdanich, W., & Forsythe, M. (2018, June 26). How McKinsey lost its way in South Africa. The New York Times.

6. Bogdanich & Forsythe.

7. Bogdanich & Forsythe.

8. Burkhardt, P. (2018, July 9). McKinsey apologizes for overcharging South African power utility. Bloomberg.

9. Brock, J. (2018, July 9). McKinsey overhauls South Africa office after graft scandal. Reuters.

178

Sources Burkhardt, P., & Bonorchis, R. (2017, September 14). McKinsey and KPMG targeted in South Africa graft scandal. Bloomberg.

Lewis, A. (2013, September 25). Is consulting giant McKinsey evil? MarketWatch.

Riley, C. (2017, September 19). McKinsey drawn into South Africa’s sprawling corruption scandal. CNNMoney.

Why McKinsey is under attack in South Africa (2017, October 12). The Economist.

179

Case Study 2.2 Wrecking the Rec Center Strong Lives, a regional nonprofit, operates the recreation center for the Minnesota town of Forest Lake. The city subsidizes the center’s operation and residents who join pay a membership fee. The facility houses cardio and weight equipment, a swimming pool and teen center, exercise classrooms, and a large community room. Low income residents pay less for their memberships, which are subsidized through donations. Those with physical and mental disabilities use the equipment weekly. Members can take a variety of exercise and health classes and a number of community groups (Alcoholics Anonymous, ALANON, book clubs, job- seeker groups, mental health support groups, seniors) make regular use of the large meeting room. A survey found strong support for the recreation center, with 80% of the town’s residents approving of current operations.

When Strong Lives’ 20-year contract with Forest Lake came up for renewal, the mayor and several city council members objected to continuing the partnership. They claimed that too much of the money paid by the city went to support Strong Lives operations in other towns. They argued that the town could reduce its costs by contracting with a private health club like Planet Fitness or Gold’s Gym. The council then solicited bids for the new contract. The winning (lowest) bid came from Northern Healthy, which operates a network of private health clubs in the upper Midwest. Strong Lives came in second. In order to operate at reduced cost, Northern Healthy would eliminate programs for special needs and low income residents and would convert the community room into additional work out space. Membership rates would increase. Most of the current employees would be replaced and new ones hired at reduced salaries.

Reaction to the council’s decision was fast and furious. Opponents bombarded council members with e-mails not only protesting the membership fee increase but pointing out that the recreation center was really a community activity center and that service to the needy would end if Northern Healthy took over operations. The council held firm, however, defending its decision based on the potential cost savings. Frustrated with the mayor and those who voted for the new contract, the opposition launched a successful recall drive. The mayor and her supporters were removed from office. The new mayor and replacement council members cancelled the contract with Northern Healthy and renewed the agreement with Strong Lives.

180

Discussion Probes 1. What are the ethical considerations in this situation? 2. How did the mental script of the mayor and council members

prevent them from understanding the moral elements of this situation?

3. How is the decision of the council an example of failed moral imagination?

4. What solutions might have addressed the concerns of the council without cancelling the current contract?

181

Case Study 2.3 Brands in Space Corporate names are emblazoned on everything from park benches, water towers, and race cars to football stadiums and basketball arenas. Soon company logos may also appear on the side of rocket ships, space shuttles, and the International Space Station. Imagine the next Mars rover as the Michelin Tire Trailblazer with the Michelin Man painted on its side, for example, or the Nike swoosh adorning a rocket on the launch pad.1

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is considering selling naming rights to spacecraft, renting space on the International Space Station, and allowing astronauts to appear in commercials. NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine formed an advisory committee to explore the possibility of boosting the NASA brand through corporate sponsorships. Bridenstine hopes to raise money for his agency. Bridenstine also hopes to raise the visibility of NASA and to make space activities a more important part of American culture. He believes that promoting astronauts, such as putting them on the covers of cereal boxes, would give them celebrity status: “I’d like to see kids growing up, instead of maybe wanting to be like a professional sports star, I’d like to see them grow up wanting to a NASA astronaut, or a NASA scientist.”2 Astronauts earning endorsement money would be less likely to leave for private space companies like SpaceX and Boeing after the public has spent millions training them.

Selling naming rights would mark a major shift for NASA. Up to this point, the agency has resisted endorsing any product or company. For example, the M&Ms that astronauts eat in space are called “candy covered chocolates.” Current ethics rules prevent government officials, including astronauts, from using their offices for private gain. Astronauts are even forbidden from carrying out experiments that might have commercial applications. NASA allows Target, Old Navy, and other retailers to use its logo on T-shirts, hats, wallets, backpacks, and other items but makes no money off these sales. If the agency changes its policy, it wouldn’t be the first to commercialize space. Pizza Hut paid $1 million to put its logo on a Russian rocket and two Russian cosmonauts appeared on QVC to endorse a pen they used to write when weightless. A Canadian astronaut sang David Bowie’s song “Space Oddity” while on the space station and then sold the recording after returning to earth.

Critics of commercialization note that selling endorsement rights might not make a big dent in NASA’s budget because the costs of individual projects can run billions of dollars. Without an act of Congress, any

182

money collected would go into the treasury, not to the agency, to pay for other government programs. Congress might cut back on funding if it thinks NASA has income from private sources. Observers worry that astronauts receiving money from corporations would have to decide between their loyalty to a company and loyalty to public service.

Selling naming rights in space could backfire since NASA is seen as “refuge” from commercialization. According to space historian Robert Pearlman, “Spaceflight has fostered the idea of space being something of a pristine atmosphere. We leave our problems behind and for some people, branding has gone overboard here on Earth.”3 Congressional representatives may object to additional commercial ties. In response to a 1993 proposal to put a billboard in space, then Congressman (now Senator) Ed Markey quipped,

Every sunrise and sunset would beam down the logo of Coke or GM or the Marlboro Man. That would turn our morning and evening skies, often a source of inspiration and comfort, into the moral equivalent of the side of a bus.4

183

Discussion Probes 1. Should astronauts be able to make commercial deals? 2. Will additional commercial ties boost or hurt the NASA brand? 3. Do the benefits of commercial ties in space outweigh the costs? 4. If you were on the advisory council, would you support or oppose

naming spacecraft and permitting product sponsorships? Would you limit what could be advertised?

5. Are there some things and events that should never be commercialized? Why?

184

Notes 1. Grush, L. (2018, September 11). Product placement may help power NASA’s next big space mission. The Verge.

2. Davenport, C. (2018, September 10). Why NASA’s rockets next rockets may say Budweiser on the side. The Washington Post.

3. Grush.

4. Davenport.

185

Sources Boyle, A. (2018, August 30). Commercial branding on spacecraft? Five key points in NASA’s evolving space vision. GeekWire.

Chang, K. (2018, September 12). (Corporate name here) Rocket? NASA asks if branding is possible. The New York Times.

Day, D. A. (2018, August 6). NASA as a brand. The Space Review.

Riley-Smith, B. (2018, September 11). To boldly brand: Nasa may sell naming rights for spaceships. The Telegraph.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.1 Narcissistic Leader Scale

Instructions: Think about one of your leaders who is causing you unhappiness and stress. To determine if this person may be demonstrating narcissistic tendencies, answer each of the following questions.

1. Do you often feel that you only exist for the purpose of listening to or admiring your boss’s extraordinary skills and talents?

2. Are you easily irritated or hurt when you do not receive a turn? 3. Do you feel as if your boss maintains too serious a level of

pride? Do you feel hesitant to give your opinion when you know your opinion will be different from hers or his?

4. Do you frequently feel that the outcome of your conversation rests solely on her or his current mood?

5. Do you feel as if your boss controls you? 6. Do you fear that you will anger her or him, face retaliation from

her or him, or be cut off by her or him? 7. Do you struggle to say no? 8. Does the relationship drain you or are you worried that it is

going to drain your energy? 9. Do you feel lonely in your work relationship with this person?

10. Do you ponder where you stand with regard to your working relationship with him or her?

11. Do you notice yourself doubting what’s real? 12. Do you frequently feel frustrated, angry, or resentful after

communicating with this person? 13. Do you increasingly experience a mix of feelings, such as

anxiety, intimidation, powerlessness, or inadequacy? 14. Do you feel set up as a scapegoat?

186

Scoring: If you are experiencing several of the feelings described above, you may be dealing with a leader who has narcissist traits. You can also use this scale to evaluate the possible narcissistic behaviors of a coworker by substituting “colleague” for “boss.”

Source: Germain, N.-L. (2018). Narcissism at work: Personality disorders of corporate leaders. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 89. Used by permission.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.2 Propensity to Morally Disengage Scale

Instructions: Respond to each item below on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1. It is okay to spread rumors to defend those you care about. 2. Taking something without the owner’s permission is okay as

long as you’re just borrowing it. 3. Considering the ways people grossly misrepresent themselves,

it’s hardly a sin to inflate your own credentials a bit. 4. People shouldn’t be held accountable for doing questionable

things when they were just doing what an authority figure told them to do.

5. People can’t be blamed for doing things that are technically wrong when all their friends are doing it too.

6. Taking personal credit for ideas that were not your own is no big deal.

7. Some people have to be treated roughly because they lack feelings that can be hurt.

8. People who get mistreated have usually done something to bring it on themselves.

Scoring: Add up your scores on the eight scale items. Possible total score ranges from 8 to 56. The higher the score, the greater your propensity for or likelihood of participating in the process of moral disengagement.

Source: Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1– 48. Used with permission.

187

Notes 1. Palmer, P. (1996). Leading from within. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant- leadership (pp. 197–208). New York, NY: Wiley.

2. Stone, B. (2013). The everything store: Jeff Bezos and the age of Amazon. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.

3. Palmer, p. 205.

4. Garvin, D. A. (1993, July/August). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 78–91.

5. Whicker, M. L. (1996). Toxic: leaders: When organizations go bad. Westport, CT: Quorum.

6. Nash, L. L. (1990). Good intentions aside: A manager’s guide to resolving ethical problems. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

7. Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39, 1308–1338.

8. Ludwig, D. C., & Longenecker, C. O. (1993). The Bathsheba syndrome: The ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 265–273.

9. Petit, V., & Bollaert, H. (2012). Flying too close to the sun? Hubris among CEOs and how to prevent it. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 265–283.

10. Pulley, B. (2005, October 17). Last days of the lion king. Forbes.

11. McManus, J. (2018). Hubris and unethical decision making: The tragedy of the uncommon. Journal of Business Ethics, 149,169–185.

188

12. Michaelson, A. (2009). The foreclosure of America: The inside story of the rise and fall of Countrywide Home Loans, the mortgage crisis, and the default of the American dream. New York, NY: Berkley Books; Wilmers, R. G. (2009, July 27). Where the crisis came from. The Washington Post, p. A19.

13. O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579; Paulus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563; Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10-year review. Social and Personality Compass 7, 199–216; Furtner, M. R., Maran, T., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2017). Dark leadership: The role of leaders’ dark triad personality traits. In M.G. Clark & C.W. Gruber (eds.), Leader development deconstructed (pp. 75–99). New York, NY: Springer.

14. Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1663–1676; Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary communication qualities as mediators of the relationship between narcissism and attributions of leader charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63, 509–537; Grijalva, E., & Harms, P. D. (2014). Narcissism: An integrative synthesis and dominance complementarity model. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 108–127; Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68, 1–147.

15. Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 268–284; Higgs, M. (2009). The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism. Journal of Change Management, 9, 165–178; Lubit, R. (2002). The long-term organizational impact of destructively narcissistic managers. Academy of Management Executive, 18,

189

127–183; Maccoby, M. (2003). The productive narcissist. New York, NY: Broadway Books; McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (2010). The corporate reflecting pool: Antecedents and consequences of narcissism in executives. In B. Schyns & T. Hansbrough (Eds.), When leadership goes wrong: Destructive leadership, mistakes, and ethical failures (pp. 247–284). Charlotte, NC: Information Age; Germain, M.-L. (2018). Narcissism at work: Personality disorders of corporate leaders. Lindon, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

16. Buser, S., & Cruz, L. (2017). A clear and present danger: Narcissism in the era of President Trump. Asheville, NC: Chiron; Anapol, A., (2018, November 11). Trump gives himself an A+ on presidency: “Can I go higher than that?” HillTV; Nutt, A. E. (2016, July 22). Is Donald Trump a textbook narcissist? The Washington Post.

17. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.

18. Becker, J. A. H., & O’Hair, H. D. (2007). Machiavellians’ motives in organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 246–267; Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., Nelson, C. E., & Penney, L. M. (2010). Re-examining Machiavelli: A three-dimensional model of Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1868–1896.

19. Boddy, C. R. (2006). The dark side of management decisions: Organizational psychopaths. Management Decision, 44(10), 1461 –1475; Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective well-being and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 107–121; Boddy, C. R. (2015). Organisational psychopaths: A ten-year update. Management Decision, 53, 2407–2432; Boddy, C. R., Ladyshewsky, R., & Galvin, P. (2010). Leaders without ethics in global business: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs, 10, 121–138.

20. Boddy, C. R. (2011). Corporate psychopaths: Organisational destroyers. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

190

21. Jourdan, G. (1998). Indirect causes and effects in policy change: The Brent Spar case. Public Administration, 76, 713–770; Zyglidopoulus, S. C. (2002). The social and environmental responsibilities of multinationals: Evidence from the Brent Spar case. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 141–151.

22. Messick, D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996, Winter). Ethical leadership and the psychology of decision making. Sloan Management Review, 37(2), 9–23.

23. Price, T. L. (2006). Understanding ethical failures in leadership. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. See also De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 553–563.

24. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Smart people are not stupid, but they sure can be foolish. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Why smart people can be so stupid (pp. 232–242). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

25. See Caldwell, D. F., & Moberg, D. (2007). An exploratory investigation of the effect of ethical culture in activating moral imagination. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 193–204; Godwin, L. N. (2015). Examining the impact of moral imagination on organizational decision making. Business & Society, 54, 254–278; Guroian, V. (1996). Awakening the moral imagination. Intercollegiate Review, 32, 3–13; Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; Kekes, J. (1991). Moral imagination, freedom, and the humanities. American Philosophical Quarterly, 28, 101–111; Tivnan, E. (1995). The moral imagination. New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.

26. Useem, M. (1998). The leadership moment: Nine stories of triumph and disaster and their lessons for us all. New York, NY: Times Books; Werhane, P. H. (1999). Moral imagination and management decision-making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

191

27. Gioia, D. A. (1992). Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 379–389.

28. Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101– 119, p. 103.

29. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209; Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374.

30. Korosec, K. (2015, August 24). Ten times more deaths linked to faulty switch than GM first reported. Fortune.com.

31. Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli; Barsky, A. (2011). Investigating the effects of moral disengagement and participation on unethical work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 59–75; Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2007). Development and validation of the Moral Disengagement in Sport Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 608–628; Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2008). The Moral Disengagement in Sport Scale—Short. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 1507–1517; Hartmann, T. (2012). Moral disengagement during exposure to media violence. In R. Tamborini (Ed.), Media and the moral mind (pp. 241–287). Hoboken, NJ: Ewell; P. J., Guadagno, R. E., Jones, M., & Dunn, R. A. (2016). Good person or bad character? Personality predictors of morality and ethics in avatar selection for video game play. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 19, 435– 440; Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1–48; Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moral disengagement among bystanders to school bullying. Journal of School Violence, 10, 239–257; Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moral disengagement in self-reported and peer-nominated school

192

bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 133–134; Renati, R., Berrone, C., & Zanetti, M. A. (2012). Morally disengaged and unempathetic: Do cyberbullies fit these definitions? An exploratory study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 391–398; Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Dishonest deed, clear conscience: Self-preservation through moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Harvard Business School Working Paper 09-078.

32. Mitchell, M. S., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). The managerial relevance of ethical efficacy. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality (pp. 9–108). New York, NY: Routledge.

33. Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; Harvey, J. B. (1988). The Abilene paradox and other meditations on management. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

34. Hakim, D., & Ewing, J. (2015, October 2). In the driver’s seat. The New York Times, p. B1.

35. Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W. (2012). The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 897–917.

36. McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2010). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, p. 4.

37. Petrick, J. A. (2008). Using the business integrity capacity model to advance business ethics education. In D. L. Swanson & D. G. Fisher (Eds.), Advancing business ethics education (pp. 103 –124). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

38. Cooper, T. L., & Menzel, D. C. (2013). In pursuit of ethical competence. In T. L. Cooper & D. D. Menzel (Eds.), Achieving ethical competence for public service leadership (pp. 3–24). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe; Menzel, D. C. (2010). Ethics moments in government: Cases and controversies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

193

39. Meine, M. F., & Dunn, T. P. (2013) The search for ethical competency: Do ethics codes matter? Public Integrity, 15, 149– 166.

40. Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2005). The psychological foundations of everyday morality and moral expertise. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Character psychology and character education (pp. 140–165). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

41. Narvaez & Lapsley, p. 151.

194

195

Part II Looking Inward

Chapter 3. The Leader’s Character 70 Chapter 4. Combating Evil 108

196

197

3 The Leader’s Character

198

Learning Objectives > Define virtues from a philosophical and psychological perspective. > Argue for the importance of each of the nine ethical leadership virtues. > Contrast the two approaches to moral identity. > Demonstrate how character is caught through observing role models. > Describe how stories foster character development. > Analyze the role of hardship in developing character. > Name the seven habits that build character. > Argue for the importance of both personal mission and values to character development.

The course of any society is largely determined by the quality of its moral leadership.

—PSYCHOLOGISTS ANNE COLBY AND WILLIAM DAMON

We are moral beings because we have no choice—our survival and our success as social beings depends on virtue.

—POLITICAL SCIENTIST MICHAEL IGNATIEFF

199

What’s Ahead This chapter addresses the inner dimension of leadership ethics. To shed light rather than shadow, we need to develop a strong, ethical character (a well-developed moral identity) made up of positive traits or virtues. We promote our character development directly by addressing individual virtues or indirectly by finding role models, telling and living collective stories, learning from hardship, establishing effective habits, determining a clear sense of direction, and examining our values.

200

Elements of Character In football, the best defense is often a good offense. When faced with high-scoring opponents, coaches often design offensive game plans that run as much time as possible off the clock. If they’re successful, they can rest their defensive players while keeping the opposing team’s offensive unit on the sidelines. By building strong, ethical character, we take a similar proactive approach to dealing with our shadow sides. To keep from projecting our internal enemies and selfishness on others, we need to go on the offensive, replacing or managing our unhealthy motivations through the development of positive leadership traits or qualities called virtues.

Interest in virtue ethics, in both Eastern and Western thought, dates back to ancient times. The Chinese philosopher Confucius (551–479 BCE) emphasized that virtues are critical for maintaining relationships and for fulfilling organizational and familial duties.1 The most important Confucian virtue is benevolence—treating others with respect and promoting their development. Other key Confucian virtues are kindness, trust, honesty, and tolerance. In the West, Greek philosopher Aristotle (383–322 BCE) argued that ethical decisions are the product of individual character. In other words, good people—those of high moral character—make good moral choices. Aristotle distinguished between intellectual virtues (prudence and wisdom that provide us with insight) and moral virtues (courage, generosity, justice, wisdom). The exercise of virtues enables us to flourish, to live the best life possible. We are happiest when living well—effectively using our capacities to achieve our purpose as humans.2

Despite its longevity, virtue ethics has not always been popular among scholars. They turned instead to the ethical theories we’ll address in detail in Chapter 5. Only in recent times have modern philosophers turned back to the virtue approach in significant numbers, attracted in part by its usefulness in everyday life. We must make a lot of ethical decisions on the spot, with no time to

201

apply detailed ethical guidelines or rules.3 For example, when a follower tells a sexist or racist joke, do we confront the joker? When a fellow student thinks she made a great presentation (but didn’t) and asks us for confirmation, do we tell the truth or lie to protect her feelings? When a foreign official approaches us for a bribe, do we pay or not? We will respond in a more ethical manner if our character is marked by integrity, courage, and other virtues.

From a philosophical perspective, virtues have four important features. First, they are not easily developed or discarded but persist over time. Second, virtues shape the way leaders see and behave. Being virtuous makes leaders sensitive to ethical issues and encourages them to act morally. Third, once developed, virtues are less influenced by the situation. A virtue may be expressed in different ways, depending on the context (what is prudent in one situation may not be in the next). Yet virtuous leaders will not abandon their principles to please followers. Fourth, virtues help leaders live better (more satisfying, more fulfilled) lives.4

Positive psychologists, like philosophers, are also interested in virtue ethics. Positive psychology is based on the premise that it is better to identify and promote the strengths of individuals instead of repairing their weaknesses (which is the approach of traditional psychologists).5 Proponents of positive psychology treat virtues as morally valued personality traits. Under this definition, extraversion would not be considered a virtue because, though a personality trait, it is not considered ethically desirable or undesirable. Wisdom, on the other hand, would be considered a virtue because it is widely recognized and honored across cultures. Positive psychologists identify six broad categories of character strengths:6

Wisdom and knowledge—cognitive strengths entailing the acquisition and use of knowledge Courage—an emotional strength involving the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external or internal Humanity—an interpersonal strength that involve tending to and befriending others

202

Justice—a civic strength underlying healthy community life Temperance—a strength protecting against excess Transcendence—a strength that forges connections to the larger universe and provides meaning

Some of the virtues identified by philosophers and psychologists appear to have particular significance for leaders. For that reason, I’ll discuss these character strengths—courage, grit, temperance, wisdom, justice, optimism, integrity, humility, and compassion—in the pages to follow. In addition to describing each virtue and its importance to leaders, I’ll suggest ways to practice that strength in order to develop it.

203

Courage

Courage is being scared to death—and saddling up anyway.

—Cowboy actor John Wayne

Courage is overcoming fear in order to do the right thing.7 Courageous leaders acknowledge the dangers they face and their anxieties. Nonetheless, they move forward despite the risks and costs. The same is true for courageous followers—see Focus on Follower Ethics: Courageous Followership below. Courage is most often associated with acts of physical bravery and heroism, such as saving a comrade in battle or rescuing a drowning victim. Nevertheless, most courageous acts involve other forms of danger, such as when a school principal faces the wrath of parents for suspending the basketball team’s leading scorer before the state tournament or when a manager confronts his boss about unauthorized spending even though he could lose his job for speaking up. Such acts demonstrate moral courage, which involves living out one’s personal values even when the price for doing so may be high.8 The #MeToo movement, which encourages women to share their stories of sexual harassment, misconduct, and violence, was started by courageous individuals who refused to keep silent about their experiences. Time magazine named Ashley Judd, Susan Fowler, Taylor Swift, Rose McGowan and other “silence breakers” as its 2017 Person of the Year. To speak up, these brave women (and men) from all walks of life—actors, engineers, military personnel, hotel housekeepers, entrepreneurs, journalists—had to overcome feelings of shame, risk their jobs and careers, and endure physical threats and intimidation. (The Harvey Weinstein case in Chapter 1 illustrates how powerful sexual predators silence their victims.) Millions around the world have used the #MeToo hashtag. According to Time’s editor-in-chief, “It became a hash tag, a movement, a reckoning, but it began, as great social change nearly always does, with individual acts of courage.”9

204

Courage can also encourage us to endure in the face of hardship, such a physical disability or an economic setback. Ulysses S. Grant demonstrated courageous fortitude as he faced death.10 To lift his family out of bankruptcy, Grant set out to write his memoirs. However, shortly after starting the project, he was diagnosed with an inoperable throat tumor. Grant refused to rest but continued writing as his condition worsened. Speaking and eating were extremely painful and he constantly coughed and vomited. The former president completed the book nine days before he died. Not only did the two-volume Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant restore the family fortune, but the work was also praised as an important historical record.

Focus on Follower Ethics Courageous Followership

Ira Chaleff, who acts as a management consultant to Congressional offices, government agencies, and companies, believes that courage is the most important virtue for followers. Exhibiting courage is easier for followers if they recognize that their ultimate allegiance is to the purpose and values of the organization, not to the leader. Chaleff outlines five dimensions of courageous followership that equip subordinates to meet the challenges of their role:

The Courage to Assume Responsibility. Followers must be accountable both for themselves and for the organization as a whole. Courageous followers take stock of their skills and attitudes, consider how willing they are to support and challenge their leaders, manage themselves, seek feedback and personal growth, take care of themselves, and care passionately about the organization’s goals. They take initiative to change organizational culture by challenging rules and mindsets and by improving processes.

The Courage to Serve. Courageous followers support their leaders through hard, often unglamorous work. This labor takes a variety of forms, such as helping leaders conserve their energies for their most significant tasks, organizing communication to and from leaders, controlling access to leaders, shaping leaders’ public images, presenting leaders with options during decision making, preparing for crises, mediating conflicts between leaders, and promoting performance reviews for leaders.

The Courage to Challenge. Inappropriate behavior damages the relationship between leaders and followers and threatens the purpose of the organization. Leaders may break the law, scream at

205

or use demeaning language with employees, display an arrogant attitude, engage in sexual harassment, abuse drugs and alcohol, and misuse funds. Courageous followers need to confront leaders who act in a destructive manner. In some situations, just asking questions about the wisdom of a policy decision is sufficient to bring about change. In more extreme cases, followers may need to disobey unethical orders.

The Courage to Participate in Transformation. Negative behavior, when unchecked, often results in a leader’s destruction. Leaders who act destructively may deny that they need to change, or they may attempt to justify their behavior. They may claim that whatever they do for themselves (e.g., embezzling, enriching themselves at the expense of stockholders) ultimately benefits the organization. To succeed in modifying their behavior patterns, leaders must admit they have a problem and acknowledge that they should change. They need to take personal responsibility and visualize the outcomes of the transformation: better health, more productive employees, higher self-esteem, restored relationships. Followers can aid in the process of transformation by drawing attention to what needs to be changed; suggesting resources, including outside facilitators; creating a supportive environment; modeling openness to change and empathy; helping contain abusive behavior; and providing positive reinforcement for positive new behaviors.

The Courage to Leave. When leaders are unwilling to change, courageous followers may take principled action by resigning from the organization. Departure is justified when a leader’s behaviors clash with his or her self-proclaimed values or the values of the group or when the leader degrades or endangers others. Sometimes leaving is not enough. In the event of serious ethical violations, followers must bring the leader’s misbehavior to the attention of the public by going to the authorities or the press.

Source: Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

People must have courage if they are to function as ethical leaders. Ethical leaders recognize that moral action is risky but continue to model ethical behavior despite the danger. They refuse to set their values aside to go along with the group, to keep silent when customers may be hurt, or to lie to investors. They strive to create ethical environments even when faced with opposition from their superiors and subordinates. They continue to carry out the organization’s mission even in the face of dangers

206

and uncertainty. They are also willing blow the whistle—to go outside the organization to bring misbehavior to the attention of the public and government officials.

Practicing Courage11

Identify times when you did and did not demonstrate courage and what you learned from those experiences Gradually build up your courage by tackling low-level challenges and then moving on to more difficult ones. Train in advance for high-threat situations. Seek out courageous mentors.

207

Grit

I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men [women] did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think this is an eminently important difference.

—Charles Darwin

Grit describes the motivation to pursue long-term goals with sustained effort. Gritty individuals keep working while others lose interest due to disappointment or boredom. Grit has two facets: perseverance and passion. The gritty person sees achievement as a marathon, not a sprint. She or he has zeal for the task, which produces a high level of engagement in the work.12

When it comes to success, grit is more important than talent. Talent leads to faster skill improvement but there is no improvement without practice. The skills developed through effort must be applied through additional sustained effort in order to produce achievement. Grit has been linked to a variety of positive outcomes, including, for example, higher grade point averages among Ivy League undergraduates, higher retention at the U.S. military academy, and higher ranking at the National Spelling Bee. (Complete Self-Assessment 3.1 to measure your level of grittiness.)

Grit is important for leaders who often direct groups pursuing worthy long-term goals. They keep the group on track in the face of adversity, serving as role models for followers. William Wilberforce, for example, worked for 40 years to abolish slavery in Britain. He had to overcome resistance from powerful economic interests and political opposition as well as public apathy and ridicule. Raphael Lemkin spent much of the first half of the 20th century trying to criminalize mass murder targeting ethnic, religious and national groups. The League of Nations and other authorities rejected his arguments prior to World War II, believing

208

that national sovereignty prevented other countries from intervening when governments killed groups of their own citizens. Lemkin eventually prevailed. Not only did he introduce the term genocide, he convinced the United Nations to adopt the Genocide Convention resolution in 1948. This resolution made genocide a crime punishable under international law.13

Practicing Grit Pursue a worthy purpose. Follow your interests. Don’t give up but put more effort into difficult tasks. Engage in sustained practice. Treat adversity and failure as learning opportunities. Respond to initial failure with greater effort. Work with others who share the same goals.

209

Temperance

To use things, therefore, and take pleasure in them as far as possible—not, of course, to the point where we are disgusted with them, for there is no pleasure in that—this is the part of a wise man[woman].

—Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza

Moderation is key to practicing temperance, which is the ability to control emotions and pleasure.14 The temperate person can remain calm despite provocation. She or he takes the middle ground between self-disgust/self-denial and self-indulgence. That means enjoying life’s pleasures but not being controlled by them —for example, enjoying food without falling into gluttony, drinking but not becoming addicted to alcohol, enjoying sex without becoming trapped by desire. Temperance also means knowing one’s limits and living within one’s means.

Unfortunately, a great many leaders are intemperate. They are unable to control their anger and rail at subordinates, appear to have an insatiable desire for money and power, and fall victim to their need for pleasure. French economist Dominique Strauss Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund, lost his job and his marriage because he was unable to control his sexual urges, participating in a series of upscale sex parties. Intemperate leaders may overreach by trying to know and control all that goes on in their organizations. They also set unrealistically high goals for themselves and their followers and fail to live within their budgets, no matter how inflated their salaries. Carlos Ghosn, who made $17 million a year as head of the car-making alliance of Nissan, Renault, and Mitsubishi, is charged with misusing company funds. He allegedly spent Renault’s money to pay for his wife’s Marie Antoinette–themed birthday party at France’s Palace of Versailles.

Practicing Temperance

210

Acknowledge your destructive impulses—anger, impatience, greed, jealousy—and the dangers they pose. Be alert to “hot buttons” that can cause you to lose control, such as time pressures, irritating coworkers, and criticism. Base decisions on your values and life purpose, not on fleeting feelings. Identify an emotion you would like to restrain or express more effectively. Develop a strategy for doing so. Don’t obsess over the bad behavior or mistakes of others. Identify your limits—financial, time, pleasure—and live within those constraints.

211

Wisdom and Prudence (Practical Wisdom)

The Doors of Wisdom are never shut.

—American founding father Benjamin Franklin

Wisdom draws upon knowledge and experience to promote the common good over both the short term and the long term. This virtue is particularly important to leaders, who make decisions that determine the collective fate of their groups and organizations. Wise organizational leaders engage in six practices.15 First, they are skilled at thinking. They are smart, drawing from a broad base of knowledge to engage in complex decision making. Second, wise leaders demonstrate high emotional capacity. They are empathetic and sensitive, recognizing differences and respecting them. Third, wise leaders are highly collaborative. These individuals work well with others and seek their benefit. Fourth, wise leaders are engaged with their organizations and their worlds. They are proactive, constantly experimenting, forming networks, and adapting to changing circumstances. Fifth, wise leaders are reflective, demonstrating depth. They are keenly aware of their values, needs, and emotions and have a sound sense of self. Sixth, wise leaders are aspiring. Well intentioned, they pursue principled objectives and hope to make themselves their organizations and their world better places. Queen Elizabeth II is recognized as one wise world leader. The queen has served since 1952 and reflected on wisdom in her annual Christmas address. “Some cultures believe a long life brings wisdom,” said the monarch (92 at the time). “Perhaps part of that wisdom is to recognize some of life’s baffling paradoxes, such as the way human beings have a huge propensity for good and yet a capacity for evil.”16

Prudence is a form of wisdom that enables individuals to discern or select the best course of action in a given situation.17 Thomas Aquinas argued that this virtue governs the others, determining when and how the other qualities should be used. For example,

212

prudence reveals what situations call for courage or compassion and helps us determine how to act justly. Foresight and caution are important elements of practical wisdom. Prudent leaders keep in mind the long-term consequences of their choices. As a result, they are cautious, trying not to overextend themselves and their organizations or to take unnecessary risks. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett is one example of a prudent leader. Buffett, the head of Berkshire Hathaway, sticks to a basic investment strategy, searching for undervalued companies that he can hold for at least 10 years. His lifestyle is modest as well (he still lives in the home he bought for $31,500 and earns $100,000 a year). When Buffett and his wife die, 99% of their estate will go to a charitable foundation.

Practicing Wisdom and Prudence Be curious and promote curiosity in your followers. Eliminate barriers to creativity. Reflect on your life experiences. Ask more questions; give fewer answers. Adopt a collaborative leadership style. Use case studies to practice making ethical judgments; discuss them with fellow students and colleagues. Exercise caution when initiating major organizational changes. Base decisions on data. Always think long term—consider how your choices and actions will stand the test of time.

213

Justice

Justice is sweet and musical; but injustice is harsh and discordant.

—Writer Henry David Thoreau

Justice has two components. The first is a sense of obligation to the common good. The second is the fair and equal treatment of others.18 A just person feels a sense of duty and strives to do his or her part as a member of the team, whether that team is a small group, an organization, or society as a whole. A just person supports equitable rules and laws. In addition, those who are driven by justice believe that all people deserve the same rights, whatever their skills or status.

Although justice is a significant virtue for everyone, regardless of her or his role, it takes on added importance for leaders. To begin, leaders who don’t carry out their duties put the group or organization at risk. Furthermore, leaders have a moral obligation to consider the needs and interests of the entire group and to take the needs of the larger community into account. The rules and regulations they implement should be fair and should benefit everyone. In fact, employees often complain about injustice, and their performance suffers when they believe they are being treated unfairly.19 Leaders also need to guarantee to followers the same rights they enjoy. They should set personal biases aside when making choices by judging others objectively and treating them accordingly. Leaders also have a responsibility to try to correct injustice and inequality caused by others. New Jersey Senator Corey Booker is one leader who demonstrates a strong sense of duty as well as a commitment to justice. As mayor of Newark, Booker was quick to help fellow citizens. He helped shovel snow after blizzards and rescued two residents from a burning building, suffering second degree burns on his hands. As senator, Booker argues that health care is a civil right and that the criminal justice system unfairly punishes minorities. (You can

214

determine your level of courage, temperance, prudence, and justice by completing Self-Assessment 3.2.)

Practicing Justice Look for ways to go above and beyond the minimal requirements of your leader or follower role. Set up equitable hiring, promotion, and compensation processes in your organization. Make fairness a criterion for every ethical decision you make. Consider everyone (both inside and outside the group) who will be impacted by your decisions. Work to guarantee the rights of all followers; address inequalities.

215

Optimism

Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.

—Former Czech Republic president Václav Havel

Optimists expect positive outcomes in the future even if they are currently experiencing disappointments and difficulties.20 They are more confident than pessimists, who expect that things will turn out poorly. People who are hopeful about the future are more likely to persist in the face of adversity. When faced with stress and defeat, optimists acknowledge the reality of the situation and take steps to improve. Their pessimistic colleagues, on the other hand, try to escape problems through wishful thinking, distractions, and other means.

Optimism is an essential quality for leaders. As we’ll see later in the chapter, nearly every leader experiences hardships. Those who learn and grow from these experiences will develop their character and go on to greater challenges. Those who ignore unpleasant realities stunt their ethical growth and may find their careers at an end. At the same time, leaders need to help followers deal constructively with setbacks, encouraging them to persist. Followers are more likely to rally behind optimists who appear confident and outline a positive image or vision of the group’s future. Starbucks founder Howard Schultz had to balance realism and optimism when he returned as CEO of the company in 2007. Sales and quality were down and the company’s share price dropped in half. Schultz made a number of painful cuts in staff and stores but continually shared his faith that the company would rebound stronger than ever. And it did. By 2011, the number of stores had expanded, the stock reached an all-time high, and Schultz was named Fortune’s CEO of the year.21

Practicing Optimism

216

Change your thinking. Rewrite pessimistic thoughts into more optimistic ones. For example, instead of saying “I am a failure,” say, “I may have failed this time but I can practice and improve.” Set realistic goals that you can attain. Ask “What can I learn from this experience?” when facing setbacks. Limit the amount of time you spend reflecting on your failures. Welcome each day as a gift.

217

Integrity

Integrity lies at the very heart of understanding what leadership is.

—Business professors Joseph Badaracco and Richard Ellsworth

Integrity is wholeness or completeness. Leaders possessing this trait are true to themselves, reflecting consistency between what they say publicly and how they think and act privately. They live out their values and keep their promises. In other words, they practice what they preach. They are also honest in their dealings with others.22 Vanguard mutual fund founder Jack Bogle is remembered for his integrity. He set up his funds to benefit investors, not fund managers, brokerage houses, and financial advisors. Investors own his funds, which charge extremely low fees. In an industry where leaders are measured by the size of their wealth, Bogle was proud not to be a billionaire, which he would have been if his company had kept ownership of its funds. He wanted instead to ensure that those who needed the money most benefitted the most from their investments.23

Nothing undermines a leader’s moral authority more quickly than lack of integrity. Followers watch the behavior of leaders closely, and one untrustworthy act can undermine a pattern of credible behavior. Trust is broken, and cynicism spreads. In an organizational setting, common “trust busters” include inconsistent messages and behavior, inconsistent rules and procedures, blaming, dishonesty, secrecy, and unjust rewards.24 (I’ll have more to say about trust in Chapter 10.)

Practicing Integrity Make the truth a moral imperative; seek to be truthful in all situations.

218

Publicly admit your mistakes and encourage others to do the same. Imagine yourself as a person of integrity and try to behave in ways that lead to this hoped-for self. Foster trust through transparency, consistency, and concern for followers.

219

Humility

There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man. True nobility is being superior to your former self.

—Novelist Ernest Hemingway

The failure of many CEOs makes a strong argument for encouraging leaders to be humble. Take the case of Turing Pharmaceutical founder Martin Shkreli. He became known as the “bad boy” of pharmaceuticals after his company raised the price of a drug for HIV patients over 5,000%. Shkreli called congressional investigators looking into the price hike “imbeciles.” During his trial for securities fraud, he referred to federal prosecutors as “junior varsity,” calling the trial a “witch hunt” and predicting that the government would have to apologize to him after the verdict. Shrekli’s arrogance cost him dearly. He was removed as Turing CEO and convicted of lying to investors.25

Management professors J. Andrew Morris, Celeste Brotheridge, and John Urbanski believe that true humility strikes a balance between having an overly low and having an overly high opinion of the self.26 It does not consist of low self-esteem, as many people think, or of underestimating one’s abilities. Instead, humility is made up of three components. The first of these is self- awareness. A humble leader can objectively assess her or his own strengths and limitations. The second element is openness, which is a product of knowing one’s weaknesses. Possessing humility means being open to new ideas and knowledge. The third component is transcendence. Humble leaders acknowledge that there is a power greater than the self. This prevents them from developing an inflated view of their importance while increasing their appreciation for the worth and contributions of others.

Humility has a powerful impact on ethical behavior. Humble leaders are less likely to be corrupted by power, claim excessive privileges, engage in fraud, abuse followers, and pursue selfish

220

goals. They are more willing to serve others instead, putting the needs of followers first while acting as role models. Humility encourages leaders to build supportive relationships with followers that foster collaboration and trust. Because they know their limitations and are open to input, humble leaders are more willing to take advice that can keep them and their organizations out of trouble. Even the world’s largest tech companies are learning the importance of humble leadership, as Case Study 3.2 illustrates.

Despite its importance, developing humility may be harder than ever. In the past, leaders were taught to acknowledge their weaknesses and to downplay their accomplishments. For example, the first President Bush consistently took the word “I” out of his speeches. (When he didn’t, his mother would call and complain, “George, you’re talking about yourself again.”)27 Now, we live in a narcissistic era that promotes selfies, positive self- esteem, self-promotion, and self-disclosure on social media.

Practicing Humility Complete self-assessments that provide you with data about your strengths and weaknesses. Acknowledge your character flaws and address them; acknowledge your character strengths and build on them. Solicit feedback and ideas from other leaders and followers; act on that input. Serve a higher purpose or goal. Practice self-sacrifice (do the work of followers).

221

Compassion (Kindness, Generosity, Love)

All happiness in the world comes from serving others; all sorrow in the world comes from acting selfishly.

—Leadership expert Margaret Wheatley

Compassion and related concepts such as concern, care, kindness, generosity, and love all refer to an orientation that puts others ahead of the self.28 Those with compassion value others regardless of whether they get anything in return from them. Compassion is an important element of altruism, an ethical perspective addressed in more detail in Chapter 5. An orientation toward others rather than the self separates ethical leaders from their unethical colleagues.29 Ethical leaders recognize that they serve the purposes of the group. They seek power and exercise influence on behalf of followers. Further, they recognize that they have an obligation to outsiders. Their circle of concern extends beyond their immediate group. In contrast, unethical leaders put their own self-interests first. They are more likely to control and manipulate followers and subvert the goals of the collective while treating outsiders with disdain. In extreme cases, this self- orientation can lead to widespread death and destruction.

Eunice Shriver Kennedy provides an outstanding model of compassionate leadership.30 Born into the wealthy and powerful Kennedy family, which included her brother John, who became president of the United States, and her brothers Robert and Ted, who became senators, she used her money and political clout on behalf of those with mental limitations. When John Kennedy became president, she convinced him to set up a committee to study developmental disabilities, which led to the creation of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. She started a camp for the intellectually disabled at her estate and cofounded the Special Olympics. The first Special Olympics meet had 1,000 contestants. Now, 4.9 million athletes in 172 countries take part. Shriver’s efforts played a major role in changing public

222

attitudes toward those facing Down syndrome, mental retardation, and other intellectual challenges. They used to be viewed as outcasts and warehoused in mental facilities. Shriver encouraged Americans to see that, with adequate training, those with intellectual limitations could live productive lives and contribute to society. (See Box 3.1 for more information on the development of compassionate leaders.)

Box 3.1 The Journey to Humanitarian Leadership

Humanitarian leaders spearhead efforts to feed the homeless, fight sex trafficking, educate street children, bring medical care to poor rural villages, and so on. Researchers Frank LaFasto and Carl Larson wondered why some individuals “take charge of helping people in need” while most of us do not. They conducted interviews with 31 humanitarian leaders ranging from age 16 to 88 from a variety of educational and social backgrounds. The investigators found that, despite their differences, their subjects followed a common path. Seven choice points marked this journey to helping others.

Choice 1: Leveraging Life Experiences. Humanitarian leaders reflect on their life stories. They develop empathy for the needs of others through (1) role models (parents, teachers, religious leaders, friends) and positive values, such as caring for the poor or serving others; (2) a troubling awareness about a societal problem like sex abuse or lack of clean water; or (3) traumatic personal experiences, such as the death of parents or a cancer diagnosis. Choice 2: Having a Sense of Fairness. Humanitarians are convinced that the world is divided into those who are fortunate and those who are not. The disadvantaged are victims of circumstance and are therefore worthy of help. To make the world fairer, the humanitarian leader believes in providing opportunities for those who have been denied such access by fate. Choice 3: Believing That We Can Matter. Those out to assist others aren’t overwhelmed by the need. Instead, they focus on helping individuals. Meeting the needs of one person is the first step to addressing the broader problem—whether that is poverty, substandard housing, or disease. Humanitarian leaders believe that they have something to offer and know what they can and cannot do to contribute. They try to make the future better for those in need.

223

Choice 4: Being Open to Opportunity. Compassionate leaders are inclined to say yes to possibilities instead of automatically saying no. They have an external focus. They are attuned to the needs of others, and their impulse is to respond because they have a clear sense of life’s direction. Unlike many people, humanitarian leaders align their actions with their convictions. Choice 5: Taking the First Small Step. Every leader interviewed by LaFasto and Larson reported a pivotal or defining moment when he or she first responded to the impulse to help. Humanitarian leaders don’t let the size of the problem discourage them; rather, they do something, no matter how small. While they don’t know where their efforts will lead, they still make the commitment to act. Take the case of Ryan Hreljac. Ryan started his humanitarian career as a six-year-old by trying to raise $70 to provide one well for a village in a developing nation. This small step led to the creation of the Ryan’s Well Foundation, which has provided sanitation and clean water for over three quarters of a million people around the world. Choice 6: Persevering. Those who tackle difficult social problems can expect to encounter a great deal of frustration. But they believe in what they are doing and are convinced that reaching their goals is worth the cost. Humanitarian leaders are also adaptable, often turning obstacles into opportunities. If funding sources dry up, they find new, more stable ones, for example. They maintain their positive focus by taking heart in short-term victories and remaining convinced they can make a difference. Choice 7: Leading the Way. The passion of humanitarian leaders draws others to their causes. Their enthusiasm, energy, and optimism are contagious. Others join in, and movements are born.

LaFasto and Larson conclude that we all have the potential to become humanitarian leaders. However, to start down the path to socially responsible leadership, we must first answer yes to this question: Do I feel a sense of responsibility for helping others?

Source: LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2012). The humanitarian leader in each of us: Seven choices that shape a socially responsible life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Practicing Compassion

224

Look for the good in others. Imagine how others feel and think (develop empathy). Take time to build relationships. Highlight individual and cultural diversity in your organization. Get involved in volunteer activities. Serve with others to reinforce your commitment to helping.

225

Forming a Moral Identity Identifying important leadership virtues is only a start. We then need to embed these qualities into our self-concepts and behavior —to develop what moral psychologists call moral identity. 31

Investigators treat moral identity as both a trait and as a state. Trait theorists argue that ethical commitments are central to those with strong moral identity. Such individuals define themselves in terms of moral principles and virtues and act consistently regardless of the situation. They are motivated to take moral action because they want to act in harmony with their self- definitions.

For those with a highly developed sense of moral identity, to betray their ethical values is to betray themselves. Martin Luther is as an example of someone who refused to put his standards aside. When called to defend his radical religious beliefs in front of Catholic authorities at the Diet of Worms, Luther declared, “Here I stand; I can do no other.” Pope Francis is a contemporary leader with high moral identity. He turns down many papal perks to remain true to his commitment to the poor and to a humble lifestyle. He lives in a modest bungalow instead of the papal apartment, takes his meals with Cardinals and visitors (taking any available seat), drives a used Renault, often runs his own errands, and makes spontaneous phone calls to ordinary citizens.

State theorists argue that instead of having one unitary self, we have a variety of selves or identities we activate depending on the context.32 At school, our student self-identity is most important, for example, while our employee identity is more salient at work. These scholars are interested in how elements of the situation prime or activate our moral identity. When our moral identities are activated, we are more concerned about behaving ethically, make better moral choices, engage in more prosocial and fewer antisocial behaviors, and are less likely to excuse our moral failings. Organizations can promote the development of moral identity by (1) providing opportunities to practice virtues, (2) creating positive moral climates where cooperative relationships can flourish, (3) making space for moral discussion and reflection,

226

(4) continuously emphasizing values and mission, and (5) encouraging ongoing involvement in the local community.

Both the trait and state approaches provide important insights into the development of moral identity. Our ultimate goal should be to make moral commitments central to our sense of self, to act in a virtuous manner regardless of the situation. At the same time, situational variables play an important role in helping us develop our moral identities. Whatever roles we play, we need opportunities to practice virtues, the encouragement of others, and the support of positive moral climates.

Developing ethical character or moral identity is far from easy, of course. At times, our personal demons will overcome even our best efforts to keep them at bay, and we will fail to live up to our ideals. We’re likely to make progress in some areas while lagging in others. We may be courageous yet arrogant, reverent yet pessimistic, optimistic yet unjust. We may be compassionate to family members but cold toward our neighbors. No wonder some prominent leaders reflect both moral strength and weakness. Martin Luther King Jr. showed great courage and persistence in leading the civil rights movement but engaged in extramarital relationships. Franklin Roosevelt was revered by many of his contemporaries but had a long-standing affair with Lucy Mercer. In fact, Mercer (not Eleanor Roosevelt) was present when he died. Pope Francis has been criticized for not removing bishops accused of covering up clergy sex abuse. (Turn to Case Study 3.2 for another example of someone who demonstrated both character strengths and weaknesses.)

The poor personal behavior of political, entertainment, and business leaders has sparked debate about personal and public morality. One camp argues that the two cannot be separated. Another camp makes a clear distinction between the public arena and private life. According to this second group, we can be disgusted by the private behavior of entertainment figures who have multiple affairs and marriages but enjoy their films, television shows, and music. We disapprove of politicians who engage in extramarital affairs (e.g., Bill Clinton, Donald Trump) but vote for them anyway based on their performance in office.

227

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between these extremes. We should expect contradictions in the character of leaders, not be surprised by them. Private lapses don’t always lead to lapses in public judgment. On the other hand, it seems artificial to compartmentalize private and public ethics. Private tendencies can and do cross over into public decisions. Arizona State business ethics professor Marianne Jennings points out that many fallen corporate leaders (e.g., Richard Scrushy [HealthSouth], Dennis Kozlowski [Tyco], Scott Sullivan [WorldCom], Bernie Ebbers [WorldCom]) cheated on their wives or divorced them to marry much younger women.33 She suggests that executives who are dishonest with the most important people in their lives—their spouses—are likely to be dishonest with others who aren’t as significant: suppliers, customers, and stockholders. Furthermore, conducting an affair distracts a leader from his or her duties and provides a poor role model for followers. That’s why the Boeing board fired CEO Harry Stonecipher when members discovered that he was having an affair with a high-ranking employee.34

228

Character Building In the previous section, I offered some suggestions for fostering individual virtues. These are direct approaches to character development. However, more often than not, virtues develop indirectly, as the by-product of other activities. In this final section of the chapter, I’ll introduce a variety of indirect approaches or factors that encourage the development of leadership virtues. These include identifying role models, hearing stories and living shared stories, learning from hardship, cultivating good habits, creating a personal mission statement, and clarifying values. The Leadership Ethics at the Movies case describes one leader who demonstrated significant character development.

229

Finding Role Models Character appears to be caught as well as taught. We often learn what it means to be virtuous by observing and imitating exemplary leaders, a process based on the brain’s ability to mimic the actions of others and to understand the reasons behind their behaviors. That makes role models crucial to developing high moral character.35 Eunice Kennedy Shriver is one such role model; William Wilberforce is another.

Heroic role models are particularly important to character development. Heroes demonstrate courage in action and inspire us to follow their example. Honoring heroes seems to be “a universal feature of human culture,” dating back to ancient cave paintings. Oral societies celebrated heroes through epic poems, legends and myths. Modern societies continue this tradition through novels, television shows, films, and video games.36

Concordia University (Canada) philosophy professor Travis Smith argues that even comic book heroes can teach us about ethics. It is the character or quality of superheroes, not their superpowers, that makes them heroic. We can learn from their examples—their bad as well as their good qualities—because they are similar to, yet different from ordinary humans. The Hulk, Spiderman, Captain America, Thor, and other superheroes wrestle with such common ethical challenges as self-control, personal responsibility, living with dignity, and serving the community.37 (One superhero is the subject of the Leadership at the Movies case in Chapter 5.) Heroes, both real and fictional, voluntarily help others in need and their efforts serve a worthy purpose (e.g., protecting lives, improving product quality, fighting discrimination, protecting worker safety). Risk sets heroism apart from other forms of altruism. Heroic figures always face danger, whether physical (death, injury) or social (ostracism, loss of job) danger. We’ll take a closer look at how to foster our heroism in Chapter 11.

230

Hearing Stories/Living Shared Stories Fictional stories, whether told through movies, television shows, songs, video games, books, poems, blogs, plays, or YouTube videos, are more than just mere entertainment. Instead, they foster character development in several ways. First, fiction acts like a flight simulator. Pilots train in simulators that provide them with opportunities to practice maneuvers and responses to emergencies without ever leaving the ground. In the same way, fiction gives us opportunities to practice moral reflection and judgment in complex situations before we encounter them in real life. Our brains respond in much the same way to fictional events as they do to events we actually experience.38

Second, fiction introduces us to additional moral role models. These fictional exemplars illustrate the vices we want to avoid as well as the virtues we want to develop.

Third, fiction almost always reinforces a positive moral message— virtue is rewarded, antisocial behavior like violence is condemned, and villains are punished.39 Consider, for example, how justice prevails in such highly popular book and movie franchises as Star Wars, Jurassic Park, The Hunger Games, and Harry Potter. Viewing television programs, where good nearly always triumphs, cultivates the belief that people get what they deserve. As a result, frequent television viewers are more likely to believe in a just world.40

Fourth, fiction is highly effective in changing or reinforcing our moral beliefs and attitudes, largely because we aren’t aware that it is doing so. The more absorbed we are in the story, the more likely we are to shift our attitudes toward the moral arguments made in the story (e.g., evil people deserve punishment, sex outside of marriage is acceptable if the parties are in love, war is justified).41 Of course, that fact suggests we choose our stories carefully; we need able to step back from the narrative to evaluate the moral(s) it communicates.

Fifth, fictional narrative helps us understand our possibilities and limits. We can try to deny the reality of death, the fact that we’re

231

aging, and that there are factors outside our control. However, stories force us to confront these issues. They also explore common human themes, such as freedom of choice, moral responsibility, conflict between individual and society, conflict between individual conscience and society’s rules, and self- understanding.42

Sixth, fiction writers help us escape our old ways of thinking and acting. Their best works expand our emotional capacity, enabling us to respond more fully to the needs of others. In one study, for instance, fiction readers scored higher on social awareness and empathy than those reading nonfiction.43

The stories told by our communities, like fictional narratives, also play an important role in character development. Virtues are more likely to take root when nurtured by families, schools, governments, and religious bodies. These collectives impart values and encourage self-discipline, caring, and other virtues through the telling of narratives or stories. Shared narratives both explain and persuade. They provide a framework for understanding the world and, at the same time, challenge us to act in specified ways. For example, one of the most remarkable features of the American political system is the orderly transition of power from president to president. George Washington set this precedent by voluntarily stepping down as the country’s first leader. His story, told in classrooms, books, and films, helps explain why the current electoral system functions smoothly. Furthermore, modern presidents and presidential candidates follow Washington’s example, as in the case of the 2016 election. Although she garnered 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton conceded defeat.

Stories are lived as well as told. Our moral identity is established in part from living up to the roles we play in the stories we tell. According to virtue ethicist Alasdair MacIntyre, “I can only answer the question ‘What am I to do?’ if I can answer the prior question, ‘Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?’”44 Worthy narratives bring out the best in us, encouraging us to suppress our inner demons and to cast light instead of shadow. For instance, I am more likely to welcome refugees if I believe that helping

232

strangers is part of the tradition or narrative of my cultural, religious, or national group. If I work for a company known for its integrity, I will more likely tell the truth when promoting the firm’s products.

233

Learning From Hardship Hardship and suffering also play a role in developing character. The leaders we admire the most are often those who have endured the greatest hardships. Nelson Mandela, Václav Havel, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn served extended prison terms, for instance. Sandra Day O’Connor had to overcome physical hardship and sexism to become one of the most influential Supreme Court justices of the past century. O’Connor started life on a cattle ranch in Arizona without electricity and running water. She graduated third in her class from Stanford law school, but major West Coast law firms refused to hire her or only offered her secretarial positions. She finally landed a job at a county attorney’s office by offering to work for free. (Case Study 3.3 describes other famous leaders who faced and grew through significant hardships.)

Trainers at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) have identified hardship as one of the factors contributing to leadership development. Leaders (as we noted in the last chapter) develop the fastest when they encounter situations that stretch or challenge them. Hardships, along with novelty, difficult goals, and conflict, challenge people. CCL staffers Russ Moxley and Mary Lynn Pulley believe that hardships differ from other challenging experiences because they are unplanned, are experienced in an intensely personal way, and involve loss.45

Research conducted by the CCL reveals that leaders experience five common categories of hardship events. Each type of hardship can drive home important lessons.

Business mistakes and failures: Examples of this type of hardship event include losing an important client, failed products and programs, broken relationships, and bankruptcies. These experiences help leaders build stronger working relationships, recognize their limitations, and profit from their mistakes. Career setbacks: Missed promotions, unsatisfying jobs, demotions, and firings make up this hardship category.

234

Leaders faced with these events lose control over their careers, their sense of self-efficacy or competence, and their professional identity. Career setbacks function as wake-up calls, providing feedback about weaknesses. They encourage leaders to take more responsibility for managing their careers and to identify the type of work that is most meaningful to them. Personal trauma: Examples of personal trauma include divorce, cancer, death, and difficult children. These experiences, which are a natural part of life, drive home the point that leaders (who are used to being in charge) can’t run the world around them. As a result, they may strike a better balance between work and home responsibilities, learn how to accept help from others, and endure in the face of adversity. Problem employees: Troubled workers include those who steal, defraud, can’t perform, or perform well only part of the time. In dealing with problem employees, leaders often lose the illusion that they can turn these people around. They may also learn how important it is to hold followers to consistently high standards and become more skilled at confronting subordinates about problematic behavior. Downsizing: Downsizing has much in common with career setbacks, but in this type of hardship, leaders lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Downsizing can help leaders develop coping skills and force them to take stock of their lives and careers. Those carrying out the layoffs can also learn from the experience by developing greater empathy for the feelings of followers.

Being exposed to a hardship is no guarantee that you’ll learn from the experience. Some ambitious leaders never get over being passed over for a promotion, for instance, and become embittered and cynical. Benefiting from adversity takes adaptive capacity.46

Accomplished leaders experience just as many crises as everyone else but are able to learn important principles and skills from their struggles. This knowledge enabled them to move on to more complex challenges.

235

Successful leaders see hard times as positive high points of their lives. In contrast, less successful leaders are defeated and discouraged by similar events. To put it another way, effective leaders tell a different story than their ineffective counterparts. They identify hardships as stepping-stones, not as insurmountable obstacles. We, too, can enlarge our adaptive capacity by paying close attention to our personal narratives, defining difficult moments in our lives as learning opportunities rather than as permanent obstacles. To see how you can learn from a specific failure, take the following steps:

1. Identify a significant failure from your professional or personal life and summarize the failure in a sentence (be sure to use the word failure).

2. Describe how you felt and thought about the failure immediately after it happened.

3. Move forward in time to identify any positive outcomes that came out of the failure, including skills you acquired, lessons you learned, and any relationships you established.

4. Identify how the failure changed or shaped you as a person, noting any new traits or attitudes you have adopted and whether you are any more mature now than you were before the failure event.47

236

Developing Habits One of the ways in which we build character is by doing well through our habits. Habits are repeated routines or practices designed to foster virtuous behavior. Examples of good habits include working hard, telling the truth, giving to charity, standing up to peer pressure, and always turning in original work for school assignments. Every time we engage in one of these habits, it leaves a trace or residue. Over time, these residual effects become part of our personality and are integrated into our character. Aristotle sums up the process this way: “Men [and women] become builders by building, and lyre-players by playing the lyre, so too we become just be doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.”48 Habits also help us become more competent at demonstrating virtues.

Business consultant Stephen Covey developed the most popular list of positive habits. Not only did he author the best-selling book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, but thousands of businesses, nonprofit groups, and government agencies have participated in workshops offered by FranklinCovey.49 In his best seller, Covey argues that effectiveness is based on such character principles as integrity, fairness, service, excellence, and growth. The habits are the tools that enable leaders and followers to develop these characteristics. Covey defines a habit as a combination of knowledge (what to do and why to do it), skill (how to do it), and motivation (wanting to do it). Leadership development is an “inside-out” process that starts within the leader and then moves outward to affect others. The seven habits of effective and ethical leaders are described below. (The habits of ineffective and unethical leaders are described in Box 3.2.)

Habit 1: Be proactive. Proactive leaders realize that they can choose how they respond to events. When faced with career setbacks, they try to grow from these experiences instead of feeling victimized by them. Proactive people also take the initiative by opting to attack problems instead of accepting defeat. Their language reflects their willingness to accept rather than avoid responsibility. A proactive leader makes

237

statements such as “Let’s examine our options.” and “I can create a strategic plan.” A reactive leader, in contrast, makes comments such as “The organization won’t go along with that idea,” “I’m too old to change,” and “That’s just who I am.” Habit 2: Begin with the end in mind. This habit is based on the notion that “all things are created twice.” First, we get a mental picture of what we want to accomplish, and then we follow through on our plans. If we’re unhappy with the current direction of our lives, we can generate new mental images and goals, a process Covey calls rescripting. Creating personal and organizational mission statements is one way to identify the results we want and thus control the type of life we create. (I’ll talk more about how to create a mission statement in the next section.) Covey urges leaders to center their lives on inner principles such as fairness and human dignity rather than on such external factors as family, money, friends, or work. Habit 3: Put first things first. A leader’s time should be organized around priorities. Too many leaders spend their days coping with emergencies, mistakenly believing that urgent means important. Meetings, deadlines, and interruptions place immediate demands on their time, but other, less pressing activities, such as relationship building and planning, are more important in the long run. Effective leaders carve out time for significant activities by identifying their most important roles, selecting their goals, creating schedules that enable them to reach their objectives, and modifying plans when necessary. They also know how to delegate tasks and have the courage to say no to requests that don’t fit their priorities. Habit 4: Think win–win. Those with a win–win perspective take a cooperative approach to communication, convinced that the best solution benefits both parties. The win–win habit is based on these dimensions: character (integrity, maturity, and a belief that the needs of everyone can be met), trusting relationships committed to mutual benefit, performance or partnership agreements that spell out conditions and responsibilities, organizational systems that fairly distribute rewards, and principled negotiation processes in which both

238

sides generate possible solutions and then select the one that works best. Habit 5: Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Ethical leaders put aside their personal concerns to engage in empathetic listening. They seek to understand, not to evaluate, advise, or interpret. Empathetic listening is an excellent way to build a trusting relationship. Covey uses the metaphor of the emotional bank account to illustrate how trust develops. Principled leaders make deposits in the emotional bank account by showing kindness and courtesy, keeping commitments, paying attention to small details, and seeking to understand. These strong relational reserves help prevent misunderstandings and make it easier to resolve any problems that do arise. Habit 6: Synergize. Synergy creates a solution that is greater than the sum of its parts and uses right-brain thinking to generate a third, previously undiscovered alternative. Synergistic, creative solutions are generated in trusting relationships—those with full emotional bank accounts— where participants value their differences. Habit 7: Sharpen the saw. “Sharpening the saw” refers to the continual renewal of the physical, mental, social or emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the self. Healthy leaders care for their bodies through exercise, good nutrition, and stress management. They encourage their mental development by reading good literature and writing thoughtful letters and journal entries. They create meaningful relationships with others and nurture their inner or spiritual values through study or meditation and time in nature. Continual renewal, combined with the use of the first six habits, creates an upward spiral of character improvement.

Box 3.2 The Seven Habits of Highly Unsuccessful Executives

Dartmouth College professor Sidney Finkelstein wondered why highly competent CEOs could make terrible mistakes and then, instead of correcting their errors, make them worse. To answer this question, he and his research team studied 51 companies in the United States, Japan, Britain, South Korea, Germany, and Australia. Each of the firms experienced a major business failure resulting in

239

the loss, in most cases, of hundreds of millions of dollars. Some of the firms went out of business. Quaker Oats, Mattel, Saatchi and Saatchi, Wang Laboratories, General Motors, Samsung, Sony, and Schwinn were among the corporations included in the sample. Finkelstein and his team found that spectacular failure often goes hand in hand with spectacular success:

We’re talking about people whose failures were breathtakingly gigantic, who have taken huge, world-renowned business operations and made them almost worthless. They have caused thousands of people to lose their jobs and thousands of investors to lose their investments. They’ve managed to destroy hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars of value. Their destructive effect is so beyond the range of ordinary human beings that it’s on a scale normally associated only with earthquakes and hurricanes.

The personal qualities that make this awesome scale of destruction possible are all the more fascinating because they are regularly found in conjunction with truly admirable qualities. After all, hardly anyone gets a chance to destroy so much value without also demonstrating a potential to create it. (p. 213)

Understanding the qualities that lead to executive failure can keep them from occurring in the first place, according to Finkelstein. Drawing a sharp contrast to the habits of highly effective people, he identifies the following as The Seven Habits of Spectacularly Unsuccessful People. While most dangerous when found in CEOS, they can also cause harm when practiced by lower level leaders.

Habit #1: They see themselves and their companies as dominating their environments.

Failed leaders mistakenly believe that they can control events around them. They overestimate their abilities while downplaying the fact that luck and circumstances often determine success or failure. These execs assume that they are responsible for the company’s past accomplishments and, instead of responding to changing conditions, mistakenly believe they can impose their will on the larger business environment. Convinced of their own importance, unsuccessful CEOs often intimidate subordinates through angry outbursts. At the same time, they believe that their companies don’t have to meet the needs of consumers since their firms offer superior products and services.

Habit #2: They identify so completely with the company that there is no clear boundary between their personal interests and the corporation’s interest.

240

Executives should identify with their businesses but problems arise when they overidentify with their organizations. Instead of caring for and protecting their firms, they see them as extensions of themselves. When a company becomes the “private empire” of the CEO, it is all too easy for the top executive to use company resources to fulfil personal wishes. He or she is prone to take large risks, viewing the firm’s money as his or her own. In the “darkest” manifestation of this habit, leaders use corporate funds for personal wishes—to pay for multimillion dollar home renovations, to give to favorite charities, to host lavish birthday parties. Unsuccessful executives also become too invested in their projects. To end a project is seen as a betrayal of the self. Personal enemies become enemies of the company to be defeated at all costs.

Habit #3: They think they have all the answers.

Failed leaders believe that they can quickly make snap decisions without consulting others. They only gather additional information if it supports their initial decision. Control freaks, they want to have the final say on everything and trust no one. Decisiveness appeals to followers who want leaders who seem to know what they are doing. Nevertheless, nobody can have all the answers in a rapidly changing business environment. Failing to listen and consider other options contributed to many of the missteps studied by the Dartmouth team.

Habit #4: They ruthlessly eliminate anyone who isn’t 100% behind them.

Too many executives have the unrealistic expectation that every follower will enthusiastically support their visions. They eliminate anyone who might have doubts or express a different viewpoint. Either they fire dissenters or banish them to distant corporate outposts where they will have little influence. In so doing, these leaders eliminate the possibility of correcting any problems that emerge.

Habit #5: They are consummate company spokespersons, obsessed with the company image.

High profile CEOs make it a habit to stay in the public eye through television, blog and radio interviews, public speeches, magazine stories and commercials. They devote less and less attention to their managerial duties and don’t want to be bothered with the details of daily operations. Performance suffers as a result. Image conscious CEOs, who appear confident and charismatic, can create unrealistic expectations as they promote their visions. They go to great lengths

241

to maintain the appearance of success through extravagant spending, and in some cases, accounting fraud.

Habit #6: They underestimate major obstacles.

Confident CEOs tend to treat difficulties, even major hurdles, as minor issues. They are convinced that all problems have a solution, even when some are insolvable or can only be solved at great cost. Leaders who have enjoyed a string of recent successes are particularly vulnerable to this habit, as are leaders who are masters at solving technical problems. Technical experts mistakenly think they easily overcome business problems. Once committed to new ventures, unsuccessful executives refuse to scale back in the face of defeat. Instead, they commit more resources to a failing effort.

Habit #7: They stubbornly rely on what worked for them in the past.

Failed CEOs rely on what has worked for them in the past even though the world has changed. Most have one or two defining moments that helped propel them to the top of the corporation. When faced with a crisis, CEOs revert back to the behavior that led to earlier success in these key moments, even when that behavior— cutting costs, introducing a new product line, buying another company—won’t work in current conditions.

Source: Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail and what you can learn from their mistakes. New York, NY: Portfolio. See also Jackson, E. (2012, February 9). The seven habits of unsuccessful CEOs hall of shame. Fortune.

242

Developing Personal Mission Statements Developing a mission statement is the best way to keep the end or destination in mind (Covey’s second habit). In recognition of that fact, many management, life, and wellness coaching programs ask participants to create personal mission statements. Jack Groppel, the developer of the Corporate Athlete executive development program, summarizes the role of personal mission statements this way: “A mission statement becomes the North Star for people. It becomes how you make decisions, how you lead, and how you create boundaries.”50 He argues that mission statements are more effective than resolutions (“I want to lose weight.” “I want to get better grades.”) because they identify the underlying sources of behavior and what individuals find motivating. Consider why you want to lose weight, for example. Losing weight to look better is less motivating than losing weight so you can have enough energy to go on hikes with your significant other or to play team sports with friends.

To get started writing a personal mission statement, consider the following questions used in the Corporate Athlete program:

How do you want to be remembered? How do you want people to describe you? Who do you want to be? Who or what matters most to you? What are your deepest values? How would you define success in your life? What makes your life really worth living?

If you are looking for examples of leader mission statements, consider these: “To serve as a leader, live a balanced life, and apply ethical principles to make significant difference” (Denise Morrison, Campbell Soup); “To be a teacher, and to be known for inspiring my students to be more than they thought they could be” (Oprah Winfrey); “To have fun in [my] journey through life and learn from [my] mistakes” (Richard Branson, Virgin Group).51

243

Once you write your mission statement, share it with others (you are more likely to follow through if you do so). Don’t be afraid to change your mission statement as you change and grow.

244

Identifying Values If a mission statement identifies our final destination, then our values serve as a moral compass to guide us on our journey. Values provide a frame of reference, helping us to set priorities and to distinguish between right and wrong. Worthy values work with our mission statements to develop virtues. We are more likely to act with courage, demonstrate grit, control our impulses, be just and compassionate, and remain true to ourselves if we have a clear sense of direction and identify a set of guiding principles for our lives. To identify or clarify the values you hold, you can generate a list from scratch. However, most people identify their values from lists like those described below.

Organizational psychologist Edgar Schein identifies eight values orientations he calls career anchors.52 A career anchor is a critical part of a person’s self-image, so important that he or she would never give it up. Career anchors act like boat anchors. Those who try jobs that “just don’t feel right” are pulled back to roles that fit them better. People can be categorized based on how they organize themselves around the following orientations. Prototypes are examples of occupations that fit into each category.

Theoretical/Functional: Technically anchored individuals seek to exercise and develop their skills. They are specialists who want to be paid commiserate with their work. However, they are not interested in promotions but put more value on being recognized by their peers for their abilities. Prototypes: engineers, financial analysts General Managerial Competence: Those drawn to management are generalists. They demonstrate a wide variety of competencies—analytical, interpersonal and group, emotional—and hope to advance up the corporate ladder. They desire more responsibility and want to lead. Prototypes: sales managers, project leaders Autonomy/Independence: These people want to do things their own way. They chafe at organizational rules and may turn down jobs and promotions in order to maintain their independence. They value portable recognition—awards,

245

prizes, letters of recommendation—that they can take from job to job. Prototypes: salespersons, consultants, freelance writers Security/Stability: Predictability is key to those seeking safety and security. They gravitate to organizations that avoid layoffs and provide good benefits and retirement plans. Unlike autonomous individuals, they are willing to be told what to do in return for security. Prototypes: government and civil service employees Entrepreneurial Creativity: Entrepreneurs are driven to create new products and businesses or to take over and improve existing organizations. They value ownership beyond all else and accumulate wealth to demonstrate what they have accomplished. Prototypes: small business owners, tech company founders Sense of Service/Dedication to a Cause: These individuals enter occupations so that they can live out their values. Their desire to improve the world overrides their desire to demonstrate particular skills. They put a high priority on serving a cause and helping others. Prototypes: nurses, human resource specialists, social workers Pure Challenge: Challenge-anchored people value overcoming obstacles, solving problems, and winning over opponents. If not continually tested, they get bored and irritable; promotion and pay fail to motivate them. Prototypes: Navy SEALS, professional athletes Lifestyle: Lifestyle individuals want to integrate their careers with their individual and family needs. They value flexibility. They might take time off to pursue their passions (sports, hobbies, interests) or to be with their children. They are attracted to firms with flexible work hours and sabbaticals. Those who put priority on family often won’t relocate. Prototypes: ski instructors, high-tech employees working at family-friendly companies

Schein argued that employees have one primary career anchor but subsequent researchers found that we can have more than one values orientation, as in the case of the military officer who pursues challenge while serving her or his country.53 Many teachers want to serve but also value having summers and

246

vacation breaks to spend with their families. Identifying your primary career anchor(s) is a good way to avoid situations that could cause you ethical discomfort. If lifestyle is critical to your self-image, you will feel guilty if your job requires that you spend much of your time traveling, away from your spouse and children. If you desire to serve a cause, you may be uncomfortable working for a business that puts profits first.

Duane Brown and R. Kelly Crace developed a widely used values system called the Life Values Inventory, which you can take online.54 They outline the following as important values that are key to self-fulfillment and motivation. You can use them to help you reflect on your priorities:

Achievement (challenges, hard work, improvement) Belonging (acceptance, inclusion) Concern for the environment (protecting and preserving) Concern for others (well-being of people) Creativity (new ideas and creations) Financial prosperity (making money, buying property) Health and activity (staying healthy and physically active) Humility (modesty) Independence (making own decisions and choosing own direction) Loyalty to family or group (following traditions and expectations) Privacy (time alone) Responsibility (dependability, trustworthiness) Scientific understanding (employing scientific principles in problem solving) Spirituality (spiritual beliefs, connection to something greater than the self)

There are two cautions to keep in mind when identifying your values. First, don’t put too much importance on materialistic values like wealth, possessions, status, fame, and personal image. Those driven by these external values generally have a lower quality of life. They tend to suffer from depression and anxiety, experience more negative emotions, are more narcissistic, have more physical problems like headaches and

247

backaches, are at a greater risk for drug and alcohol abuse, have more difficulty establishing lasting relationships, and suffer low self-esteem. Materialistic individuals are also more likely to lie and manipulate others while ignoring community and environmental concerns. As employees, they report more burnout and job satisfaction. Instead of seeking wealth and material possessions, focus on intrinsic values which are naturally satisfying and promote psychological well-being. These include values related to self-acceptance/personal growth (choosing what do, following your curiosity), relatedness/intimacy (expressing love, forming intimate relationships), and community feeling/helpfulness (making other people’s lives better, making the world a better place).55

Second, values, though critical, have to be translated into action. Consider Enron, for example. The firm had a lofty set of ideals but leaders ignored these values as they engaged in fraud and deception. Further, our greatest struggles come from choosing between two good values. Many corporate leaders value both good customer service and high product quality, but what do they do when reaching one of these goals means sacrificing the other? Pushing to get a product shipped to satisfy a customer may force the manufacturing division into cutting corners in order to meet the deadline. Resolving dilemmas such as these takes more than value clarification; we also need some standards for determining ethical priorities. With that in mind, I will identify ethical decision- making principles in Chapters 5 and 6. But first we need to confront one final shadow caster—evil—in Chapter 4.

Implications and Applications

Character is integral to effective leadership, often making the difference between success and failure. Virtues are positive leadership qualities or traits that help us manage our shadow sides. As a leader, seek to develop your (1) courage (overcoming fear in order to do the right thing), (2) grit (pursuing long term goals with perseverance and passion), (3) temperance (self-control), (4) wisdom (drawing on knowledge and experience to pursue the common good) and prudence (practical wisdom), (5) justice (obligation to the common good, treating others equally and

248

fairly), (6) optimism (expectation of positive outcomes in the future), (7) integrity (wholeness, completeness, consistency), (8) humility (self-awareness, openness, a sense of transcendence), and (9) compassion (kindness, generosity, love). Create a moral identity that embeds virtues into your decisions and behavior, making moral commitments central to your self- definition. Strive for consistency but don’t be surprised by contradictions in your character or in the character of others. Become more tolerant of yourself and other leaders. At the same time, recognize that a leader’s private behavior often influences his or her public decisions. Indirect approaches that build character include identifying role models, telling and living out shared stories, learning from hardship, cultivating habits, creating a personal mission statement, and clarifying values. Never underestimate the power of a good example. Be on the lookout for real and fictional ethical role models to imitate. Fictional stories give you an opportunity to practice moral reflection and judgment while reinforcing positive values. Communal stories encourage you to live up to the role you play in the shared narrative. Hardships are an inevitable part of life and leadership. The sense of loss associated with these events can provide important feedback, spur self-inspection, encourage you to develop coping strategies, force you to reorder your priorities, and nurture your compassion. However, to benefit from them, you must see challenges as learning opportunities that prepare you for future leadership responsibilities. Positive habits are designed to foster virtuous behavior. Each time we engage in a good habit, it leaves a trace or residue. Over time, these residual effects become integrated into our character. The most popular list of habits includes the following: seek to be proactive, begin with the end in mind, organize around priorities, strive for cooperation, listen for understanding, develop synergistic solutions, and engage in continual self-renewal. Having an ultimate destination will encourage you to stay on your ethical track. Develop a personal mission statement that reflects your strengths and passions. Use your values as a moral compass to keep you from losing your way. Avoid values that focus on material possessions and financial success; focus instead intrinsic values which are naturally satisfying and promote your well-being.

249

For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment

1. Which virtue is most important for leaders? Defend your choice. How can you practice this virtue? Write up your conclusions.

2. Can the private and public morals of leaders be separated? Try to reach a consensus on this question in a group.

3. What does your score on Self-Assessment 3.1 reveal about your level of grittiness? How can you improve your ability to follow through on long-term goals and projects? As an alternative, have someone rate you on Self-Assessment 3.2 or rate one of your leaders. What do the results say about your character or the character of your leader?

4. What steps can you take to develop a more positive outlook about future events?

5. Brainstorm a list of moral heroes. What does it take to qualify for your list?

6. How can you strengthen your courage? 7. Reflect on the ways in which a particular shared narrative has

shaped your worldview and behavior. Write up your conclusions.

8. How has fiction shaped your character development? What novels, films, and shows have had the greatest impact? Why?

9. Interview a leader you admire. Determine the hardship(s) she or he has faced and capacity to learn from that experience. Present your findings to the rest of the class.

10. Rate yourself on each of the seven habits of effective people and develop a plan for addressing your weaknesses. Explore the habits further through reading and training seminars.

11. Develop a personal mission statement using the guidelines provided in the chapter. As an alternative, collect the personal mission statements of well-known contemporary leaders.

12. Identify your primary career anchor. How has this anchor influenced your decisions about where to go to school, your major, and your future plans?

Student Study Site

Visit the student study site at https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE journal articles for further research and information on key chapter topics.

https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

250

Case Study 3.1 Tech Industry Leaders: From Brash to Boring CEOs of major technology companies are known for being arrogant and outspoken. Apple’s Steve Jobs was an autocratic micromanager who frequently terrorized his employees and dismissed his critics. Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has a personality described as “big, brash, and bullish.” Uber founder Travis Kalnick’s combative business philosophy generated a flurry of lawsuits from drivers, municipalities, and competitors.

In recent years, a new type of tech CEO is emerging, one that breaks the stereotype of the dynamic, dominant tech genius. “Arrogance is out and humility is in,” says one observer.1 New York Times tech columnist Farhad Majoo declared that, when it comes to leadership in Silicon Valley, “boring is the new black.”2 Current Apple CEO Tim Cook has a “steady” approach to management and prefers to grow from mistakes, rather than go into a rage when they occur. He has made Apple a more pleasant place to work. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella puts empathy and compassion first. Dana Khosrowshahi, who replaced Kalnick at Uber, remains calm, controlling his temper even when provoked. All three men, along with Google CEO Sundar Pichai, are known as excellent listeners who are willing to work with others.

The change to kinder, gentler, humbler leadership is due in large part to the changing role of technology. When personal computers, iPhones, the Internet, tablets, ride sharing apps, and other forms of technology were new, dominant personalities helped convince consumers to embrace them. According to Manjoo, “the most beloved founders possess an uncanny genius for selling the world on ideas that look useless, pointless or impossible before we all realize we can never live without them.”3 An enthusiastic press was quick to welcome the latest products. Now tech companies, which have become some of the world’s largest and most powerful firms, are coming under attack for acting as monopolies, violating privacy rights, hosting fake news and hate speech, biasing search results, allowing interference in elections and so on. Technology leaders routinely appear before Congressional hearings to defend their practices and the European Union has instituted much stricter digital privacy regulations. According to the founder and chief executive of start- up software Gusto, “Tech is now such a huge and dominant industry. The fly-by-the-seat-of-your pants mind-set is just not viable when you have a

251

trillion-dollar market capitalization or if you have more influence than many governments around the world.”4 The press has become much more critical, no longer believing assurances that the latest device will make the world a better place.

While there are still some high-profile tech CEOs still around, they too may be forced to tone down or be replaced. Consider Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, for example. Viewed as a creative, charismatic genius, Musk has come under fire for his erratic behavior, including sending aggressive tweets and apparently smoking pot during a videotaped interview. The Securities and Exchange Commission made Musk step down as the chair of the Tesla board after he falsely claimed he had enough financing to take the company private. (Musk neglected to tell the rest of Tesla board of his plans.) The SEC also demanded that Tesla add two more independent directors to its board to exert further control of the company’s founder, including his communication on Twitter.

252

Discussion Probes 1. Do you agree that large tech companies need a humble style of

leadership now that they have grown so large and powerful? 2. What does “boring” leadership mean to you? What are the

advantages and disadvantages of being a boring leader? 3. Can a leader be humble but not boring? 4. Is there still a place for brash, arrogant leaders in technology? Will

Elon Musk and other dominant leaders have to change? 5. Why are the public, governments, and the press more sceptical

about technology than in the past? Are you more sceptical? 6. Do tech companies have too much power? What restrictions, if any,

should be placed on them and their leaders?

253

Notes 1. Crenshaw, C. (2018, September 14). PR for the “new” technology CEO. Crenshaw Communications.

2. Manjoo, F. (2018, September 12). The metamorphosis of Silicon Valley C.D.O.s: From big to boring. The New York Times.

3. Manjoo.

4. MacLellan, L. (2017, October 27). A new type of leader is emerging in Silicon Valley. Quartz.

Source: Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2015, September 28). The best managers are boring managers. Harvard Business Review.

254

Case Study 3.2 Saving the Mountain Gorilla: The Dark Side of Dian Fossey Mountain gorillas are one of the world’s most spectacular animal species. Thousands of tourists travel to Rwanda every year to view these creatures up close in the wild. Many report that coming into contact with these animals in person (and not from the inside of a vehicle) is a “magical,” life-changing experience.

There probably wouldn’t be any mountain gorillas if it hadn’t been for the tireless efforts of Dian Fossey. In 1967, Fossey convinced archaeologist and anthropologist Louis Leakey to send her to the Congo to study the apes. Leakey, who discovered fossils of the earliest pre-humans in East Africa, wanted to investigate animals that share the most in common with humans—chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas. Under his direction, Jane Goodall studied chimpanzees, Birute Galdikas researched orangutans, and Fossey observed the great apes. Fossey was an unlikely candidate for any research position, let alone one as demanding as tracking gorillas in Africa. Quiet and self-conscious about her height, Dian’s grades kept her from entering veterinary school so she became an occupational therapist working with disabled children in Louisville. Fossey had no formal training in research methods and her experience in Africa was limited to one guided tour around the continent.

What Fossey lacked in training and experience she more than made up for in pure grit. She spent weeks climbing steep mountainsides despite her fear of heights (and her chain smoking habit) to first locate and then become accepted into several gorilla troops. After war broke out in the Congo, Fossey moved her operations to a high meadow camp in Rwanda. From there, she and her trackers would climb through sticky mud and wet vegetation (it rained nearly every day) to locate and observe the animals. She would spend the daylight hours taking notes and then return to her isolated cabin to type them up while sitting in wet clothes.

Fossey brought international attention to the mountain gorillas through National Geographic articles and videos, television appearances, lecture tours, and her book Gorillas in the Mist. She became the first person to have extended physical contact with the apes. Babies would sit on her lap and adults would sit next to her and touch her hair. Her mountain camp became the Karisoke Research Center housing graduate students.

As Fossey’s international fame grew, so did her shadow side. Dian made no attempt to understand the local residents (calling Africans the

255

derogatory term wogs) and never learned much of their language. She treated her African staff with disdain, continually accusing them of taking advantage of her. She would routinely fire one tracker who wasn’t obedient enough and then rehire him the next day. Her graduate students were also subject to her whims. Fossey would order them around, forcing them to stay in their cabins when they weren’t out in the field. They had to take their meals alone and communicate only by notes. She expected them to work as hard as she did, never taking a break. She couldn’t understand why they might want to leave the gloomy, isolated camp to descend the mountain to visit town.

Fossey’s behavior took an even darker turn after poachers killed and decapitated her favorite gorilla, Digit. Fossey declared war on the poachers, torturing and humiliating them when they were captured and brought to her. Punishment included whipping them around their genitals and covering them with ape dung before sending them to jail. Fossey also battled cattle farmers who encroached on their mountain preserve (a national park), zoos who wanted gorilla babies and government officials who provided the infants in return for cash, and tourist groups that would arrive unannounced on “her mountain.” She would kill cows and shoot at cattle farmers and groups of tourists there to see the apes. Preservation of the mountain gorilla took precedence over the needs of the Rwandans who lived in dire poverty and looked to supplement their diets and incomes by trapping animals.

Observers noted the change that had taken place in the shy American who followed her dream to study animals in the wild. According to biographer Harold Hayes,

It was clear to many people that Fossey’s feelings toward the gorillas had gone far beyond professional dedication to their survival. The preservation of the gorilla had become her obsession, the expression of all Fossey’s deepest emotions and fears.

She seemed possessed—by love and inexhaustible rage. The romance of Dian Fossey, the American woman who came to Africa and stayed, was turning dark. (p. 295)

The longer Fossey battled poachers and locals, the more danger she faced. In 1985, someone broke into her cabin and murdered her with a machete. A U.S. graduate student and tracker were convicted of the crime but most observers believe she was killed by a poacher or another one of her many Rwandan enemies.

256

Fossey’s legacy lives on through the Dian Fossey Foundation, which continues to operate the Karisoke Institute and guard against poachers and human intrusion on gorilla habitat. The number of mountain gorillas is growing. (The populations of all other species of apes are declining.) While Dian often warred against her neighbors, the Foundation works with local residents. The organization trains African conservationists and provides education, water, and medical care to area communities, believing that this is the key to preserving the apes that live nearby. The importance of community outreach is reflected in the group’s slogan “Helping people. Helping gorillas.”

257

Discussion Probes 1. How would you describe Fossey’s character? Why did her character

apparently change over time? 2. Can virtues become vices if taken too far? Did that happen in the

case of Dian Fossey? 3. What leadership shadows did Fossey cast? 4. Does the “dark side” of Fossey diminish her legacy? 5. What are the signs that dedication to a cause has become a harmful

obsession? 6. Do animal species deserve the same respect as humans? How do

we balance the needs of humans and animals?

Sources: Apted, M. (1988). Gorillas in the mist [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Pictures; Hayes, H. T. P. (1990). The dark romance of Dian Fossey. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; National Geographic Society. (2017). Dian Fossey: Secrets in the mist [DVD]. Available from www.foxconnect.com; The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International: https://gorillafund.org

http://www.foxconnect.com/

https://gorillafund.org/

258

Case Study 3.3 Forging Character Through Hardship British explorer Ernst Shackleton, Abraham Lincoln, abolitionist Frederick Douglass, German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and science writer Rachel Carson would appear to have nothing in common. With the exception of Lincoln and Douglass, their paths never crossed. They came from different eras, countries, and backgrounds and pursued different objectives. Explorer Ernest Shackleton wanted to bring back his crew alive from a disastrous arctic expedition of 1915–1917. Lincoln set out to save the union. Escaped slave Frederick Douglass worked to end slavery and bring the vote to blacks following the Civil War. Dietrich Bonhoeffer opposed Hitler. Author Rachel Carson challenged the chemical industry and helped launch the environmental movement in her 1962 book Silent Spring.

Despite their apparent differences, Harvard business historian Nancy Koehn identifies several threads that bind these figures together. To begin, they were all leaders who had a significant impact on their times and on the years that followed. Further, as leaders they were made not born. Though they had energy, ambition, and intelligence, there was no guarantee that any of them would shape their worlds. Lincoln was an unschooled farm boy, Douglass spent the first years of his life as the property of whites, and Carson grew up in a house without plumbing. But they were willing to work on themselves. Lincoln taught himself the law while delivering mail, for example, while Douglass bribed street kids to teach him to read. Carson taught herself how to write for a popular audience. Each embraced a purpose larger than him or herself and led out of a sense of empathy and compassion. Shackleton made sure the physical and emotional needs of his crewmembers came before his own needs. Bonhoeffer engaged in small acts of service and kindness to his seminary students and later visited those who were imprisoned by the Nazis. Lincoln ended his second inaugural address by declaring

With malice toward none, with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.

Hardship, more than any other thread, defines this group of leaders. Each went through a series of challenges. Shackleton lost his ship, was stranded on pack ice, and had to sail 800 miles on a small dinghy to

259

rescue his crew. Lincoln oversaw the slaughter of his fellow citizens and the loss of a son, all while being vilified by the press and much of the public when the Civil War appeared unwinnable. Douglass was pursued by bounty hunters and faced death threats. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned for two years by the Gestapo and then executed. Carson wrote her most influential work during the latter stages of breast cancer.

Each of the five leaders faced hardships with courage, deciding to take “a single step forward into the turbulence and then taking the next step after that” (p. 441). They tried to learn lessons from the crises and grew from these experiences. For example, Bonhoeffer, who came from the most privileged background of the five leaders, developed the fortitude to resist Gestapo interrogation, comfort his fellow prisoners and come up with a new vision of Christianity while in jail. All five learned to slow down, to think carefully, and to assess the bigger picture. (Lincoln was known for writing telegrams and letters, putting them in a drawer and then never sending them.) They kept pursing their goals but were able to adapt their strategies. Douglass broke from fellow abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison in the 1850s to start a newspaper and employ new strategies for attacking slavery. Shackleton did everything he could—establishing routines, celebrations, walking, sailing—to keep his mission and men alive. Carson shifted her focus from writing about the natural world to defending it.

Koehn’s five leaders were frequently disappointed but never abandoned their causes. The author notes that we have much to learn from their steadfastness in the face of catastrophe:

But these individuals didn’t give up. They tried to walk with integrity, thoughtfulness, and a sense of purpose. In this sense, the very way that each lived was an act of leadership unto itself, whose impact resonates—and calls to us—in the early twenty- first century. (p. 448)

260

Discussion Probes 1. What tells us more about a leader’s character—his or her successes

or failures? 2. Why do some people “step into” crisis while others retreat? How can

we encourage ourselves to follow the example of these five leaders? 3. How did these leaders demonstrate “adaptive capacity?” 4. Can you think of other prominent leaders who successfully

weathered and learned from crises? 5. How have hardships helped to shape your character?

Source: Koehn, N. (2017). Forged in crisis: The power of courageous leadership in turbulent times. New York, NY: Scribner.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.1 Grit Scale

Instructions

Please indicate how well the following statements describe you. Be honest—there are no right or wrong answers.

1. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones.

Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all

2. Setbacks don’t discourage me. Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all

3. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest.

Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all

4. I am a hard worker. Very much like me Mostly like me

261

Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all

5. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one. Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all

6. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete.

Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all

7. I finish whatever I begin. Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all

8. I am diligent. Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all

Scoring:

For questions 2, 4, 7, and 8 assign the following points: 5 = Very much like me, 4 = Mostly like me, 3 = Somewhat like me, 2 = Not much like me, 1 = Not like me at all.

For questions 1, 3, 5, and 6 assign the following points: 1 = Very much like me, 2 = Mostly like me, 3 = Somewhat like me, 4 = Not much like me, 5 = Not like me at all.

Add up all the points and divide by 8. The maximum score on this scale is 5 (extremely gritty), and the lowest score on this scale is 1 (not at all gritty).

Source: Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166–174. Used by permission.

262

SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.2 The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire (LVQ)

Instructions: Ask someone else to rate you on the following items or select one of your leaders and rate that individual. Scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = once in a while, 3 = sometimes, 4 = fairly often, 5 = frequently, if not always. Reverse scoring where indicated. You will generate a score for each individual virtue and a total perceived character score.

1. Does as he or she ought to do in a given situation 2. Does not carefully consider all the information available before

making an important decision that impacts others 3. Boldly jumps into a situation without considering the

consequences of his/her actions 4. Does not seek out information from a variety of sources so the

best decision can be made 5. Considers a problem from all angles and reaches the best

decision for all parties involved 6. Would rather risk his or her job than to do something that was

unjust 7. May have difficulty standing up for his or her beliefs among

friends who do not share the same views 8. Fails to make the morally best decision in a given situation 9. May hesitate to enforce ethical standards when dealing with a

close friend 10. Ignores his or her “inner voice” when deciding how to proceed 11. Seems to be overly concerned with his or her personal power 12. Is not overly concerned with his or her own accomplishments 13. Wishes to know everything that is going on in the organization

to the extent that he or she micromanages 14. Gives credit to others when credit is due 15. Demonstrates respect for all people 16. May take credit for the accomplishments of others 17. Respects the rights and integrity of others 18. Would make promotion decisions based on a candidate’s merit 19. Does not treat others as he or she would like to be treated

Prudence Courage (Fortitude)

1. _______ 6. _______ 2. _______ (Reverse score) 7. _______ (Reverse) 3. _______ (Reverse) 8. _______ (Reverse) 4. _______ (Reverse) 9. _______ (Reverse) 5. _______ 10. _______ (Reverse) _______ out of 25 _______ out of 25

263

Temperance Justice

11. _______ (Reverse) 14. _______ 12. _______ 15. _______ 13. _______ (Reverse) 16. _______ (Reverse) 17. _______ _______ out of 15 18. _______ 19. _______ (Reverse) _______ out of 30

Total _______ out of 95

Source: Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue-based measurement of ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 235–250.

264

Notes 1. Provis, C. (2010). Virtuous decision making for business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, Suppl. 1, 3–6; Sim, M. (2007). Remastering morals with Aristotle and Confucius. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

2. Ackerill, J. L. (1981). Aristotle the philosopher. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; Bragues, G. (2006). Seek the good life, not money: The Aristotelian approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 341–357; Kenny, A. (2004). Ancient philosophy (Vol. 1). Oxford, England: Clarenton Press; Shields, C. (2014). Aristotle (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

3. Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in human communication (6th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

4. Annas, J. (2006). Virtue ethics. In D. Copp (Ed), The Oxford handbook of ethical theory (pp. 515–536). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; Johannesen, R. L. (1991). Virtue ethics, character, and political communication. In R. E. Denton Jr. (Ed.), Ethical dimensions of political communication (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Praeger; Timmons, M. (2002). Moral theory: An introduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

5. Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.). (2002). A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions about future directions for a positive psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2005). Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; Worthington, E. L., Lavelonk, C., Van Tongeren, D. R., Jennings, D. J., Gartener, H. A. L., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Virtue in positive psychology. In K. Timpe & C. A. Boyd (Eds.), Virtues & their vices (pp. 433–458). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

6. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford, England:

265

Oxford University Press.

7. Comte-Sponville, A. (2001). A small treatise on the great virtues: The uses of philosophy in everyday life. New York, NY: Metropolitan; Peterson & Seligman.

8. Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage. New York, NY: William Morrow; Lopez, S. J., Rasmussen, H. N., Skorupski, W. P., Koetting, K., Petersen, S. E., & Yang, Y. (2010). Folk conceptualizations of courage. In C. L. S. Pury & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue (pp. 23–45). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Osswald, S., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). What is moral courage? Definition, explication, and classification of a complex construct. In C. L. S. Pury & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue (pp. 149–164). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

9. 2017 person of the year: The silence breakers. Time.

10. Scarre, G. (2010). On courage. London, England: Routledge.

11. Practice strategies for each virtue are largely drawn from sources cited in the chapter as well as from Kilburg, R. R. (2012). Virtuous leaders: Strategy, character, and influence in the 21st century. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Sosik, J. J. (2015). Leading with character: Stories of valor and virtue and the principles they teach (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

12. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101; Duckworth, A. L. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York, NY: Scribner; Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short Grit Scale (Grit–S). Journal of Personality Assessment 91, 166–174; Von Culin, K. R., Tsukayama, E., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). Unpacking grit: Motivational correlates of perseverance and

266

passion for long-term goals. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 306–312;

13. Waller, J. (2016). Confronting evil: Engaging our responsibility to prevent genocide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

14. Comte-Sponville; Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue-based measurement of ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 235–250.

15. Intezari, A., & Pauleen, D. J. (2013). Students of wisdom. In W. Kupers & D. J. Pauleen (Eds.), Handbook of practical wisdom: Leadership, organizational and integral business practice (pp. 155 –174). Burlington, VT: Gower; Kessler, E. H., & Bailey, J. R. (2007). Introduction: Understanding, applying, and developing organizational and managerial wisdom. In E. H. Kessler & J. R. Bailey (Eds.), Handbook of organizational and managerial wisdom (pp. xv–xxiv). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16. Katz, G., & Augstein, F. (2018, December 25). Queen Elizabeth II riffs on wisdom, family’s busy year. Associated Press.

17. Kolp, A., & Rea, P. (2006). Leading with integrity: Character- based leadership. Cincinnati, OH: AtomicDog; Comte-Sponville.

18. Comte-Sponville; Crossan, M., Seijts, G., & Gandz, J. (2016). Developing leadership character. New York, NY: Routledge; Peterson & Seligman; Smith, T. (1999). Justice as a personal virtue. Social Theory & Practice, 25, 361–384; Solomon, R. C. (1990). A passion for justice: Emotions and the origins of the social contract. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

19. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321; Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 193–203.

267

20. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2005). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231–243). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

21. Schultz, H., & Gordon, J. (2011). Onward: How Starbucks fought for its life without losing its soul. New York, NY: Rodale.

22. Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and leadership: A multi-level conceptual framework. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 405–420; Simons, T. L. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35.

23. Sommer, J. (2019, January 16). Vanguard’s Jack Bogle wasn’t a billionaire. He was proud of that. The New York Times.

24. See Bruhn, J. G. (2001). Trust and the health of organizations. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum; Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Betrayal of trust in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 23, 547–566.

25. Merie, R. (2017, August 4). Martin Shkreli is found guilty of three of eight securities fraud charges. The Washington Post; McCory, K. (2017, August 4). “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli convicted on three of eight criminal charges. USA Today.

26. Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58, 1323–1350. See also Brooks, D. (2015). The road to character. New York, NY: Random House; Nielsen, R., Marrone, J. A., & Ferraro, H. S. (2014). Leading with humility. New York, NY: Routledge; Tangney, J. P. (2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 70–82.

27. Brooks.

28. Peterson & Seligman.

268

29. Howell, J., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6, 43–54.

30. Hodgson, G. (2009, August 12). Eunice Kennedy Shriver; mental health campaigner who founded the Special Olympics. The Independent, Obituaries, p. 26; Smith, J. Y. (2009, August 12). The Olympian force behind a revolution. The Washington Post, p. A07.

31. Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 128–139). New York, NY: Wiley; Blasi, A. (2005). Moral character: A psychological approach. In D. K. Lapsley & F.C. Power (Eds.), Character psychology and character education (pp. 67–100). Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press; Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human Development, 48, 232–256; Lapsley, D. K. (2008). Moral self-identity as the aim of education. In L. P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 30–52). New York, NY: Routledge.

32. Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2009). Moral identity in business situations: A social-cognitive framework for understanding moral functioning. In D. Narvaez & D. S. Lapsley (Eds.), Personality, identity and character: Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 375– 395). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440; Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1610–1624; Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18, 513–540; Smith, I. H., Aquino, K., Koleva, S., & Graham, J. (2014). The moral ties that bind . . . even to out- groups: The interactive effect of moral identity and the binding moral foundations. Psychological Science, 25, 1554–1562;

269

Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency. Organization Studies, 27, 341–436.

33. Jennings, M. M. (2006). The seven signs of ethical collapse: How to spot moral meltdowns in companies . . . before it’s too late. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

34. Wayne, L. (2005, March 8). Boeing chief is ousted after admitting affair. The New York Times, p. A1.

35. Devine, T., Seuk, J. H., & Wilson, A. (2001). Cultivating heart and character: Educating for life’s most essential goals. Chapel Hill, NC: Character Development; Van Slyke, J. A. (2014). Moral psychology, neuroscience, and virtue. In K. Timpe & C. A. Boyd (Eds.), Virtues and their vices (459–479). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

36. Becker, S. W., & Eagly, A. H. (2004). The heroism of women and men. American Psychologist, 59, 163–178.

37. Smith, T. (2018). Superhero ethics. Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Press.

38. Oatley, K. (2008). The mind’s flight simulator. Psychologist, 21, 1030–1032.

39. Gottschall, J. (2012). The storytelling animal: How stories make us human. New York, NY: Mariner Books.

40. Appel, M. (2008). Fictional narratives cultivate just-world beliefs. Journal of Communication, 58, 62–83.

41. Gottschall.

42. Lisman, C. D. (1996). The curricular integration of ethics: Theory and practice. Westport, CT: Praeger.

43. Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsch, J., de la Paz, J., & Peterson, J. B. (2006). Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the

270

simulation of fictional social worlds. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 694–712.

44. MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, p. 216.

45. Moxley, R. S., & Pulley, M. L. (2004). Hardships. In C. D. McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (2nd ed., pp. 183–203). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

46. Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2002). Geeks and geezers: How era, values, and defining moments shape leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; Thomas, R. J. (2008). Crucibles of leadership: How to learn from experience to become a great leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

47. Dotlich, D. L., Noel, J. L., & Walker, N. (2008). Learning for leadership: Failure as a second chance. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Business leadership (2nd ed., pp. 478–485). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

48. Aristotle. (1962). Nichomachean ethics (M. Ostwald, Trans.; Book II, p. 1.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

49. Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

50. Parker-Pope, T. (2015, January 6). In with the new mission statement. The New York Times, p. D4.

51. Vozza, S. (2014, February 25). Personal mission statement of 5 famous CEOs (and why you should write one too). Fast Company.

52. Schein, E. H. (1993). Career anchors: Discovering your real values (rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

53. Feldman, D. C., & Bolino, M. C. (1996). Careers within careers: Reconceptualizing the nature of career anchors and their consequences. Human Resource Management Review 6, 80–

271

112; Tan, H.-H., & Quek, B.-C. (2001). An exploratory study on the career anchors of educators in Singapore. The Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 527–545.

54. Crace, R. K., & Brown, D. (1992). The Life Values Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Available at http://www.lifevalues.org

55. Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press; Kasser, T., Vanssteenkiste, M., & Deckop, J. R. (2006). The ethical problems of a materialistic value orientation for businesses. In J. R. Deckop (Ed), Human resource management ethics (pp. 283–306). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

http://www.lifevalues.org/

272

273

4 Combating Evil

274

Learning Objectives > Differentiate between the six faces of evil. > Outline strategies for combatting evil based on each of its six faces. > Describe the four stages of the forgiveness process. > Explain how forgiveness can be an important weapon in the fight against evil. > Distinguish between genuine and pseudo-apologies. > Define workplace spirituality. > Identify the benefits and dangers of spirituality in leadership. > Formulate a personal statement on the existence and nature of evil.

The power of choosing good or evil is within the reach of all.

—ANCIENT THEOLOGIAN AND PHILOSOPHER ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA

Without forgiveness, there is no future.

—SOUTH AFRICAN ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU

275

What’s Ahead In this chapter, we wrestle with the most dangerous of all unhealthy shadow casters: evil. The first section surveys some of the forms or faces of evil. The second section examines the role of forgiveness, both giving and seeking, in breaking cycles of evil. The third section probes the relationship between spirituality and leadership, highlighting how spiritual practices can equip us to deal with evil and to foster more ethical, productive workplaces.

Warning labels are an increasingly common in modern life. Chances are you’ve seen a notice that an upcoming television program contains scenes that might be disturbing to some viewers or read a sticker at the local coffee shop warning those with allergies that some of the pastries contain nut products. Perhaps text chapters dealing with controversial topics should also come with a label: “Warning: Readers May Disagree With Material Covered in This Chapter.” Such a warning would certainly apply to this chapter. I’ll be adressing three topics—evil, forgiveness, and spirituality—that spark a good deal of debate. I will explain why I believe each is worthy of a leader’s attention. You may or may not agree. But before you dismiss any or all of these topics, I hope you will weigh what scholars say about each one. The For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment Exercises ask you to draw and reflect on your own conclusions about the existence of evil, the extent of forgiveness, and the role of spirituality in leadership and the work place.

276

The Faces of Evil Some forms of shadow behavior are far darker than others. Terms like bad or unethical or criminal seem inadequate to describe such acts as mass shootings, mass rapes, genocide, government sanctioned starvation and torture. As a result, a great number of philosophers, social scientists, political scientists, and theologians use the term evil to describe such events. The concept of evil is not universally embraced, however. Some reject evil as moralistic or religious as well as outdated; it doesn’t fit well into the modern scientific age. Others note that the evil label can become a weapon to use against our enemies, as when President George W. Bush declared Iran, Iran, and North Korea as an “Axis of Evil.” Some belief systems, like Buddhism, reject the notion of evil altogether. Nevertheless, evil has been studied for centuries; many different cultures consider evil to be an integral part of human existence.1

Contemporary Western definitions of evil treat evil as extreme destructiveness.2 Evil inflicts pain and suffering, deprives innocent people of their humanity, and creates feelings of hopelessness and despair. Evildoers do excessive harm, going well beyond what is needed to achieve their objectives. The ultimate product of evil is death. Evil destroys self-esteem, physical and emotional well-being, relationships, communities, and nations.

We can’t combat this powerful force until we first understand our opponent. Important insights into the nature of evil by looking at the various forms or faces it displays. In this section, I’ll introduce five perspectives on evil. In the next section, I’ll talk about how understanding these perspectives can help us better deal with this powerful, destructive force.

277

Evil as Dreadful Pleasure University of Maryland political science professor C. Fred Alford defines evil as a combination of dread and pleasure. Alford recruited 60 respondents of a variety of ages and backgrounds to talk about their experiences with evil. He discovered that people experience evil as a deep sense of uneasiness, “the dread of being human, vulnerable, alone in the universe and doomed to die.”3 They do evil when, instead of coming to grips with their inner darkness, they try to get rid of it by making others feel “dreadful.” Inflicting this pain is enjoyable. Part of the pleasure comes from their being in charge, of being the victimizers instead of the victims.

Evil can also be a product of chronic boredom.4 Boredom arises when people lose their sense of meaning and purpose. They no longer enjoy life and try to fill the emptiness they feel inside. Ordinary distractions such as television, movies, surfing the Internet, social media, shopping, and sports don’t fill the void, so people turn to evil instead. Evil is an attractive alternative because it engages the full energy and attention of perpetrators. For example, a serial killer has to plan his crimes, locate victims, keep his actions secret, and outsmart law enforcement.

278

Evil as Idealism A great deal of the world’s evil is committed by people who are convinced they are doing good. Driven by idealism, they feel obligated to hurt others. In fact, it “becomes one’s sacred obligation to do so.”5 Hindus in India lynch their beef-eating Moslem neighbors. North Korean leaders imprison and execute those who offend the nation and its supreme leader. ISIS fighters behead those who stand in the way of the formation of an Islamic state.

In idealistic evil, good ends justify oppressive, violent means. What is normally considered morally wrong—torture, executions— is acceptable. Participants overcome their scruples to participate in evil acts, as in the case of the Soviet Communist party members who put aside their pity when confiscating food from Russian peasants in the 1920s, starving millions. (Turn to Case Study 4.1 for another example of evildoers who were convinced that their heinous crimes were justified because they served a worthy cause.)

According to Florida State professor Roy Baumeister, idealistic evil provides adherents with a license to hate. Opponents appear to be standing in the way of good and hence are evil. Therefore, true believers have a positive duty to hate them. Terrorists use the license to hate to justify killing innocent people by running over pedestrians, and bombing mosques, markets and other public venues. To them, anyone who is not on their side is considered an enemy. Religious wars are often more vicious because participants believe that extreme evil requires the use of extreme counter measures.

Idealistic evil is a group phenomenon. The group defines the cause or ideal; group members validate the beliefs and actions of each other. It is far easier to engage in violence, for example, when others agree with these acts and encourage their use. The group becomes the moral authority. Individuals may question themselves but do so in order to determine if they fit into the group’s belief and value structure. Thus, in the past, members of

279

many communist cells judged each other based on how well they conformed to party beliefs. But they never questioned if the party line was moral. In some groups, focus shifts from pursuing a worthy ideal to maintaining the group itself. Anyone who leaves the group is considered a traitor, a greater threat than external enemies. Members turn to violence and repression to preserve and promote the group.

280

Evil as Exclusion

In moral exclusion, group members draw a mental circle.6 Those inside the circle (the moral community or scope of justice) are treated with respect, are considered deserving of sacrifice from other members, and get their fair share of resources. If those within the circle are harmed, other group members come to their rescue. Those outside the circle, on the other hand, are seen as undeserving or expendable. As a result, “harming them appears acceptable, appropriate, or just.”7

Mild forms of exclusion are part of daily life and include, for example, making sexist comments, applying double standards when judging the behavior of different groups, and making unflattering comparisons to appear superior to others. (Mild exclusion can also include ignoring or allowing such behaviors.) However, moral exclusion can also take extreme forms, resulting in such evils as human rights violations, torture, murder, and genocide. For instance, during World War II, Japanese soldiers viewed the Chinese with contempt. Murdering them was like “squashing a bug or murdering a hog.”8 This mind-set allowed Japanese soldiers to rape, torture, and slaughter civilians in the Chinese city of Nanking (now known as Nanjing), killing an estimated 300,000 residents. Prior to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, jailers were told that Iraqi prisoners “are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you’ve lost control of them.”9 Other examples of evil exclusion include the Russian oppression of Chechen rebels, genocide in Guatemala, Serbian atrocities, attacks on villages in the Darfur region of Sudan, and the expulsion of the Rohingyan people from Myanmar (see Case Study 4.2).10 Box 4.1 presents a list of the symptoms of moral exclusion.

Box 4.1 Symptoms of Moral Exclusion

Symptom Description

281

Symptom Description

Double standards Having different norms for different groups

Concealing effects of harmful outcomes

Disregarding, ignoring, distorting, or minimizing injurious outcomes that others experience

Reducing moral standards

Asserting that one’s harmful behavior is proper while denying one’s lesser concern for others

Utilizing euphemisms

Making and sanitizing harmful behavior and outcomes

Biased evaluation of groups

Making unflattering between-group comparisons that bolster one’s own group at the expense of others

Condescension and derogation Regarding others with disdain

Dehumanization Denying others’ rights, entitlements, humanity, and dignity

Fear of contamination

Perceiving contact or alliances with other stakeholders as posing a threat to oneself

Normalization and glorification of violence

Glorifying and normalizing violence as an effective, legitimate, or even sublime form of human behavior while denying the potential of violence to damage people, the environment, relationships, and constructive conflict resolution processes

Victim blaming Placing blame on those who are harmed

Deindividuation Believing one’s contribution to social problems is undetectable

282

Symptom Description

Diffusing responsibility

Denying personal responsibility for harms by seeing them as the result of collective rather than individual decisions and actions

Displacing responsibility

Identifying others, such as subordinates or supervisors, as responsible for harms inflicted on victims

Source: Opotow, S., Gerson, J., & Woodside, S. (2005). From moral exclusion to moral inclusion: Theory for teaching peace. Theory Into Practice 44, 303–318, p. 307. Used with permission.

Dispute resolution expert Susan Opotow believes that moral exclusion progresses through the following five states or elements, which reinforce one another and can become a vicious cycle that ends in death and destruction.11

1. Conflicts of interest are salient. Moral exclusion is often set in motion during zero-sum conflicts where one group wins at the expense of the others. As tensions increase, members distance themselves from their opponents, focusing on differences based on company, job function, religion, education, hometown, ethnic background, social status, skin color, and other factors. Competition for resources can even set adults against children. Under the Communist regime in Romania, families were forced to have four children when there was little to eat. As a result, survival took priority over the welfare of children, who were seen as competition for food; many children were placed in orphanages. One Romanian cab driver summed up the attitude of many of his countrymen this way: “With so many decent people struggling to get along, why do you bother with the kids? They are not good; they are trash.”12 Only recently have Romanian citizens begun to address the problem of neglected children.

2. Group categorizations are salient. The characteristics of competing groups are given negative labels, helping to divide the world into those who deserve empathy and assistance and those who don’t. These derogatory labels excuse unfair

283

treatment and negative consequences. In much of Europe, for example, Romanies (often called Gypsies) are described as “lazy,” “dirty,” and “thieves.”13

3. Moral justifications are prominent. Hurting outsiders is justified and even celebrated as a way to strike a blow against a corrupt enemy. These exclusionary moral claims can be identified by their self-serving nature. They justify doing harm and reinforce moral boundaries by denigrating outsiders. Serbs in the former Yugoslavia believed that they had to establish their own nation state, free of other ethnic groups, so that they could flourish. First, Serbian authorities dismissed Muslims and Croats from their jobs and kept them from opening businesses and sending their children to school. Then, with their humanity denied, they were massacred and sent to concentration camps.14

4. Unjust procedures are described as expedient. The damage done by moral exclusion is often disguised because it administered through technical or rational means (see the discussion of evil as bureaucracy below). Unjust procedures often hurt the very people they are supposed to benefit. For example, government bureaucrats in the United States and Australia claimed to be helping native peoples even as they stole their lands and tried to eradicate their cultures.

5. Harmful outcomes occur. Exclusion has damaging physical and psychological effects. Members of excluded groups may suffer physical harm like abuse, sickness, and death. At the same time, they suffer from a loss of self-esteem and identity as they internalize the negative judgments of the dominant group. Perpetrators also pay a high price. They have to spend significant energy and resources to deal with conflicts, excuse their behavior, and maintain group boundaries. Excluders also suffer psychologically, as the harm they cause threatens to overshadow any good they do. This was the case under apartheid in South Africa, where Afrikaners could not overcome the stain of racism.

284

Evil as Bureaucracy The 20th century was the bloodiest period in history. An estimated 200 million people died as the direct or indirect result of wars, genocide, and other violence.15 According to public administration professors Guy Adams and Danny Balfour, the combination of science and technology made the 1900s so destructive.16

Scientific and technological developments—tanks, airplanes, chemical warfare, nuclear weapons—made killing highly efficient. At the same time, belief in technological progress encouraged government officials to take a rational approach to problems. The integration of these factors produced administrative evil. In administrative evil, organizational members commit heinous crimes while carrying out their daily tasks as “good,” “responsible” professionals.

Adams and Balfour argue that the true nature of administrative evil is masked or hidden from participants. Hiding evil is easier in the modern organization because, first of all, many people are not comfortable with the term evil. Second, large organizations diffuse individual responsibility and compartmentalize work. Individual employees don’t feel individually accountable for their acts or realize how their behaviors contribute to evil. Third, professionals focused solely on carrying out their duties find it easier to repackage evil, destructive actions as good, a process called moral inversion. In administrative evil, officials are rarely asked to engage in evil; instead, they inflict pain and suffering while fulfilling their job responsibilities. Often, the damage is done to what Adams and Balfour call “surplus populations,” those groups— ethnic minorities, the poor, immigrants—that are marginalized by society.

The Holocaust provides the most vivid example of administrative evil in action. Extermination camps (designed to eliminate Jews, Gypsies, and other “surplus populations”) in Germany would not have been possible without the willing cooperation of thousands of civil servants engaged in such functions as collecting taxes, running municipal governments, and managing the country’s social security system. These duties may seem morally neutral,

285

but in carrying them out, public officials condemned millions to death. Government authorities defined who was undesirable and then seized their assets. Administrators managed the ghettos, built concentration camp latrines, and employed slave labor. Even the railway authority did its part. The Gestapo had to pay for each prisoner shipped by rail to the death camps. Railroad officials billed the SS at third-class passenger rates (one way) for adult prisoners, with discounts for children. Guards were charged round-trip fares.

Adams and Balfour believe that administrative evil emerges over time. When wrongdoing first occurs, no one individual sees enough of the big picture to recognize the violation because of compartmentalization and diffusion of responsibility. The longer the wrongdoing goes on, the harder it is to stop as members become more invested in the activity; repeating the behavior legitimizes it. At this point, reversing course takes strong, decisive action. When members finally recognize the evil, their feelings of guilt and shame (and concern for organizational liability) give them a strong incentive to deny the wrongdoing or to engage in moral inversion.

286

Evil as a Choice Any discussion of good and evil must consider the role of human choice. Just how much freedom we have is a matter of debate, but a number of scholars argue that we become good or evil through a series of small, incremental decisions. In other words, we never remain neutral but are always moving toward one pole or another. Medieval scholar C. S. Lewis draws on the image of a road to illustrate this point.17 On a journey, we decide which direction to take every time we come to a fork in the road. We face a similar series of decisions throughout our lives. We can’t correct a poor decision by continuing on but must go back to the fork where we went wrong and take the other path.

Psychologist Erich Fromm makes the same argument as Lewis. Only those who are very good or very bad do not have a choice; the rest of us do. However, each choice we make reduces our options:

Each step in life which increases my self-confidence, my integrity, my courage, my conviction also increases my capacity to choose the desirable alternative, until eventually it becomes more difficult to choose the undesirable rather than the desirable action. On the other hand, each act of surrender and cowardice weakens me, opens the path for more acts of surrender, and eventually freedom is lost. Between the extreme when I can no longer do a wrong act and the other extreme when I have lost my freedom to right action, there are innumerable degrees of freedom of choice. In the practice of life, the degree of freedom to choose is different at any given moment. If the degree of freedom to choose the good is great, it needs less effort to choose the good. If it is small, it takes a great effort, help from others, and favorable circumstances.18

287

Fromm uses the story of the Israelites’ exodus from ancient Egypt to illustrate what happens when leaders make a series of evil choices. Moses repeatedly asks Pharaoh to let his people go, but the Egyptian ruler turns down every request. Eventually his heart is hardened, and he and his army are destroyed. (Turn to the “Focus on Follower Ethics” box below for a closer look at the choices facing those who observe evil.)

Focus on Follower Ethics Choosing to Become an Active Bystander

Bystanders play a critical role in promoting or stopping evil. Harmful bystanders, such as the white South Africans who participated in the repression of blacks during apartheid, actively support evildoers. Complicit bystanders don’t intend to support perpetrators but their actions give the impression that they do. U.S. companies conducting business in South Africa during the apartheid era would be considered complicit bystanders. They were out to make money, not to support injustice and persecution. Nonetheless, by choosing to ignore these activities they appeared to condone them.

In contrast to harmful and complicit witnesses, active bystanders choose to intervene to end wrongdoing. Children act as active bystanders when they stop schoolyard bullies. Adults are active bystanders when they shelter the targets of persecution, provide first aid for the victims of terrorist attacks, and lobby their governments to end torture. Governments function as active bystanders when they send peacekeeping forces to end conflicts.

Becoming an active bystander is not easy. Far too many people walk on by when they hear a woman being verbally abused by her partner, for instance. It is easier to turn the channel than to learn more about the plight of refugees on the television news. However, you can increase the likelihood that you will choose to intervene if you

– pay close attention what you see. Recognizing the need is the first step to action. Don’t automatically turn away (which is tempting to do) but attend to the situation. Have confidence in your ability to judge if assistance is needed. – act in spite of ambiguity. The need for help is not always clear. The person lying on the curb may be drunk, not hurt. A couple’s angry argument may not be a sign of domestic violence. However, reaching out to help is preferable than ignoring the situation. Even if intervention isn’t needed, the recipient will likely be grateful that you responded.

288

– don’t hide behind pluralistic ignorance. If part of a crowd, don’t follow the lead of others who hold back but act instead. Further, don’t be overwhelmed the needs of large groups (thousands of war victims, entire ethnic groups) and turn away. Don’t ignore those suffering in faraway locations. Use your imagination to take the role of victims wherever they are. Seek more information of the fate of distant groups who are the targets of terrorism, ethnic cleansing and genocide. – see the humanity in the “other.” Don’t exclude members of other groups. Don’t blame victims who are suffering because of what others have done to them. – join with others. Overcome the belief that one person can’t make a difference by joining groups and movements. Protest, write letters, raise money, lobby, and so on. – make choices about how to respond. Rather than being caught up in personal goals or feeling overwhelmed by the world’s needs, find one cause to invest in. At the same time, be ready to respond to emergencies around the world. – support institutions that prevent evil. Encourage governments to intervene to stop persecution and violence. Support schools that take steps to address bullying and train children to be peacemakers.

Source: Staub, E. (2015). The roots of goodness & resistance to evil: Inclusive caring, moral courage, altruism born of suffering, active bystandership, and heroism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

289

Evil as Ordinary The evil-as-ordinary perspective focuses on the situational factors that cause otherwise ordinary or normal people to become evildoers. Although it may be comforting to think that evildoers must be heartless psychopaths or deranged killers, we know that in many cases, perpetrators look and act a lot like the rest of us. Social philosopher Hannah Arendt pointed this out in her analysis of the trial of Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann in 1961.19 Eichmann was responsible for the deportation of millions of Jews to concentration and extermination camps. What struck Arendt was how ordinary Eichmann seemed. Half a dozen psychiatrists examined him and certified him as “normal.” Arendt used the phrase the “banality of evil” when describing Eichmann to point out that the sources of evil are not mysterious or demonic but commonplace. If that is the case, then any one of us can commit heinous crimes. The Rwandan genocide supports Arendt’s thesis. Thousands of ordinary Rwandan Hutus literally went next door or across the street to hack and beat their Tutsi neighbors to death with machetes and other farm implements. Interviews with one group of young killers revealed a chilling routine. They would have a hearty breakfast (running down Tutsis took a lot of energy), meet at the soccer field to get their assignments to kill or loot, march off singing, find and murder victims until the final whistle blew, and then relax with beer and food after a hard day’s work.20

Social psychologists have identified a number of situational factors that can turn otherwise “nice” people into torturers and murderers.21 James Waller believes that humans, by virtue of their evolutionary heritage, have the potential to participate mass killings and other forms of extraordinary evil. A propensity for violence, strong group attachment, and bias against outsiders enabled our hunter–gatherer ancestors to successfully compete with other groups for scarce resources. These tendencies remain part of our genetic heritage and, under the right conditions, can prompt people to commit atrocities. The factors that encourage individuals to become killers are cultural, psychological, and social.

290

Cultural factors Obedience, conformity, tradition, safety, order, and other collectivistic values overwhelm individual freedom and promote hostility to other groups. Authority orientation encourages leaders to enjoy their positions and power while, at the same time, encouraging followers to obey leaders who abuse their power. Social dominance honors and reinforces hierarchies based on military rank, heredity, wealth, and power.

Psychological factors Us–them thinking privileges in-groups at the expense of out groups. Moral disengagement places others outside the circle of concern through justifying immoral acts, dehumanizing victims, and using euphemistic terms for evil. Blaming the victims excuses cruelty by claiming that targets deserve or brought on their suffering.

Social Factors Professional socialization promotes cruelty through three organizational factors: (1) escalating commitments to evil, (2) ritual conduct that reinforces discipline and competition, and (3) the merging of the role and the person so that cruelty becomes part of the individual’s identity. Group identification promotes intergroup conflict and represses conscience. Binding group factors, such as conformity, peer pressure, and affection, encourage members to participate in collective evil doing.

Pscyhologist Phillip Zimbardo discovered firsthand how the situation can promote unethical behavior through his famous Stanford Prison Experiment.22 In this study, he created a mock prison in the basement of the building housing Stanford University’s psychology department and randomly assigned

291

student volunteers as prisoners and guards. It didn’t take long for both groups to get caught up in their roles. Soon, the prisoners revolted and the guards retaliated. The jailers strip-searched prisoners, forced them into prolonged exercise, put them into solitary confinement, denied them bathroom privileges (they had to urinate and defecate in their cells), and made them clean toilets by hand. Two prisoners suffered significant emotional trauma and had to be immediately released from the experiment. Zimbardo, who served as the prison warden, also got caught up in the role- play. At one point, he tried to transfer the experiment to an empty cell at the local police station to ensure more security and he got angry when the police refused his request.

Zimbardo went on to analyze the role of situational variables in real-life cases of evil, such as the widespread torture of political opponents in Brazil and prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. According to Zimbardo, ordinary people, such as the military guards at Abu Ghraib, are motivated to do evil when they feel peer pressure to participate in such acts, obey authority, remain anonymous, are given permission to engage in antisocial behavior, and dehumanize others (treat them as less than fully human). Evil is likely to continue when others fail to intervene to stop it. (The film profiled in the “Leadership Ethics at the Movies” box on the website features an ordinary, “good” person who morphs into an evildoer.)

292

Facing Evil Each of the perspectives just described provides insights into how we as leaders can come to grips with evil. The dreadful pleasure approach highlights both the origins of evil and the attraction of doing evil, forcing us to examine our motivations. We need to ask ourselves: Am I projecting my insecurities onto others? Am I punishing a subordinate because of her or his poor performance or because exercising coercive power makes me feel strong? Am I making a legitimate request or merely demonstrating that I have the authority to control another person? Am I tempted to harm others just to fill the emptiness I feel inside?

Evil as idealism calls for close examination of the causes we serve and the means we employ to further those causes. Are they worthy of our support? Are they being used to justify harm to others? There is no license to hate, no matter how worthy the cause. Resist the temptation to use pursuit of a noble ideal as an excuse for wrongdoing. Don’t engage in any action in a group that you would avoid on your own. Never hesitate to question the group’s mission and tactics. Beware of putting the survival of the group above the worthy objectives it is supposed to seek.

Evil as exclusion highlights the dangers of putting other groups outside our circle of concern. However, combating moral exclusion is difficult because it often subtle and hard to detect. Further, group members often deny or ignore their exclusionary behavior to protect themselves from guilt or anxiety.23 Being alert to the symptoms outlined in Box 4.1 is a good place to start. Pay particularly close attention to the language used by group members. Negative labels, critical comments, unfair comparisons, and other verbal strategies narrow the scope of justice. Biased speech also paves the way for more extreme behaviors. Adopting a pluralistic perspective can help leaders deter moral exclusion at each stage of its development.24 Pluralism acknowledges the legitimacy of a variety of groups. This approach sees conflicts not as win–lose battles but as opportunities to integrate the interests of all parties. Members of pluralistic groups enlarge the definition

293

of the moral community by viewing all persons as worthy of justice. Pluralism encourages group members to be skeptical of self-serving claims and moral justifications for destructive acts, to develop fair procedures for distributing resources, and to support dissenters.

The administrative evil perspective introduces a new type of evil, one based on technology and logic. In today’s world, evil has increased capacity for destruction. The impacts of evil, once contained by distance and technological limitations, can now extend to the entire world. Further, the face of evil may be masked or hidden from those who participate in it. Combating this form of evil begins with acknowledging that evil exists. Second, we should periodically step back to look at the big picture. For example, when carrying out our duties, we need to ask the following: What is the organization’s ultimate goal? Does my role contribute to good or ill? What are the long-term consequences of my actions, beyond short-term effectiveness and efficiency? Am I excusing my bad behavior by calling it justified? Third, be alert to even small ethical missteps, lest they be repeated and develop into destructive patterns. Fourth, recognize the danger of hiding behind professionalism, which tempts us to set aside our moral standards in order to obey authority. We are ultimately responsible for our decisions. Claiming that we were “just following orders” is no excuse. Finally, remember that the ultimate goal of administrators and managers is protecting the well-being of people, particularly society’s most vulnerable members. (See Case Study 4.3 to see how one group of administrators lost sight of this obligation.)

Evil as a choice puts the ethical burden squarely on our shoulders. Group and organizational pressures may contribute to our wrongdoing, but we are the ones who make the decisions to participate in evil acts. Furthermore, the choices we make now will limit our options in the future. Every moral decision, no matter how insignificant it seems at the time, has lasting consequences.

The final perspective, evil as ordinary, is a sobering reminder that we all have the potential to become evildoers. Not only do we need to resist cultural, psychological, and situational influences

294

that can turn us into brutes (see Box 4.2 “Resisting Situational Pressures to Do Evil”), but also, as leaders, we should eliminate conditions that promote evil behavior in our subordinates.

Box 4.2 Resisting Situational Pressures to Do Evil: A 10-Step Program

Philip Zimbardo offers the following 10-step program designed to help us resist situational forces that promote evildoing.

“I made a mistake!” Admit your mistakes. (Say “I’m sorry.” “I apologize.” “Forgive me.”) Vow to learn from your errors and move on. Don’t stay the course if you are engaged in an immoral activity. “I am mindful.” Don’t rely on scripts from the past. They can blind you to the tactics of influencers and key elements of the situation. Instead, pay close attention to (be mindful of) the here and now. In addition, think critically. Ask for evidence, imagine future consequences, and reject simple solutions to complex problems. Encourage others to do the same. “I am responsible.” Maintaining personal accountability increases your resistance to conformity pressures. Take charge of your decisions and actions rather than spreading responsibility to your group, coworkers, or military unit. Remember that claiming “everyone else was doing it” is no defense in a court of law. “I am me, the best I can be.” Don’t let others take away your individuality, making you anonymous. State your name, credentials, and unique features. “I respect just authority but rebel against unjust authority.” Distinguish between those in authority who deserve your respect and those who are leading others astray or promoting their own interests. Critically evaluate and disobey destructive leaders. “I want group acceptance but value my independence.” Group acceptance is a powerful force but shouldn’t overpower your sense of right and wrong. Resist social pressure by stepping out of the group, getting other opinions, and finding new groups more in line with your values. “I will be more frame vigilant.” Frames—words, pictures, slogans, logos—shape our attitudes toward issues and people, often without our being aware of their impact. For example, many politicians use the colors of the flag—red, white, and blue —on their campaign signs and other materials. Be vigilant,

295

noting the way that the frame is designed to shape your thoughts and emotions. “I will balance my time perspective.” Living in the present increases the power of situational influences that promote evil. You are less likely to go along with abusive behavior if you consider the long-term consequences of such actions and remember the values and standards you developed in the past. “I will not sacrifice personal or civic freedoms for the illusion of security.” Reject any offer that involves sacrificing even small freedoms for the promise of future security. Such sacrifices (e.g., loss of privacy, legal protections, and freedom of speech) are immediate and real, but the promised security is often a distant illusion. “I can oppose unjust systems.” Join with others to resist systems that promote evil. Try to bring about change, blow the whistle on corruption, get away from the group or organization, resist groupthink, draw on the resources of outsiders, and so on.

Source: Adapted from Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House, pp. 451–456.

296

Making a Case for Forgiveness

297

Breaking the Cycle of Evil A growing number of social scientists believe that forgiving instead of retaliating can prevent or break cycles of evil. In a cycle of evil, aggressive acts provoke retaliation followed by more aggression. When these destructive patterns characterize relations between ethnic groups (e.g., Turks versus Armenians, Serbs versus Croats), they can continue for hundreds of years. Courageous leaders can end retaliatory cycles through dramatic acts of reconciliation, however. As president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat engaged in one such conciliatory gesture when he traveled to Jerusalem to further the peace process with Israel. Pope John Paul II went to the jail cell of his would-be assassin to offer forgiveness. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela prevented a bloodbath in South Africa by creating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This body, made up of both blacks and whites, investigated crimes committed during the apartheid era and allowed offenders to confess their guilt and ask for pardon. Similar commissions were created after incidents of widespread torture and murder in Argentina, Uruguay, Peru, Guatemala, Rwanda, and elsewhere. In the United States, the Navaho Nation brings criminal offenders and victims together to restore community relationships.

Like evil, the concept of forgiving evil doers is controversial.25

Skeptics assert that (1) guilty parties will get off without acknowledging they have done wrong or paying for their crimes, (2) forgiveness is a sign of weakness, (3) forgiveness is impossible in some situations, (4) forgiveness can’t be offered until the offender asks for it, and (5) no leader has the right to offer forgiveness on behalf of other victims. Each of these concerns is valid. However, I believe that they can be answered in large part by understanding the forgiveness process and by identifying some of the benefits that come from extending mercy to others.

298

The Forgiveness Process There are many misconceptions about what it means to forgive another person or group of people. According to Robert Enright, professor of educational psychology and president of the International Forgiveness Institute at the University of Wisconsin, forgiveness is not the following:26

Forgetting past wrongs to “move on” Excusing or condoning bad, damaging behavior Reconciling or coming together again (Forgiveness opens the way to reconciliation, but the person being forgiven must change or desire to reconcile.) Reducing the severity of offenses Offering a legal pardon Pretending to forgive in order to wield power over another person Ignoring the offender Dropping our anger and becoming emotionally neutral

Enright and his colleagues define forgiveness as “a willingness to abandon one’s right to resentment, negative judgment, and indifferent behavior toward one who unjustly injured us, while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity, and even love toward him or her.”27 This definition recognizes that the wronged party has been unjustly treated (slandered, betrayed, imprisoned); the offended person willingly chooses forgiveness regardless of the offender’s response; forgiving involves emotions, thoughts, and behavior; and forgiveness is a process that takes place over time. (Measure your likelihood to forgive others by completing Self-Assessment 4.1.)

Enright and his fellow researchers offer a four-stage model to help people forgive. In the first phase, uncovering, a victim may initially deny that a problem exists. However, when the person does acknowledge the hurt, he or she may experience intense feelings of anger, shame, and betrayal. The victim invests a lot of psychic energy in rehashing the offense and comparing his or her

299

condition with that of the offender. Feeling permanently damaged, the person may believe that life is unfair.

During the second phase, decision, the injured party recognizes that he or she is paying a high price for dwelling on the injury, considers the possibility of forgiveness, and commits himself or herself to forgiving.

Forgiveness is accomplished in the third stage, work. The wronged party tries to understand (not condone) the victimizer’s background and motivation. He or she may experience empathy and compassion for the offender. Absorbing pain is the key to this stage. The forgiver decides to endure suffering rather than pass it on, thereby breaking the cycle of evil. Viewed in this light, forgiveness is a gift of mercy to the wrongdoer. In one powerful example of forgiveness, families of some of the black victims of the Charleston South Carolina church shooting declared that that they forgave the white supremacist who gunned them down.28

The fourth and final phase, deepening, consists of the outcomes of forgiving. A forgiver may find deeper meaning in suffering, realize his or her own need for forgiveness, and come to a greater appreciation for support groups—friends, congregations, classmates. In the end, the person offering forgiveness may develop a new purpose in life and find peace.

Those who forgive are released from resentments and experience less stress, depression, and anxiety. They find it easier to focus (which can lead to higher grades among students) and enjoy higher self-esteem. Overall, they enjoy a higher sense of well- being. By releasing their grudges, forgivers experience better physical health. Reducing anger, hostility, and hopelessness lowers the risk of heart attack and high blood pressure while increasing the body’s resistance to disease. Acting mercifully toward transgressors can also help to maintain relationships among friends and family members.29

The social scientific study of forgiveness is continuing, and results are extremely encouraging. Forgiving does appear to absorb or defuse evil. If this is the case, then as leaders, we should practice

300

forgiveness when we are treated unjustly by followers, supervisors, peers, or outsiders. At times, however, we will need to go further and follow the examples of Sadat and Mandela by offering forgiveness on behalf of followers in the hope of reconciling with a long-standing enemy.

Donald Shriver uses the metaphor of a cable to explain how warring groups can overcome their mutual hatred and bind together to restore fractured relationships.30 This cable is made up of four strands. The first strand is moral truth. Forgiveness starts with recalling the past and rendering a moral judgment. Both parties need to agree that one or both engaged in behavior that was wrong (see the discussion of political apologies below) and unjust and caused injury. Refusal to admit the truth makes reconciliation impossible. That is why South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission began the process of national healing after the abolition of apartheid by publicly airing black victims’ statements and requests for amnesty by white police officers. Scholars use the term restorative justice to describe legal settings, like truth and reconciliation commissions, that focus on victims. In these contexts, victims have an opportunity to describe the harm they have suffered; offenders are accountable to those they have harmed.31

The second strand of the cable is forbearance—that is, rejecting revenge in favor of restraint. Moral indignation often fuels new crimes as offended parties take their vengeance. Forbearance breaks this pattern and may soften enemies who expect retaliation.

The third strand is empathy for the enemies’ humanity. Empathy doesn’t excuse wrongs but acknowledges that offender and offended share much in common. This recognition opens the way for both sides to live together in peace. Union general Ulysses S. Grant demonstrated how to combine the judgment of wrong with empathy at Appomattox, where Southern troops surrendered to end the U.S. Civil War. On that occasion, Grant wrote the following in his journal. “I felt . . . sad and depressed at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had

301

suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought.”32

The fourth and final strand of the forgiveness cable is commitment to restore the broken relationship. Forgivers must be prepared to live and interact with their former enemies. At first, the two parties probably will coexist in a state of mutual toleration. Later, they may fully reconcile, as the United States and Germany have done since the end of World War II.

In sum, I believe that forgiveness is one of a leader’s most powerful weapons in the fight against evil. Or, to return to the central metaphor of this text, forgiving is one of the ways in which leaders cast light rather than shadow. We must face our inner darkness, particularly our resentments and hostilities, in order to offer genuine forgiveness. By forgiving and seeking reconciliation, we short-circuit or break the shadowy, destructive cycles that poison groups, organizations, and societies. Offering forgiveness brightens our lives by reducing our anxiety levels and enhancing our sense of well-being.33 Requesting forgiveness, as we’ll see below, opens the door for reconciliation.

302

Seeking Forgiveness Just as we need to offer forgiveness, we need to seek forgiveness. In fact, some observers have called the current era the “Age of Apology.” Nearly every week, it seems, a leader offers an apology either for his or her misdeeds or on behalf of the groups he or she leads. Louis C. K., Charlie Rose, Russell Simmons, George H. W. Bush, and other men offered apologies for sexual misconduct, for example. Pope Francis asked for forgiveness for Catholic persecution of Protestants following the Reformation. The CEO of Wells Fargo apologized to customers, employees, and Congress for creating millions of fake accounts.

The demand for apologies is likely to increase for several reasons.34 First, globalization is creating more friction as cultures and values clash; apologies act as a conflict management tool. Second, digital technology reduces the likelihood that misbehavior can be kept secret. Offensive behavior is now broadcast around the world. United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz offered his “deepest apology” after passengers posted video of a screaming doctor being dragged from a plane so that an employee could take his seat. Third, as old regimes crumble, new leaders find that they need to acknowledge the suffering of victims under previous governments. Often, past regimes did not acknowledge their guilt, so the burden falls on incoming officials. As a result, political apologies appear to be increasingly common. Examples include the following:35

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for the nation’s past treatment of LGBT citizens. Former British prime minister Tony Blair apologized for his country’s inaction during the Irish potato famine of the 19th century. The Belgian prime minister apologized to Rwandans for not stepping in to prevent the 1994 genocide. Germany’s chancellor Gerhard Schröder requested forgiveness from the Russian people for the damage done by his nation during World War II.

303

U.S. president Bill Clinton expressed regret to Ugandans for African slavery. The Natal Law Society apologized for excluding Mohandas K. Gandhi from the practice of law in South Africa. The U.S. Senate passed a resolution apologizing for not enacting legislation that would have made lynching a federal crime. The Oregon state legislature held a public session to revoke and to express regret about an 1849 law that prohibited African Americans from entering Oregon territory. Australia holds an annual “Sorry Day” to commemorate the release of a report describing a government program that removed 100,000 Aborignal children from their parents and placed them with white parents and in orphanages.

Businesses and religious groups, too, are have officially apologized for past wrongs. Mitsubishi acknowledged it forced American POWs to work for the company during World War II. JPMorgan Chase and Wachovia banks expressed regret for their support of slavery, as did the Southern Baptist convention. Presbyterians admitted that they helped remove Native children from their families in order to put them in church schools and that they had engaged in racist actions during the civil rights era of the 1960s. Lutheran leaders officially repudiated the anti-Semetic views of Martin Luther.

Apologies are moral acts.36 In seeking forgiveness, offenders acknowledge that ethical violations have occurred, that a moral or social contract has been broken. Perpetrators accept responsibility for these transgressions and pledge to repair the damage. In apologizing, offenders put themselves in a humble position while helping to restore the dignity of victims and promoting healing. They acknowledge that the victims were indeed wronged and assure them of safety. Apologizing also signals a commitment to the relationship as well as to common values. Victims see the offenders suffer through their expressions of remorse; reparations help to repair the damage. Apologizers develop a sense of integrity and greater self-awareness. By seeking forgiveness, offenders open the door to reconciliation.

304

Unfortunately, many apologies (pseudo-apologies or inauthentic apologies) fail to live up to their moral obligations. The offender, while ostensibly apologizing, refuses to admit guilt, appears insincere, blames others, and so on. For example, when attempting to apologize for doping, cyclist Lance Armstrong minimized his offenses. He claimed that the U.S. cycling cheating scheme was limited when compared to the doping program of the East Germans. However, the head of the United States Anti- Doping Agency said that Armstrong’s team ran “the most sophisticated, organized and professionalized doping scheme in the history of cycling.”37

Pseudo-apologies can make a situation worse by further offending victims and trivializing their concerns. The moral or social contract remains broken. Any opportunity for reconciliation is cut off. Inauthentic apologies are frequently vague (“I apologize for whatever I did . . .”), use the passive voice (“Mistakes have been made . . .”), make the offense conditional (“If mistakes were made . . .”), question whether the victim was damaged (“If anyone was hurt . . .”), or minimize the damage (“There’s really nothing [or very little] to apologize for . . .”).38 Rwandans rejected former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s apology for failing to intervene in the country’s genocide because Annan didn’t acknowledge that his inaction as leader contributed to the massacre. Former Today Show co-host Matt Lauer offered a vague apology for some of the sexual harassment allegations against him. Apology expert John Kador argues that delivering effective apologies (and avoiding inauthentic apologies) is a critical skill for modern leaders:

Today’s most urgent leadership challenges demand the ability to apologize when you make a mistake. The capacity of leaders to apologize can determine their ability to create the kinds of high-trust organizations required to navigate turbulent times. Apology is a leadership skill. And, like any skill, it can be improved with reflection and practice.39

305

Kador outlines five dimensions of an effective or authentic apology that can help us develop our ability to apologize, whether for our own actions or on behalf of the groups we lead. We can also use his “5-R” model for evaluating the apologies of others.

Recognition. An authentic apology begins with identifying the specific offenses committed (for example, lying to colleagues, abusing followers, failing to protect the safety of workers). When framing an apology, consider your answers to the following questions:

1. What am I apologizing for? 2. What was the impact of my actions on the victim? 3. What norm or value did I violate? 4. Am I apologizing to the right person? 5. Do I have cause to apologize? 6. Do I have the standing to apologize? 7. Should my apology contain an explanation?

Netflix founder Reed Hastings appeared to apologize for the wrong offenses when the company suddenly announced a price hike and that it was going to divide up its DVD and streaming services, which would force customers to set up two accounts. In his apology letter, Hastings expressed regret for the way he communicated the changes, not for the price hike and modifying the Netflix business model. He implied that customers would accept the price hikes and dual platform once they learned the company’s reasoning. They did not. Eight hundred thousand subscribers cancelled their subscriptions and Netflix dropped the idea of spinning off a separate streaming service.

Responsibility. Take personal responsibility for the offenses. Avoid the temptation to blame others, to make excuses, or to defend yourself. In his resignation speech from the Senate, former Senator Al Franken appeared to deflect blame for his sexual misconduct by pointing out that he had to leave “while a man who has bragged on tape

306

about his history of sexual assault [Donald Trump] sits in the Oval Office.”40

Remorse. “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” or “I regret” should be part of admission of responsibility. These words need to be reinforced (in face to face settings) with the appropriate nonverbal cues that reflect sadness and remorse. Comedian Steve Harvey drew praise for expressing heartfelt, tearful remorse to Miss Columbia after mistakenly announcing that she was the winner of the Miss Universe pageant.

Restitution. Take concrete steps to aid the victim by, for example, restoring employee benefits or paying restitution for damages. Making amends helps to restore balance to the relationship and signals that you are sincere. Former Governor Snyder’s apology for the Flint water crisis fell short because the city’s water system still has not been completely restored. It is not always possible to offer tangible restitution. In those cases, offer humility, community service, and other intangible reparations. Football star Michael Vick helped restore his image after being jailed for dog fighting charges by working with the Humane Society of the United States on its anti-dog-fighting campaign.

Repetition. Signal your commitment to not repeat the offensive behavior. This helps the victim overcome her or his reluctance to forgive. For example, as part of his apology for a series of food-borne illnesses at Chipotle, founder Steve Ells vowed to prevent future outbreaks at the restaurant chain by instituting extensive new food safety measures.

307

Spirituality and Leadership Coming to grips with evil is hard work. We must always be on the lookout for evil in whatever form it takes; continually evaluate our motivations and choices; make a conscious effort to forgive by reshaping our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors; and have the courage to apologize. A great number of leaders turn to spirituality to help equip themselves for these tasks. Many academics are studying the link between spiritual values and practices and organizational performance.41 One interest group in the Academy of Management, for example, focuses on the connection between spirituality and managerial practice and publishes the Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion. Popular interest in spirituality is also strong. Meditation rooms and reflective gardens are part of many company headquarters. Some organizations sponsor groups for spiritual seekers, hire chaplains, and send employees to business and spirituality workshops. Tom’s of Maine, Toro, Dayspring cards, Cordon Bleu-Tomasso, BioGenex, Interstate Batteries, and Medtronic integrate spiritual values into their organizational cultures. Margaret Wheatley, David Whyte, and Thomas Chappell are some of the popular writers who encourage spiritual development at work.

Recent interest in spirituality in the workplace has been fueled in large part by the growing importance of organizations. For better or worse, the corporation has replaced other groups (family, church, social groups) as the dominant institution in society. Work takes up increasing amounts of our time and energy. As a result, we tend to develop more friendships with coworkers and fewer with people outside our workplaces. Many of us want a higher return on this investment of time and energy, seeking meaningful tasks and relationships that serve higher purposes. At the same time, downsizing, restructuring, rapid change, and information overload have generated fear and uncertainty in the workplace, which prompts us to seek stability and to reexamine our lives.42

For their part, organizations hope to benefit because their members feel a greater sense of connection. Investigators have discovered that spirituality enhances the following:43

308

Commitment to mission, core values, and ethical standards Organizational commitment Organizational learning and creativity Morale and satisfaction with rewards Productivity and profitability Collaboration and community Loyalty Willingness to mentor others Job effort Job satisfaction Social support Sense of well-being Sense of purpose Sensitivity to ethical issues

Spirituality involves transcendence, a striving for something bigger than, or beyond, the self, which can be a higher power or one’s ultimate meaning and purpose.44 Religion and spirituality overlap but are not identical. Religious institutions encourage and structure spiritual experiences, but spiritual encounters can occur outside formal religious channels.45

Donde Ashmos Plowman and Dennis Duchon define workplace spirituality as “the recognition that employees have an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by meaningful work that takes place in the context of community.”46 Inner life refers to the fact that employees have spiritual needs (their core identity and values; desire for connection to something greater) just as they have emotional, physical, and intellectual wants, and they bring the whole person to work. Even industrialist Henry Ford, who only wanted human cogs for his automobile assembly line, noted this fact. “Why is it that I always get the whole person,” he complained, “when all I really want is a pair of hands?”47 Meaningful work refers to the fact that workers typically are motivated by more than material rewards. They want their labor to be fulfilling and to serve the needs of society. Community refers to the fact that organization members desire connection to others. A sense of belonging fosters the inner life. (Complete Self-Assessment 4.2 to determine your experience of spirituality at your workplace.)

309

Many leaders report that spirituality has played an important role in their character development, giving them the courage to persist in the face of obstacles, remain optimistic, demonstrate compassion, learn from hardship, and clarify their values.48

Spiritual leadership expert Laura Reave reviewed more than 150 studies and found that leaders who see their work as a calling demonstrate a higher degree of integrity (honesty) and humility, key virtues described in Chapter 3. These character traits, in turn, build trust with followers and foster honest communication.49

Reave also found that leaders who engage in common spiritual practices are both more ethical and more effective. These behaviors, emphasized in a variety of belief systems, include the following:

Demonstrating respect for others’ values. Many spiritual traditions emphasize respect for the individual. Ethical leaders demonstrate their respect for followers by including them in important decisions. By doing so, they empower followers and bring individual, group, and organizational values into alignment. When the values of leaders and followers are aligned, an organization is more likely to enjoy long-term success. Treating others fairly. Fairness is a natural outcome of viewing others with respect. Employees are very concerned about how fairly they are treated, particularly when it comes to compensation. Followers are more likely to trust leaders who act justly. Subordinates who believe that their supervisors are fair also go beyond their job descriptions to help coworkers. Expressing caring and concern. Spirituality often takes the form of supportive behavior. Caring leaders typically have more satisfied and productive followers. Concerned leaders are also more likely to build positive relationships that are the key to their personal success. Furthermore, demonstrating care and concern for the community pays dividends. Employees working for firms known for their corporate philanthropy rate their work environments as excellent and ethical, get a greater sense of achievement from their work, and take more pride in their companies.

310

Listening responsively. Listening and responding to the needs of others is another practice promoted in many spiritual paths. Good listeners are more likely to emerge as group leaders; organizational leaders who demonstrate better listening skills are rated as more effective. Ethical leaders also respond to what they hear by acting on feedback and suggestions. Appreciating the contributions of others. Most of the world’s faith traditions encourage adherents to treat others as creations of a higher power who are worthy of praise. Praise of creation, in turn, becomes an expression of gratitude to God or a higher power. In the workplace, recognizing and praising employee contributions generates goodwill toward the organization, creates a sense of community, and fosters continuing commitment and contribution. Engaging in reflective practice. Spiritual practice doesn’t end with demonstrating fairness, caring, and appreciation to others. It also incorporates individual self-examination or communication with God. Meditation, prayer, journaling, and spiritual reading not only deepen spirituality, but they also pay practical dividends.50 Leaders who engage in such activities are more effective because they experience less stress, enjoy improved mental and physical health, and develop stronger relationships with others. They are better equipped to rebound from crises and see a greater (transcendent) meaning in even the most stressful circumstances. Self- reflective leaders also manage their emotions more effectively and exercise greater self-discipline.

Texas A&M University–Central Texas professor Louis Fry developed the spiritual leadership theory to explain how leaders tap into the desire for meaning and connection to transform organizations.51 Spiritual leadership begins with the inner life of the leader. Leaders who engage in spiritual practices develop (1) hope and faith in a vision of service to others and (2) a commitment to altruistic love. They then model altruism and develop a vision that helps organization members experience a sense of calling—the belief that life has meaning and makes a difference. This vision builds hope and faith in the future, which encourages employees to put forth their best efforts and to persevere. Spiritually focused leaders also establish cultures

311

based on altruistic love that foster a sense of membership and connection. (I’ll have more to say about altruism in Chapter 5.) Leaders and followers enjoy a sense of ethical well-being in which their behavior reflects their inner values. Not only are they more likely to be satisfied, committed, and productive, but the organization as a whole is also changed for the better. Fry reports that spiritual leadership improves sales and financial performance while fostering corporate social responsibility.

The path to individual and organizational spiritual transformation has its ups and downs. After the initial excitement of discovering the benefits of spirituality, individuals and organizations typically hit obstacles—frustration, financial challenges, feelings of emptiness—that demand new spiritual practices and renewed commitment to a greater purpose if growth is to continue.52 With this in mind, you can use the following values framework to measure the spiritual climate of your workplace and to determine your organization’s spiritual progress.53

Benevolence: kindness toward others, desire to promote the happiness and prosperity of employees Generativity: long-term focus, concern about future consequences of actions for this and future generations Humanism: policies and practices that respect the dignity and worth of every employee, opportunity for personal growth when working toward organizational goals Integrity: adherence to a code of conduct, honesty, sincerity, candor Justice: evenhanded treatment of employees, impartiality, unbiased rewards and punishments Mutuality: feelings of interconnectedness and mutual dependence, employees working together to complete projects and achieve goals Receptivity: flexible thinking, open-mindedness, willingness to take calculated risks, rewards for creativity Respect: treatment of employees with esteem and value, demonstration of consideration and concern Responsibility: independent follow-through on goals despite obstacles, concern with what is right

312

Trust: confidence in the character and truthfulness of the organization and its representatives by members and outsiders

To this point, our focus has been on the positive benefits of spirituality. However, before ending discussion of the topic, I should note that spiritual leadership has a potential dark side. This dark side leads some (and that might include you) to conclude that spirituality has no role in leadership. For those who believe in the value of spiritual leadership (like me), noting the pitfalls can help us avoid these abuses. To begin, some leaders view spirituality solely as a tool for increasing follower commitment (obedience) and productivity, which increases profits. They lose sight of the fact that spirituality has value in and of itself, helping organizational members find meaning and establish connections. Other leaders try to impose their particular religious and spiritual views on followers. In the worst-case scenario, authoritarian leaders engage in spiritual abuse.54 They use spirituality to reinforce their power, to seek selfish (often fraudulent) goals, and to foster dependence in followers.

Spiritual abuse is a danger in business organizations as well as in religious ones. Common abusive tactics include (1) overemphasizing spiritual authority and forbidding challenges from followers; (2) demanding unquestioning obedience as a sign of follower loyalty, which takes away the right of subordinates to make their own choices; (3) keeping members apart from outsiders and dismissing external critics while at the same time hiding character flaws and unethical practices from the public; (4) insisting on rigid beliefs and behavior while demanding conformity and perfection; (5) suppressing follower dissent through humiliation, deprivation, and other means; and (6) using nearly absolute power to engage in fraud, sexual immorality, and other unethical practices.

Implications and Applications

Evil takes a variety of forms or faces, including as a sense of dreadful pleasure, as idealism, as exclusion, as rational administration, as a series of small but fateful decisions, and as

313

the product of situational forces that convert ordinary people into evildoers. Whatever face it displays, evil is a destructive force that inflicts pain and suffering and ends in death. Idealism can provide a license to hate, justifying evil as a way to achieve a worthy objective. Carefully consider the causes you support. Never use evil as a means to an end, no matter how noble the cause. Moral exclusion limits members’ willingness to treat outsiders fairly. Combat moral exclusion through pluralism, which encourages team members to broaden their scope of justice to include a wider variety of outside groups. Administrative evil is masked or hidden from perpetrators who inflict pain and suffering while carrying out their jobs. Recognize the long-term consequences of carrying out your role; refuse to participate in unethical behavior as part of your professional duties. Ultimately, the choice of whether to do or participate in evil is yours. Work to eliminate the situational factors—cultural, psychological and social—that turn leaders and followers into evildoers. Intervene to stop evil behavior. Forgiveness is one way to defuse or absorb evil. Forgiving takes a conscious act of will, unfolds over time, and replaces hostility and resentment with empathy and compassion. Warring groups can overcome their mutual hatred by facing and judging the past, rejecting revenge in favor of restraint, feeling empathy for their enemies’ humanity, and being committed to restoring the broken relationship. You will need to seek forgiveness, for yourself or the group you lead, in addition to offering forgiveness. A moral (authentic) apology incorporates recognition of the offense, taking responsibility, expressing remorse, offering restitution, and signaling a commitment to not repeat the offensive behavior. Pseudo-apologies are vague, use the passive voice, make the offense conditional, question whether the victim was damaged, or minimize the danger. Spiritual resources can equip you for the demanding work of confronting evil by contributing to your character development. Common spiritual practices that can make you more effective and ethical as a leader include (1) demonstrating respect for others’ values, (2) treating others fairly, (3) expressing caring and concern, (4) listening responsively, (5) appreciating the contributions of others, and (6) engaging in reflective practice. You can foster an ethical organizational climate by acting as a spiritual leader who creates a vision that helps members

314

experience a sense of calling and establishes a culture based on altruistic love. Recognize that there is a potential dark side to spiritual leadership. Be careful not to use spirituality solely as a tool to boost productivity, to force your particular beliefs onto followers, or to reinforce your power.

For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment

1. What is your view of evil? Is it a useful concept or is it too moralistic, outdated, and misused? If you agree that there is evil, which of the six faces of evil described in the chapter is most useful to you? How does it help you better understand and prevent evil? Record your thoughts.

2. Develop your own definition of forgiveness. Does your definition set boundaries that limit when forgiveness can be offered? Should evildoers be forgiven? What right do leaders have to offer or accept forgiveness on behalf of the group?

3. Consider a time when you forgave someone who treated you unjustly. Did you move through the stages identified by Enright and his colleagues? What benefits did you experience? Conversely, describe a time when you asked for and received forgiveness. What process did you go through? How did you and the relationship benefit?

4. Develop your own forgiveness case study based on the life of a leader who prevented or broke a cycle of evil through an act of apology, mercy, or reconciliation.

5. Analyze the apology of a well-known leader and analyze its effectiveness as an ethical statement. Conclude with an overall evaluation and provide suggestions for how the apology could have been improved.

6. What should be the role, if any, of spirituality in leadership? Try to reach a consensus on this question in a group.

7. What is your experience of spirituality at your workplace based on your responses to Self-Assessment 4.2? Did some dimensions rate significantly higher than others? Why? Did any of your scores surprise you? Would your ratings be higher or lower if you rated your experience at a previous employer? What do you take away from completing this instrument?

8. Evaluate the spiritual climate of an organization based on the list of spiritual values outlined in the chapter.

315

Student Study Site

Visit the student study site at https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE journal articles for further research and information on key chapter topics.

https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

316

Case Study 4.1 Duterte’s Death Squads Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte acts more like a Mafia boss than a politician. Before becoming the nation’s president, Duterte (nicknamed “The Punisher”) served as mayor of Davao City. There he formed a death squad that began by “salvaging” (killing) suspected drug dealers and users and later targeted political opponents. Mayor Rudy allegedly participated in at least one killing, shooting an investigator from the Justice Ministry. He supervised the dismemberment and disposal of corpses, reportedly telling his hit squad, “Throw them (the bodies) in the ocean or the quarry. Make it clean. Make sure there are no traces of the bodies.”1

Duterte won the presidency by promising to eliminate drug dealing, crime, and corruption. Soon death squads were operating in the capital Manila and other cities. Gangs of motorcycle riders pursue victims, who are generally poor, at night. They shoot suspects in the street or drag them from their homes and execute them. In some cases, assassins wrap their victims’ heads in packing tape so that they suffocate and leave cardboard signs saying, “don’t be like him.” To date, 7,000 have died at the hands of the hit squads.

Two former killers provided dramatic testimony to the Philippines senate describing how the Davao death squad operated. Edgar Matobato (described as “seemingly harmless in appearance” by one journalist) was a founding member of the squad.2 Matobato claims to have participated in the killing of 1,000 people under the direction of Mayor Rudy; he personally executed 50 people. Squad members were paid 3,000 pesos (75 Euros) for killing ordinary criminals and 6,000 pesos for higher-value targets. At the time, Matobato believed that he was doing the right thing: “I was helping good people by killing the bad ones.”3 He hid his activities from his family.

Like Matobato, retired Davao policeman Arturo Lascanas thought that he was serving a noble purpose by killing suspected drug dealers and users as a leader of the Davao death squad. So convinced was he of the cause that he participated in the killings of his two brothers who were involved in illegal drugs. Lascanas began his murderous career by helping to dispose of corpses. Then he began killing suspects to maintain his position in the group. Lascanas also received a bounty from Duterte for each killing along with a monthly stipend. In one particular noteworthy murder,

317

Lascanas admitted to participating in the assassination of a radio broadcaster critical of Duterte.

Both hit men marked themselves for torture and execution by coming forward to testify. Both are in hiding, under the protective custody of outside groups. Matobato believed it was his duty to come forward. Struggling with guilt, he sees the faces of the dead nightly. He doesn’t expect to receive a fair trial but hopes that Duterte will be convicted for his crimes, bringing justice to those he murdered. Police officer Lascanas first denied the existence of the Davao death squad, fearing for his family’s safety. He had a change of heart after a spiritual awakening. His nightmares are about killing a suspect along with the man’s pregnant wife and four-year-old son on orders from Mayor Duterte. He wants to clear his conscience by speaking out. He told a reporter, “The only way out of this evil environment is to tell the truth.” He doesn’t want to take his “evil side” do the grave.4 Further, he wants to free his descendants from condemnation for his actions.

The testimonies of the two killers are all the more remarkable given the widespread public support for the Philippine president. Eighty percent of Filipinos said they trusted the president after his first year in office. Many citizens believe that the nation needs a strong leader to save their nation from drug dealers and other criminals. Said one, “Here in the Philippines we need a ruler with an iron first.”5 Then, too, most middle- and upper- class citizens are shielded from the killings, which largely take place in poor areas. Some benefit directly from the hit squads by using them to settle old scores or to frighten enemies.

Duterte is unfazed by the criticism of a few political opponents and human rights groups. To him, killing criminals is not a crime because “criminals don’t have any humanity.”6 He compared himself to Hitler, saying that if Hitler massacred 3 million Jews (actually the number was 6 million), he would “be happy to slaughter” 3 million drug addicts.7 The President told his enforcers to eliminate human rights officials if they get in the way. In the past, the Philippines faced pressure from the United States, the country’s most important economic partner, to improve human rights. However, President Trump made little mention of human rights when meeting with Duterte for the first time. Instead, Trump claimed that the two “had a great relationship.”8

318

Discussion Probes 1. What faces of evil do you see reflected in this case? 2. Why do followers support leaders, like Duterte, who engage in

atrocities? 3. Can you think of other examples of leaders and followers who do

evil deeds because they believe they are serving a noble cause? How can we keep from doing the same?

4. Why do you think Matobato and Lascanas came forward when so many of their fellow death squad colleagues remain silent?

5. What role does truth-telling play in fighting evil? What role does guilt play?

6. Does the negative impact of evil carry over to the next generations? Do sons and daughters pay for the sins of their fathers and mothers, as officer Lascanas fears?

7. What can the international community do to end the killing? What action, if any, should the United States take?

319

Notes 1. Lamb, K. (2017, April 2). Thousands dead: The Philippine president, the death squad allegations and brutal drugs war. The Guardian.

2. Kuntz, K. (2017, February 27). A politician and an ex-hitman take on Philippine leader. Spiegel Online.

3. Kuntz.

4. Lamb.

5. Kuntz.

6. Lamb.

7. Kuntz.

8. Hirschfeld Davis, J. (2017, November 13). Trump lauds “great relationship” with Duterte in Manila. The New York Times.

320

Sources Bouchckaert, P., & Hancock, S. (2017, March 2). The killing squads: Inside the Philippines “war on drugs.” Human Rights Watch.

Gutierrez, J. (2019, March 17). Philippines officially leaves the International Criminal Court. The New York Times.

Holmes, O. (2017, August 17). Human rights group slams Philippines president Duterte’s threat to kill them. The Guardian.

Quiano, K., & Westcott, B. (2017, March 2). Ex-Davao death squad leader: Duterte ordered bombing. CNN.

Villamor, F. (2017, February 20). Ex-officer in Philippines says he led death squad at Duterte’s behest. The New York Times.

Woody, C. (2017, May 8). Filipinos trust Rodrigo Duterte—even if they don’t like many of his policies. Business Insider.

321

Case Study 4.2 The High Cost of Moral Exclusion: The Rohingya Refugee Crisis Victims of moral exclusion pay a high price. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Rohingya refugee crisis. The Muslim Rohingya people live in the western region of Myanmar (Burma), which is 90% Buddhist. Originally brought in from Bangladesh to work as laborers under British rule, they have never been accepted as a legitimate part of Myanmar society. Most Burmese refuse to use the term Rohingya to describe them, describing them instead as “Bengalis” or as illegal trespassers. Laws limit the number of children Muslims can have and make it difficult for Muslims and Buddhists to marry. Rohingya are banned from better schools and their freedom to travel is limited. Hatred of the Rohingya appears to be growing along with the rise of Buddhist nationalism. Many young people, in particular, want to ensure that Myanmar remains a Buddhist nation. They point to Afghanistan and Indonesia as examples of formerly Buddhist nations that converted to Islam.

Repression sparked the rise of a Muslim separatist movement. In 2017, a group calling itself the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army attacked government security forces. In response, the Burmese military launched a brutal campaign of suppression. Entire villages were burned to the ground, women were gang-raped, and hundreds of men, women and children were killed. Over 600,000 fled—some through mine fields laid by the military—to squalid refugee camps in neighboring Bangladesh, joining over 300,000 who already relocated following previous violence in 2012. The UN called the military campaign a “textbook case of ethnic cleansing,” and described the crisis as a “human rights nightmare.” Doctors Without Borders warned that conditions in the refugee camps, which lack clean water, sanitation, and medical care, posed a major health disaster. Thirty percent of the refugees are under age 5; many suffer from malnutrition and measles, pneumonia, and other illnesses. These children may never recover from the trauma of seeing their homes destroyed and many of their parents killed.

Myanmar leaders were quick to deny responsibility for the atrocities, claiming that the Rohingya had burned down their own villages. The military conducted its own internal investigation that found no incidences of rape, torture, arson, killing, or theft. Reports on social media claimed that “mass rape couldn’t have taken place because Rohingya women

322

were too filthy.”1 Even the nation’s civilian leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, largely turned a blind eye to the plight of the Rohingya. Suu Kyi has long been an international human rights icon. She received a Nobel Prize for her work on behalf of democracy in Myanmar and was elected to a government position after serving 15 years under military house arrest. However, Suu Kyi also refers to the Rohingya as Bengalis and claims there is a “huge iceberg of misinformation” about the military campaign. She takes issue with the description of the crackdown as ethnic cleansing and considers Rohingya rebels to be terrorists.

Not wanting to risk the wrath of her Buddhist political base, Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party did not field one Muslim candidate in the last election, marking the first time the Parliament has been without a Muslim member. Suu Kyi is also worried about offending Burma’s generals, who still wield the most power. Human rights groups harshly criticized Kyi for refusing to help the Rohingyans. Several British colleges have taken away her honors and some have suggested that she be stripped of her Nobel Prize.

Conditions for the Rohingya people are not likely to improve any time soon given the initial response of other nations in the region. Bangladeshi officials threaten to return refugees to Myanmar. China, which is reluctant to endanger economic relations with Myanmar, considers the refugee crisis an internal matter. It blocked a UN Security Council Resolution that would have guaranteed the refugees the right to return to return their homes in Myanmar. India will not criticize Myanmar and worries that Islamic extremists would infiltrate any Rohingyan Muslims that resettle in its country. Japan has offered money for emergency aid but will house few, if any, refugees. Australia refuses to accept any.

After visiting Rohingyan refugee camps, the European commissioner for humanitarian aid and crisis management, Christos Stylianides, described the conditions there as “beyond imagination.” Appalled by what he saw, he offered this reminder: “[The] Rohingya are nothing less than every other human being in the world.”2 Tragically, few government leaders in Myanmar and neighboring countries recognize that fact.

323

Discussion Probes 1. What signs or symptoms of moral exclusion do you see in this case? 2. What parallels do you see between the treatment of Rohingya

refugees and refugees from other regions like Africa, Central America and the Middle East?

3. Do you think that nations are more likely to reject refugees now than they were in the past? Why or why not?

4. Should Aung San Suu Kyi be stripped of her Nobel Prize for refusing to protect the Rohingya people?

5. What can the leaders of other nations, aid groups, and ordinary citizens do to end the Rohingya refugee crisis?

6. How can we encourage leaders and followers to treat members of every group as “nothing less than every other human being in the world?”

324

Notes 1. Beech, H. (2017, October). What happened to Myanmar’s human- rights icon? The New Yorker.

2. Holmes, O. (2017, November 2). Aung San Suu Kyi makes first visit to site of anti-Rohingya violence. The Guardian.

325

Sources Beech, H. (2018, January 1). For the youngest Rohingya survivors, horrors await. The New York Times, p. A16.

Cumming-Moore, S. (2017, November 14). Burmese army clears itself of raping and murdering Rohingya Muslims after “internal investigation.” The Independent.

Cohen, R. (2017, November 26). This is not a morality tale. The New York Times.

Cumming-Bruce, N. (2017, September 12). Rohingya crisis called ethnic cleansing. The New York Times, p. A9.

Gladstone, R., & Specia, M. (207, September 29). At the U.N., pressure builds on Myanmar over a “human rights nightmare.” The New York Times, p. A4.

Kuriantzick. J. (2017, September 15). Why Aung San Suu Kyi isn’t protecting the Rohingya in Burma. The Washington Post.

McPherson, P. (2017, October 19). Rohingya crisis may be driving Aung San Suu Kyi closer to generals. The Guardian.

Paddock, R. C. (2017, April 2). From admiration to dismay in Myanmar. The New York Times, p. A6.

Paul, R. (2017, November 28). Bangladesh to turn island into temporary home for 100,000 Rohingya refugees. Reuters.

Ramzy, A. (2015, June 29). Asian giants are quiet as a crisis worsens. The New York Times, p. A4.

326

Case Study 4.3 Poisoning Flint Michigan Providing clean water should be no problem in Flint Michigan. After all, the town is only an hour or so away from Lake Huron, the third-largest source of fresh water in the world. Imagine, then, the surprise of Flint residents when they turned on their taps and foul looking, tasting, and smelling water poured out. One day, the liquid would be blue, the next day, green, and the following day, brown or yellow. Citizens began breaking out in rashes after bathing and losing clumps of hair. Some compared the smell of their tap water to the odor of gasoline or the inside of a fish market.

Flint’s problems with its water began in 2014, when the city of 100,000, which had previously tapped into Detroit’s water system, began drawing water from the Flint River in order to save money as it waited for a new water tunnel to be built. Flint River water contains high levels of chloride, the same chemical found in road salt that corrodes the metal in cars. Water treatment officials failed to add an agent that would prevent the river water from corroding the city’s lead pipes and releasing lead into the system. (The estimated cost of treating the water was $100–$200 per day.) General Motors soon stopped using Flint River water to wash automobile parts because doing so damaged them.

Health concerns mounted as the city continued using Flint River water. The number of cases of Legionnaires’ disease—a serious pneumonia linked to the toxic water—spiked, sickening 91 residents and killing 12. Health researchers discovered high levels of lead in the blood of the city’s children. Lead is a neurotoxin that does long-term physical damage. (There is no safe amount of lead in the human body, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) In young children, lead causes behavioral problems and slows cognitive development. The chemical can cause liver and kidney problems in adults.

For 19 months, state and federal officials failed to respond to the water crisis. They acted only after the national press focused on Flint’s plight. Governor Rick Snyder apologized, acknowledging that federal, state, and local leaders broke the trust of Flint residents and pledged to take action to correct the problem. He then ordered law enforcement and fire officials to begin delivering bottled water, water filters, and test kits door to door and fired the supervisor of the state’s water program. At the same time, the city stopped taking water from the Flint River. But even as these steps were being taken, Flint residents continued to pay some of the highest

327

water bills in the nation for a product that could harm or kill them. The Michigan legislature agreed to reimburse Flint citizens for a portion of their water bills but the program expired. The state and federal government funded pipe replacement. However, at last report, it will be years before Flint will receive an “all clear,” letting citizens drink directly from their taps. Until then residents must use water filters and bottled water for cooking, brushing their teeth, and bathing.

What went wrong in Flint? Administrative evil may be to blame. Top officials in Michigan believed in a rational approach to public administration. Then governor Snyder, a former accountant and CEO who had never held office before being elected governor, billed himself as a no-nonsense problem solver with a businesslike approach to running the government. (He ran for office using the slogan “One Tough Nerd.”) Once in office, he appointed a series of emergency managers who took control of Flint away from local elected officials. One of the emergency administrators made the decision to use the Flint River water while awaiting the completion of the new water tunnel. Another overruled the city council when it first wanted to return to Detroit’s water supply.

Diffused responsibility and compartmentalization were also at work. The State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) misinterpreted Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that required the use of the corrosion treatment but federal EPA officials (who had the authority to force the city to comply) failed to enforce the law. Instead, EPA managers waited for the city to act, saying at one point, “the ball is in the city’s court.”1 State officials refused to let the Centers for Disease Control —the world’s leading authority on infectious diseases—investigate the Legionnaires’ outbreak.

When concerns were raised about Flint’s water, state officials were quick to deny and attack. The governor’s spokesman assured residents that their concerns were unfounded: “Let me start here—anyone who is concerned about lead in the drinking water in Flint can relax.”2 An EPA water specialist who raised the alarm about lead levels in the water was called a “rogue employee” by his supervisors. The DEQ and Department of Community Health accused Flint residents of using their children’s health for political gain, claiming “some in Flint are taking the very sensitive issue of children’s exposure to lead and trying to turn it into a political football.”3 Dr. Eden Wells, the chief medical officer of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, allegedly threatened to withhold state funding from a Flint community health group if it didn’t stop its investigation into the Legionnaires’ outbreak. When told that another Legionnaires’ outbreak was likely and that people would die, her boss, Health and Human Services director Nick Lyon, reportedly said he “can’t save everyone,” and “everyone has to die of something.”4

328

Many in Flint believe that they were ignored because their town is largely black and poor, putting them on the margins of society. (The median income of Flint is half that of the state average, and 40% of residents live below the poverty line.) They are particularly bitter toward the former governor. Said one resident: “We’re poor. And because we don’t have anybody on our side that has any clout, Snyder didn’t care.”5 A number of observers believe that this tragedy would never have taken place in one of the wealthy white communities in Michigan. Then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton drove this point home, noting, “What happened in Flint is immoral. The children of Flint are just as precious as the children of any part of America.”6

Justice may be coming for the residents of Flint. The Michigan Attorney General brought charges against six officials, declaring “that people would want to sweep this away and that there are nameless, faceless bureaucrats who caused this and no one responsible is outrageous.”7 Five officials, including Lyon and Wells, are charged with involuntary manslaughter for failing to stop the Legionnaires’ epidemic. Other charges include obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. However, the former governor has not been charged with any crime, despite calls from some critics to do so.

329

Discussion Probes 1. Is this a case of administrative evil in action? Why or why not? 2. Do you think that the residents of Flint were treated differently

because they are poor and African American? 3. Was the Governor’s apology adequate? What, if any, additional

steps should the governor have taken in response to the crisis? 4. Should governors be able to appoint emergency managers who

have the power to override the decisions of local elected officials? 5. Do you think the charges of negligent homicide against state officials

are justified?

330

Notes 1. Lynch, J. (2016, February 5). DEQ fires worker who supervised Flint’s water. The Detroit News.

2. Felton, R. (2016, January 16). Flint’s water crisis: What went wrong. The Guardian.

3. Michigan governor’s emails shine light on Flint water crisis. (2016, February 7). CNN.com.

4. Anderson, E. (2017, September 21). Doctor: Change in Flint’s water most likely explanation for Legionnaire’ disease outbreak. Detroit Free Press.

5. Sanborn, J. (2016, February 3). The toxic tap. Time, pp. 34–39.

6. Alba, M. (2016, Feb. 7). Hillary Clinton: “What happened in Flint is immoral.” NBC News.

7. Ganim, S. (2017, June 14). Michigan officials charged in Flint Legionnaires’ outbreak. CNN.

331

Sources Bosman, J., & Smith, M. (2016, January 19). Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan apologizes in Flint water crisis. The New York Times.

Fleming, L. N. (2016, January 12). Volunteers deliver water in Flint amid lead crisis. The Detroit News.

Fleming, S. J. (2016, February 5). Lee: Time to end emergency manager law. The Detroit News.

Fonger, R. (2015, October 13). Ex-emergency manager says he’s not to blame for Flint River water watch. MLive.com.

Michigan governor: Solve Flint water crisis instead of laying blame. (2016, February 5). Reuters.

Oosting, J. (2017, March 7). Flint: “All clear” for drinking water years away. Detroit News.

Spangler, T. (2016, February 5). Second U.S. House panel to hold hearing on Flint water. Detroit Free Press.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.1 Tendency to Forgive Scale

Instructions: Respond to each of the following items on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1. I tend to get over it quickly when someone hurts my feelings. ______

2. If someone wrongs me, I think about it a lot afterward. ______ 3. I have a tendency to harbor grudges. ______ 4. When people wrong me, my approach is just to forgive and

forget. ______ 5. Scoring: Reverse your scores on items 2 and 3, and then add

up your responses to all four statements. The higher the score (possible scores range from 4 to 28), the more likely you are to forgive others and the less likely you are to bring up offenses from the past.

332

Source: Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 759–771, p. 770. Published by SAGE Publications on behalf of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Inc. Used with permission.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.2 Spirit at Work Scale

Instructions

This instrument measures your experience of spirituality or spirit at your workplace. Rate each of the following items on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

1. I experience a match between the requirements of my work and my values, beliefs, and behaviors.

2. At times, I experience a “high” at my work. 3. I sense a real sense of trust and personal connection with my

coworkers. 4. I am able to find meaning or purpose at work. 5. At moments, I experience complete joy and ecstasy at work. 6. I feel a connection with a greater source that has a positive

effect on my work. 7. I am passionate about my work. 8. At times, I experience an energy or vitality at work that is

difficult to describe. 9. I am fulfilling my calling through my work.

10. My spiritual beliefs play an important role in everyday decisions that I make at work.

11. I have a sense of personal mission in life, which my work helps me to fulfill.

12. I have moments at work in which I have no sense of time or space.

13. I share a strong sense of purpose and meaning with my coworkers about our work.

14. I feel grateful to be involved in work like mine. 15. I receive inspiration or guidance from a Higher Power about my

work. 16. I experience moments at work where everything is blissful. 17. I feel like I am part of “a community” at work. 18. At the moment, I am right where I want to be at work.

Scoring:

Add up your scores for each of the four dimensions and then add up your dimension scores to generate a total score. Higher scores

333

indicate that you have a greater sense of spirit at your place of employment.

Engaging Work (feelings of well-being, meaning work, alignment of beliefs and values with the organization)

Items 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, & 18 ______ Range 7–35 Mystical Experience (positive energy or vitality, feeling of transcendence, joy and bliss) Items 2, 4, 8, 12, & 16 ______ Range 5–30 Spiritual Connection (a sense of connection with something larger than the self) Items, 6, 10, & 15 ________ Range 3–15 Sense of Community (connection with others and a larger purpose) Items 3, 13, & 17 _______ Range 3–15 Total _________ Range 18–90

Source: Kinjerski, V. (2013). The Spirit at Work Scale: Developing and validating a measure of individual spirituality at work. In J. Neal (Ed.), Handbook of faith and spirituality in the workplace: Emerging research and practice (pp. 383–402). New York, NY: Springer. Used by permission.

334

Notes 1. Adams, G. B. (2011). The problem of administrative evil in a culture of technical rationality. Public Integrity, 13, 275–285; Neiman, S. (2002). Evil in modern thought: An alternative history of philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

2. Definitions of evil can be found in the following sources: Katz, F. E. (1993). Ordinary people and extraordinary evil: A report on the beguilings of evil. Albany: State University of New York Press; Kekes, J. (2005). The roots of evil. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; Morton, A. (2004). On evil. New York, NY: Routledge; Oliner, S. P., (2011). The nature of good & evil. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House; Sanford, N., & Comstock, C. (Eds.). (1971). Sanctions for evil. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Vetelson, A. J. (2005). Evil and human agency: Understanding collective evildoing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Of course, a host of other definitions are offered by major religions and philosophical systems.

3. Alford, C. F. (1997). What evil means to us. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, p. 3.

4. Kekes.

5. Baumeister, R. F. (1999). Evil: Inside human violence and curelty. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman, p. 170

6. Deutsch, M. (1990). Psychological roots of moral exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 21–25.

7. Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20.

8. Chang, I. (1997). The rape of Nanking: The forgotten holocaust of World War II. New York, NY: Basic Books, p. 218.

9. Adam, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2012). The dynamics of administrative evil in organizations. In C. L. Jurkiewicz (Ed.), The

335

foundations of organizational evil (pp. 16–30). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, p. 28.

10. Opotow, S. (2007). Moral exclusion and torture: The ticking bomb scenario and the slippery ethical slope. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13, 457–461.

11. Opotow, S. (1990). Deterring moral exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 173–182.

12. Leets, L. (2001). Interrupting the cycle of moral exclusion: A communication contribution to social justice research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1859–1891, p. 1863.

13. Tileaga, C. (2006). Representing the “other”: A discursive analysis of prejudice and moral exclusion in talk about Romanies. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16, 19–41.

14. Weitz, E. D. (2003). A century of genocide: Utopias of race and nation. Princton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

15. Glover, J. (1999). Humanity: A moral history of the twentieth century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

16. Adams; Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2005). Public-service ethics and administrative evil: Prospects and problems. In H. G. Frederickson & R. K. Ghere (Eds.), Ethics in public management (pp. 114–138). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe; Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2009). Ethical failings, incompetence, and administrative evil: Lessons from Katrina and Iraq. In R. W. Cox III (Ed.), Ethics and integrity in public administration: Concepts and cases (pp. 40–64). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe; Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2015). Unmasking administrative evil (4th ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe; Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2012). The dynamics of administrative evil in organizations. In C. L. Jurkiewicz (Ed.), The foundations of organizational evil (pp. 16– 30). Armonk NY: ME Sharpe.

17. Lewis, C. S. (1946). The great divorce. New York, NY: Macmillan.

336

18. Fromm, E. (1964). The heart of man: Its genius for good and evil. New York, NY: Harper & Row, p. 136.

19. Arendt, H. (1964). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York, NY: Viking.

20. Hatzfeld, J. (2005). Machete season: The killers in Rwanda speak (L. Coverdal, Trans.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

21. Waller, J. (2007). Becoming evil: How ordinary people commit genocide and mass killing (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; Waller, J. (2016). Confronting evil: Engaging our responsibility to prevent genocide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

22. Zimbardo, P. G. (2005). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 21–50). New York, NY: Guilford Press; Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House. Opotow (1990), Deterring moral exclusion.

23. Opotow, S., & Weiss, L. (2000). Denial and the process of moral exclusion in environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 475–490.

24. Opotow (1990). Deterring moral exclusion.

25. See Janover, M. (2005). The limits of forgiveness and the ends of politics. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 26, 221–235; Murphy, J. G. (2003). Getting even: Forgiveness and its limits. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; Ransley, C., & Spy, T. (Eds.). (2004). Forgiveness and the healing process: A central therapeutic concern. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

26. Material on the definition and psychology of forgiveness is taken from the following: Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press; Enright, R. D., & Gassin,

337

E. A. (1992). Forgiveness: A developmental view. Journal of Moral Education, 21, 99–114; Freedman, S., Enright, R. D., & Knutson, J. (2005). A progress report on the process model of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 393– 406). New York, NY: Routledge; Klatt, J. S., & Enright, R. D. (2011). Initial validation of the unfolding forgiveness process in a natural environment. Counseling and Values, 56, 25–42; McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psychology of forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Guilford Press; Musekura, C. (2010). An assessment of contemporary models of forgiveness. New York, NY: Peter Lang; Thomas, G. (2000, January 10). The forgiveness factor. Christianity Today, 38–43.

27. Enright, Freedman, & Rique, pp. 46–64. These elements also appear in the REACH model of forgiveness developed by psychotherapists. See Worthington, E. L., & Sandage S. J. (2016). Forgiveness and spirituality in psychotherapy: A relational approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

28. Berman, M. (2015, June 19). “I forgive you.” Relatives of Charleston church shooting victims address Dylann Roof. The Washington Post.

29. For information on the by-products of forgiveness, see, for example, Enright, R. D. (2012). The forgiving life. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Enright, R. (2015). 8 keys to forgiveness. New York: NY: W. W. Norton; Thoresen, C. E., Harris, H. S., & Luskin, F. (2000). Forgiveness and health: An unanswered question. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 254–280). New York, NY: Guilford Press; Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2005). Initial questions about the art and science of forgiving. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Routledge.

30. Shriver, D. W. (1995). An ethic for enemies: Forgiveness in politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. See also Wilmot,

338

W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Ch. 1.

31. Sullivan, D, & Tifft, L. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of restorative justice. London, England: Routledge.

32. Shriver, p. 8.

33. Forgiveness also extends to the self. Self-forgiveness acknowledges your dignity and equips you to move forward to restore relationships. See, for example, Felman Bettencourt, M. (2015). Triumph of the heart: Forgivness in an unforgiving world. New York, NY: Hudson Street Press; Holmgren, J. R. (1998). Self- forgiveness and responsible moral agency. Journal of Value Inquiry, 32, 75–91; Snow, N. E. (1993). Self-forgiveness. Journal of Value Inquiry, 27, 75–80.

34. Kador, J. (2009). Effective apology: Mending fences, building bridges, and restoring trust. Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler; Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

35. Griswold, C. L. (2007). Forgiveness: A philosophical exploration. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; Lowenheim, N. (2009). A haunted past: Requesting forgiveness for wrongdoing in international relations. Review of International Studies, 35, 531–555; Minow, M. (1998). Between vengeance and forgiveness. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; Nobles, M. (2008). The politics of official apologies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; Shriver, D. W. (2001). Forgiveness: A bridge across abysses of revenge. In R. G. Helmick & R. L. Peterson (Eds.), Forgiveness and reconciliation: Religion, public policy, and conflict transformation (pp. 151–167). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

36. Johnson, C. E., & Shelton, P. (2014, October). Ethical leadership in the age of apology. International Leadership Journal, 6, 7–29.

37. Macur, J. (2013, January 18). Confession, but continuing to fight. The New York Times, p. B11.

339

38. Lazare.

39. Kador, p. 11.

40. Phillips, A. (2017, December 7). Al Franken’s defiant, unapologetic resignation speech, annotated. The Washington Post.

41. Oswick, C. (2009). Burgeoning workplace spirituality? A textual analysis of momentum and directions. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 6, 15–25.

42. King, S., Biberman, J., Robbins, L., & Nicol, D. M. (2007). Integrating spirituality into management education in academia and organizations: Origins, a conceptual framework, and current practices. In J. Biberman & M. D. Whitty (Eds.), At work: Spirituality matters (pp. 243–256). Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press.

43. Information on the benefits of workplace spirituality is taken from the following: Craigie, F. C. (1999). The spirit and work: Observations about spirituality and organizational life. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 18, 43–53; Fairholm, G. W. (1996). Spiritual leadership: Fulfilling whole-self needs at work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(5), 11–17; Garcia-Zamor, J. C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 63, 355–363; Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003a). Right from wrong: The influence of spirituality on perceptions of unethical business activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 85– 97; Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2010). Toward a science of workplace spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (2nd ed., pp. 3–26). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe; Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 129– 142; Karakas, F. (2010). Spirituality and performance in organizations: A literature review. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 89–106; Mirvis, P. H. (1997). “Soul work” in organizations. Organization Science, 8, 193–206; Rego, A., & Pina e Cunha, M.

340

(2008). Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21, 53–75.

44. Paloutzian, R. F., Emmons, R. A., & Keortge, S. G. (2010). Spiritual well-being, spiritual intelligence, and healthy workplace policy. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jukiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (2nd ed, pp.73–86). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

45. See Zinnbauer, B. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness and spirituality. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 21–42). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

46. Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 134–145, p. 137; see also Duchon, D., & Plowman, D. A. (2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit performance. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 807–833.

47. Pollard, C. W. (1996). The soul of the firm. Grand Rapids, MI: HarperBusiness, p. 25.

48. See Judge, W. Q. (1999). The leader’s shadow: Exploring and developing executive character. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

49. Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655–687.

50. One detailed list of personal and collective spiritual practices can be found in Foster, R. J. (1978). Celebration of discipline: The path to spiritual growth. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

51. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693–727; Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being, and corporate Social responsibility through spiritual leadership. In R. A. Giacalone, C. L. Jurkiewicz, & C. Dunn (Eds.), Positive psychology in business ethics and corporate responsibility (pp. 47–84). Greenwich, CT: Information Age; Fry, L. W. (2008). Spiritual leadership: State-of-

341

the-art and future directions for theory, research, and practice. In J. Biberman & L. Tischler (Eds.), Spirituality in business: Theory, practice, and future directions (pp. 106–123). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 835–862.

52. Benefiel, M. (2005). Soul at work: Spiritual leadership in organizations. New York, NY: Seabury Books; Benefiel, M. (2005). The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership for organizational transformation. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 723–747.

53. Jurkiewicz & Giacalone.

54. Boje, D. (2008). Critical theory approaches to spirituality in business. In J. Biberman & L. Tischler (Eds.), Spirituality in business: Theory, practice, and future directions (pp. 160–187). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; Tourish, D. (2013). The dark side of transformational leadership: A critical perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

342

343

Part III Ethical Standards and Strategies

Chapter 5. Ethical Perspectives 144 Chapter 6. Ethical Decision Making and Behavior 174 Chapter 7. Exercising Ethical Influence 207 Chapter 8. Normative Leadership Theories 243

344

345

5 Ethical Perspectives

346

Learning Objectives > List the four steps to conducting a utilitarian analysis of an ethical problem. > Defend the importance of making ethical choices based on duty. > Explain how justice as fairness theory guarantees equal rights while acknowledging inequalities. > Contrast pragmatism to the other four ethical perspectives. > Demonstrate the importance of altruism for ethical leadership. > Assess the advantages and disadvantages of each ethical theory. > Analyze an ethical dilemma using one or more of the five ethical perspectives.

The question is not what to do, but how to decide what to do.

—EDUCATOR AND PHILOSOPHER JOHN DEWEY

Leaders are truly effective only when they are motivated by a concern for others.

—BUSINESS PROFESSORS RABINDRA KANUNGO AND MANUEL MENDONCA

347

What’s Ahead This chapter surveys widely used ethical perspectives or systems that leaders can use when making ethical decisions. These approaches include utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, Rawls’s justice as fairness, pragmatism, and altruism. For each perspective, I provide a brief description and then offer some suggestions for applying the framework as well as some cautions about doing so.

In Chapter 2, I identified lack of expertise as one reason leaders unintentionally cast shadows. We may lack experience or we may not be aware of the ethical perspectives or frameworks we can apply to ethical dilemmas. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce some widely used systems that leaders can employ when making moral choices. These tools help us identify and clarify problems, force us to think systematically, encourage us to view issues from many different vantage points, and supply us with decision-making guidelines. They play a critical role in the decision-making formats described in the next chapter.

Resist the temptation to select one perspective for decision making while ignoring the others. That would be a mistake. Each offers unique insights. Applying several approaches to the same problem will give you a deeper understanding of the issue even if the different frameworks lead to different conclusions. You might also find that a particular perspective is more suited to some kinds of ethical dilemmas than to others.

348

Utilitarianism: Do the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of People Utilitarianism is based on the premise that ethical choices should be based on their consequences. People probably have always considered the likely outcomes of their decisions when determining what to do. However, this process wasn’t formalized and given a name until the 18th and 19th centuries. English philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) argued that the best decisions generate the most benefits, as compared with their disadvantages, and benefit the largest number of people.1 In sum, utilitarianism is attempting to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utility can be based on what is best in a specific case (act utilitarianism) or on what is generally best in most contexts (rule utilitarianism). For example, we can decide that telling a specific lie is justified in one situation (to protect someone’s reputation) but, as a general rule, believe that lying is wrong because it causes more harm than good.

There are four steps to conducting a utilitarian analysis of an ethical problem.2 First, clearly identify the action or issue under consideration. Second, specify all those who might be affected by the action (e.g., the organization, the local community, a professional group, society), not just those immediately involved in the situation. Third, determine the likely consequences, both good and bad, for those affected. Fourth, sum the good and the bad consequences. The action is morally right if the benefits outweigh the costs.

Utilitarian reasoning is often employed when setting public policy. Take the legalization of recreational marijuana, for example.3 Citizens and policy makers consider a variety of benefits and costs when debating this issue. Benefits of legalization include shrinking prison populations by keeping more people out of jail, reducing the illegal drug trade, and bringing in additional tax revenue. Costs include a greater risk of cognitive damage to

349

children and long-time users as pot becomes more available, additional impaired drivers on the road, and damage to the respiratory system and gums of those who smoke the drug. A growing number of states have determined that the benefits outweigh the costs, legalizing the sale and use of marijuana. However, the majority of states, as well as the federal government, disagree and still ban its use.

Utilitarian analysis can also be used when choosing between two negative alternatives. In these situations, decision makers opt for the least costly option, selecting the lesser of two evils. Such choices are becoming increasingly common as authorities cope with damage to the environment. Consider, for example, the dispute over managing wild horses in Nevada and other western states. Government officials and ranchers argue that uncontrolled mustang populations explode, which damages the fragile desert environment and deprives cattle of food. Wild horse advocates resist most attempts to restrict mustang numbers. They complain that such efforts are cruel and could lead to the slaughter of these proud symbols of the West. The Bureau of Land Management has determined that periodically reducing herd sizes through helicopter roundups is the lesser of the two evils. In the Pacific Northwest, one protected species (the sea lion) is eating thousands of other protected species (steelhead and salmon) in the Columbia and Willamette rivers. Congress granted state officials permission to kill some “nuisance” sea lions, determining that this option is least objectionable.4 (Relocating problem sea lions 130 miles to the Pacific Ocean does no good. They are back eating endangered fish in a matter of a few days.)

350

Applications and Cautions

Applications Build on your prior experience. Carefully examine the outcomes of your decisions. Set personal interests aside. Recognize when weighing likely consequences is critical.

The notion of weighing outcomes is easy to understand and to apply. Chances are you already use this technique, creating a series of mental balance sheets for all types of decisions, such as determining whether an item, a car, or a vacation package is worth the price; considering a job offer; or evaluating the merits of two political candidates. Take advantage of your experience when weighing the costs and benefits of ethical decisions. Keep your focus on outcomes, which will encourage you to think through your decisions. You’ll also be less likely to make rash, unreasoned choices, which is particularly important when it comes to ethical dilemmas. The ultimate goal of evaluating consequences is admirable: to maximize benefits to as many people as possible (not just to yourself). As a result, your personal interests should not be the primary concern when making decisions. Remember, too, that utilitarianism is probably the most defensible approach in some situations. For example, in medical emergencies involving large numbers of injured victims, top priority should go to those who are most likely to survive. It does little good for medical personnel to spend time with terminal patients while other victims who would benefit from treatment die.

Cautions Probable consequences are difficult to identify, measure, and evaluate. There may be unanticipated outcomes. Decision makers may reach different conclusions. Be wary of extreme utilitarianism.

351

Identifying possible consequences can be difficult. (Case Study 5.1 illustrates how the high costs of unethical decisions are often hidden.) Specifying outcomes is particularly for decision makers who represent a variety of constituencies or stakeholders. Take the case of a college president who must decide what academic programs to cut in a budget crisis. Many different groups have a stake in this decision, and each probably will reach a different conclusion about potential costs and benefits. Every department believes that it makes a valuable contribution to the university and serves the mission of the school. Powerful alumni may be alienated by the elimination of their majors. Members of the local community might suffer if the education department is terminated and no longer supplies teachers to area schools or if plays and concerts end because of cutbacks in the theater and music departments. Unanticipated consequences further complicate the choice. If student enrollments increase, the president may have to restore programs that she eliminated earlier. Yet failing to make cuts can put the future of the school in jeopardy.

Even when consequences are clear, you may find that evaluating their relative merits can be daunting. It is hard to compare different kinds of costs and benefits, for example. The construction of a housing development provides new homes but takes farmland out of production. How do we weigh the relative value of urban housing versus family farms? Also, utilitarianism says little about how benefits are to be distributed. “Doing the greatest good” may mean putting one group at a serious disadvantage so that everyone else will benefit. During World War II, for instance, Japanese Americans were warehoused in camps based on the mistaken belief that this would make the nation as a whole safer. Conversely, utilitarian calculations may benefit the few at the expense of the majority. Most of the savings from recent federal tax cuts, which were justified as a way to benefit the overall economy, went to the richest corporations and individuals. We also tend to favor ourselves when making decisions. Thus, you are likely to put more weight on consequences that most directly affect you. It’s all too easy to confuse the “greatest good” with your own selfish interests.

352

Given the difficulty of identifying and evaluating potential costs and benefits, utilitarian decision makers sometimes reach different conclusions when faced with the same dilemma, such as the legalization of marijuana. During its investigation of the San Bernardino terrorist shooting, the FBI asked Apple to unlock the iPhone of one of the killers, reasoning that national security concerns outweighed any threat to privacy. Apple executives objected, arguing that unlocking the phone would give the government and hackers access to information from millions of iPhone owners, which outweighed the benefits of allowing access in this one case.5 (The FBI later managed to open the phone without Apple’s help.)

In its most extreme form, utilitarianism discounts family, friendship, and community bonds. Australian ethicist Peter Singer uses utilitarian reasoning to argue that the needs of strangers are equal to the needs of those close to us. Imagine, Singer says, that you are walking by a shallow pond and see a drowning child who you can rescue with little cost or risk to yourself. You ought to wade in and save the toddler. Now imagine that you have been asked to send money to an aid group to save the life of a child in a poor nation. According to Singer, you are just as morally obligated to send the contribution as you are to rescue the drowning child. He urges us to forsake luxuries like movie tickets and music downloads, giving the money to humanitarian aid instead.6

You may decide that you agree with Singer’s reasoning but should recognize the costs in doing so. Giving so much away takes away the freedom to live life the way we choose and may deprive us of the resources we need to take care of ourselves.7 (Altruism raises similar concerns, as we’ll see later in the chapter.) Very few people are willing to make the sacrifices called for by Singer. Giving to an aid organization doesn’t directly convert into saving a life either. (In fact, some aid programs seem to hurt rather than help recipients.) Most importantly, the majority of us believe that our greatest moral responsibility lies with those who are closest to us—family, friends, neighbors.

353

Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Do What’s Right No Matter the Cost In sharp contrast to the utilitarians, European philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that people should do what is morally right no matter the consequences.8 (The term categorical means “without exception.”) His approach to moral reasoning is the best-known example of deontological ethics. Deontological ethicists argue that we ought to make choices based on our duty (deon is the Greek word for duty). Fulfilling our obligations may run contrary to our personal interests. For example, revealing a product defect to a potential customer might cost us a sale, but is nevertheless the ethical course of action. (Duty plays an important role in the film profiled in the “Leadership Ethics at the Movies” box on the student study site.)

According to Kant, what is right for one is right for all. We need to ask ourselves one question: Would I want everyone else to make the decision I did? If the answer is yes, the choice is justified. If the answer is no, the decision is wrong. Based on this reasoning, certain behaviors, such as truth telling and helping the poor, are always right. Other acts, such as lying, cheating, and murder, are always wrong. Testing and grading would be impossible if everyone cheated, for example, and cooperation would be impossible if no one could be trusted to tell the truth. A number of observers worry that disregard for the truth is poisoning the political climate of the United States, putting much of the blame on President Trump. According to one group of fact checkers, the president lied an average of 15 times a day during his second year in office.9 President Trump and many of his supporters, however, accuse the media and his opponents of spreading “fake news” that presents a distorted view of the president and his policies. This climate of distrust makes it extremely difficult for the White House and Congress, as well as for Republicans and Democrats, to collaborate.

354

Kant also emphasized the importance of respecting persons, which has become a key principle in Western moral philosophy.10

According to Kant, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.” Although others can help us reach our goals, they should never be considered solely as tools. Instead, we should respect and encourage the capacity of others to think and choose for themselves. Under this standard, it is wrong for companies to expose citizens living near manufacturing facilities to dangerous pollutants without their knowledge or consent. Coercion and violence are immoral because such tactics violate freedom of choice. Failing to assist a neighbor is unethical because ignoring this person’s need limits his or her options.

Former University of Minnesota business professor Norman Bowie argues that following Kantian principles would dramatically change the way that modern organizations operate and how they are led.11 Instead of laying people off to save money, they might reduce work hours for all workers instead. Retirees and pension holders would continue to receive their promised benefits despite economic downturns. Companies would be transparent by opening their books to employees. From a Kantian perspective, businesses and other organizations function as moral communities in which members have a significant voice in the rules and policies that govern them. They operate like democracies where members are organizational citizens with rights and duties. Organizational citizens enjoy free speech and privacy rights and receive information on the group’s future. They play a role in setting the group’s rules and policies. Their leaders foster follower autonomy, persuading rather than imposing. They assure that the interests of all stakeholders are taken into consideration, take special care to protect the rights of dissenters, and see that disagreements are resolved through just means. Managers provide meaningful work, which is another way to treat people as ends and to promote their autonomy. Meaningful work supports the right of employees to make decisions—including moral ones—and provides a living wage.

355

Applications and Cautions

Applications Be duty-bound. Always ask yourself if you would want everyone to make the same choice. Demonstrate respect for others.

Duty should play a significant role in our ethical deliberations. In fact, the notion that we have a duty to take our ethical responsibilities seriously is a foundational principle of this text. Emphasis on duty encourages persistence and consistent behavior. If you are driven by the conviction that certain behaviors are either right or wrong no matter what the situation, you will be less likely to compromise your personal ethical standards. You are apt to “stay the course” despite group pressures and opposition and to follow through on your choices. (See the “Focus of Follower Ethics” box below to see how we can equip ourselves as followers to carry out our ethical duties.)

Kant offers two powerful decision-making tools. First, ask yourself if you would want everyone else to make the same decision. If not, reevaluate your choice before going forward. Second, always respect the dignity of others. Don’t use them or violate their rights. Instead, respect the freedom of others to choose for themselves. Share information while avoiding deception, coercion, and violence.

Cautions Exceptions exist to nearly every “universal” law. Moral obligations may conflict with one another. Ethical guidelines are often demonstrated through unrealistic examples. This framework is hard to apply, particularly under stress.

Most attacks on Kant’s system of reasoning center on his assertion that there are universal principles that should be

356

followed in every situation. In almost every case, we can think of exceptions. For instance, many of us believe that lying is wrong yet would lie or withhold the truth to save the life of a friend, or in the case of an active school shooter, the lives of classmates and instructors. Countries regularly justify homicide during war. Then, too, moral obligations can conflict. It may be impossible for you to keep promises made to more than one group, for example. Raises promised to employees may have to be set aside so that promised dividends can be paid to stockholders. Or satisfying one duty may mean violating another, as in the case of a whistle- blower who puts truth telling above loyalty to the organization.

Some philosophers complain that ethical guidelines like those outlined by Kant are applied to extreme situations, not to the types of decisions we typically make. Chances are you won’t ever be faced with any of the extraordinary scenarios (e.g., stealing to save a life or lying to the secret police to protect a fugitive) that are often used to illustrate principled decision making.12 Your dilemmas are likely to be less dramatic. You have to determine whether to confront a coworker about a sexist joke or tell someone the truth at the risk of hurting his or her feelings. You also face time pressures and uncertainty. In a crisis, you don’t always have time to carefully weigh consequences or to determine which abstract principle to follow.

Focus on Follower Ethics Constructing Ethical Followership

How we think about what it means to be a follower has a lot to do with our ethical or unethical behavior as followers. Melissa Carsten, Mary Uhl-Bien, and their colleagues conducted interviews with followers in a variety of industries to determine how they viewed their roles. The investigators discovered that followers define or construct their roles in three ways. Passive followers see themselves in a subordinate position. They defer to the leader and focus on carrying out orders. Active followers believe it is important to express their opinions and to offer input to their leaders when asked. They may disagree but ultimately remain loyal to the leader. Proactive followers don’t wait to be asked. They take the initiative, offering unsolicited feedback and advice and challenge their leaders. Proactive followers see themselves as partners (co-producers) with leaders, working with them to reach important organizational goals.

357

In a subsequent study, Carsten and Uhl-Bien discovered a relationship between follower coproduction beliefs and the willingness to engage in unethical behavior. Those who thought of themselves as active partners with their leaders were less likely to obey the unethical directives of their superiors. Instead, they offered constructive resistance by providing alternatives or reasons for noncompliance. Followers who saw themselves as passive and dependent (who had weak coproduction beliefs) tended to give in to unlawful or unethical requests, to engage in “crimes of obedience.” They shifted or displaced responsibility for their actions to their leaders.

Carsten and Uhl-Bien’s research suggests that, in order to stand up to leaders, we need to think of ourselves as their partners. When we challenge our leaders, we encourage them to engage in ethical conduct. We share responsibility for the ethical success or failure of the group whether serving in a leader or follower role.

358

Sources Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2013). Ethical followership: An examination of followership beliefs and crimes of obedience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 49–61.

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543–562.

359

See also Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership (pp. ix–xxxix). Greenwich CT: Information Age.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership (pp. 187–209). Greenwich CT: Information Age.

360

Justice as Fairness: Guaranteeing Equal Rights and Opportunities Behind the Veil of Ignorance Many disputes in democratic societies center on questions of justice or fairness. What is equitable compensation for executives? Should a certain percentage of federal contracts be reserved for minority contractors? Is it fair that Native Americans are granted special fishing rights? Why should young workers have to contribute to the Social Security system when it may not be around when they retire?

In the last third of the 20th century, Harvard philosopher John Rawls addressed questions such as these in a series of books and articles.13 He set out to identify principles that would foster cooperation in a society made up of free and equal citizens who, at the same time, must deal with inequalities (e.g., status and economic differences, varying levels of talent and abilities). Rawls rejected utilitarian principles because, as noted earlier, generating the greatest number of benefits for society as a whole can seriously disadvantage certain groups and individuals. Cutting corporate taxes is another case of how utilitarian reasoning can undermine the interests of some groups at the expense of others. This policy may spur a region’s overall economic growth, but most of the benefits go to the owners of companies. Other citizens have to pay higher taxes to make up for the lost revenue. Those making minimum wage, who can barely pay for rent and food, are particularly hard hit. They end up subsidizing wealthy corporate executives and stockholders.

Instead of basing decisions on cost–benefit analyses, Rawls argues, we should follow these principles of justice and build them into our social institutions:

Principle 1: Each person has an equal right to the same basic liberties that are compatible with similar liberties for all. Principle 2: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a) They are to be attached to offices and

361

positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; (b) they are to provide the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society.

The first principle, the “principle of equal liberty,” has priority. It states that certain rights, such as the right to vote, the right to hold property, and freedom of speech, are protected and must be held equal by all persons. Attempts to deny voting rights to minorities, which allegedly happened in Georgia and South Dakota during the 2018 midterm elections, would be unethical according to this standard. Principle 2a asserts that everyone should have an equal opportunity to qualify for offices and jobs. Discrimination based on race, gender, or ethnic origin is forbidden. Furthermore, everyone in society ought to have access to the training and education needed to prepare for these roles. Principle 2b, “the difference principle,” recognizes that inequalities exist but states that priority should be given to meeting the needs of the poor, immigrants, minorities, and other marginalized groups.

Rawls introduces the “veil of ignorance” to back up his claim that his principles provide a solid foundation for a democratic society such as the United States. Imagine, he says, a group of people who are asked to come up with a set of principles that will govern society. These group members are ignorant of their own characteristics (including their natural abilities), social status, and age (generation). Standing behind this veil of ignorance, these people would choose (a) equal liberty, because they would want the maximum amount of freedom to pursue their interests; (b) equal opportunity, because if they turned out to be the most talented members of society, they would probably land the best jobs and elected offices; and (c) the difference principle, because they would want to be sure they were cared for if they ended up disadvantaged.

362

Applications and Cautions

Applications Follow fairness guidelines. Weigh both individual freedom and the good of the community when making decisions. Step behind the veil of ignorance when making choices.

As noted in Chapter 1, leaders cast shadows by acting inconsistently. Inconsistent leaders violate commonly held standards of fairness, arbitrarily giving preferential treatment to some followers while denying the same benefits to others who are equally deserving (or more so). Rawls directly addresses the shadow of inconsistency by outlining a set of principles to help us act fairly: Guarantee basic rights to all followers; ensure that followers have equal access to promotion, training, and other benefits; and make special efforts to help followers who have unique needs. (Complete Self-Assessment 5.1 to determine the level of justice in your organization.) Keep in mind the reality of inequalities but strive to balance both individual freedom and the common good. While you want to encourage more talented, skilled, or fortunate followers to pursue their goals, Rawls urges you to make sure the fruits of their labor also benefit their less fortunate neighbors or coworkers.

The veil of ignorance is an important guideline to follow when making moral choices. Whenever possible, try to set aside such considerations as wealth, education, gender, and race. The least advantaged usually benefit when social class differences are excluded from the decision-making process. Our judicial system is one example of an institution that should treat disputants fairly, which is why “Lady Justice” is pictured with a blindfold. Unfortunately, economic and racial considerations influence the selection of juries, the determination of guilt and innocence, the lengths of sentences (and where they are served), and nearly every other aspect of the judicial process.

363

Cautions Rawls’s principles might only apply to democratic societies. Groups disagree about the meanings of justice and fairness. There is lack of consensus about which rights are most important.

Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness has come under sharp attack. Rawls himself acknowledged that his model applied only to liberal democratic societies marked by institutions and associations that promote justice. It cannot work in “outlaw states” that put their own interests first and go to war to defend them, or in “burdened societies” which have been unable to establish liberal democracies because of their histories and poor economies. (Well-ordered societies, however, have a duty to assist burdened countries develop just institutions.) In addition, the more diverse democratic nations become, the more difficult it is for groups to agree on common values and principles.14 And there is continued debate over whether this, a political theory, can be applied to businesses and other organizations to address such ethical issues as fair pay, executive compensation, worker’s rights, and corporate social responsibility.15

Rawls’s critics note that definitions of justice and fairness vary widely, a fact that undermines the usefulness of his principles. What seems fair to you often appears grossly unjust to others. Evidence of this fact is found in disputes over college admission criteria. Some assert that admission decisions should favor members of minority groups to redress past discrimination and to enable minorities to achieve equal footing with whites. Others feel that admission standards that take minority status into account are unfair because they deny equal opportunity and ignore legitimate differences in abilities. (See Case Study 5.2 Tax Transparency for another example of how groups define fairness differently.)

Some philosophers point out that there is no guarantee that parties who step behind the veil of ignorance would come up with the same set of principles as Rawls. Rather than emphasize fairness, these people might choose to make decisions based on utilitarian criteria or to emphasize certain rights. For example,

364

libertarians hold that freedom from coercion is the most important human right. Every person should be able to produce and sell as he or she chooses regardless of impact on the poor. Capitalist theorists believe that benefits should be distributed based on the contributions each person makes to the group. They argue that helping out the less advantaged rewards laziness while discouraging productive people from doing their best. Because decision makers may reach different conclusions behind the veil, you may agree with skeptics who contend that Rawls’s guidelines lack moral force. You may conclude that other approaches to managing society’s inequities are just as valid as the notion of fairness.

365

Pragmatism: Ethics as Inquiry The approaches discussed so far—utilitarianism, the categorical imperative, and justice as fairness—differ significantly, but all share one characteristic: They are rule-based approaches to resolving ethical dilemmas. Each outlines a set of principles or rules that can be applied to specific situations. In contrast, pragmatism focuses on the process of moral decision making. Those taking a pragmatic approach reject the use of abstract principles, believing instead that good ethical choices emerge through the use of inquiry.16

Pragmatism was the dominant philosophical movement in the United States from the Civil War through World War II.17 Charles Peirce (1839–1914) and William James (1842–1910) founded the movement, but it was John Dewey (1859–1952) who emerged as its most prominent spokesperson. Dewey wrote extensively on the topics of education, philosophy, science, and politics over his long career. In recent years, Richard Rorty, Hilary Putnam, and other prominent philosophers and ethicists have returned to the ideas of Dewey for insights into how to approach moral decision making.

Pragmatism gets its name from its focus on using philosophy to solve practical problems.18 Dewey and other pragmatists believed that the scientific method can be applied to solving human dilemmas. In the scientific method, researchers develop hypotheses, which they then test through experiments. The hypotheses are then modified based on the experimental results. Conclusions are always subject to revision, depending on what the evidence reveals. Taking a pragmatic approach encourages flexibility.

Dewey argued that ethical dilemmas should be approached scientifically as well. Ethical quandaries create a sense of unease or distress, which then prompts us to address the problem. Since we can’t conduct an actual physical experiment (as we would when investigating a chemistry problem), we rely on our moral imaginations.19 Exercising moral imagination involves mentally

366

testing out various courses of action, considering likely outcomes, determining how others might respond, referring to how similar problems have been solved in the past, and so on. Humility and openness to other points of view are key to mental experimentation. We need to admit that our knowledge is limited and welcome new discoveries.20 According to Dewey, democracy provides the best setting for encouraging this type of experimental thinking and action and he was active in civic causes, helping to found both the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

The term dramatic rehearsal describes mental imagination in action. In dramatic rehearsal, decision makers conduct a series of imaginary thought experiments to visualize how their decisions could turn out. According to philosopher John McVea, dramatic rehearsal differs in important ways from the calculative, deliberative approach typically used in ethical decision-making.21

Dramatic rehearsal takes into account the emotions of those involved rather than setting feelings aside. Creative solutions emerge through deliberation rather than through the application of rules. Dramatic rehearsal immerses the leader in the specifics of the situation instead of encouraging her or him to rely on rules or guidelines.

While Dewey focused on the process of ethical decision-making, he also believed that every ethical decision must be made with an end or value in mind. Ethics needs to answer these questions: “What ends should I strive for?” and “What conduct should I engage in so that I attain these ends?”22 Dewey believed that each moral decision or habit has an impact on the character of the person making the choice. Making wise choices, then, fosters our character development.23 Dewey emphasized that individual growth is the ultimate goal of moral decision making. Growth comes from solving problems, which opens up new possibilities for further growth and maturity. In Dewey’s words,

The process of growth, of improvement and progress, rather than the static outcome and result, becomes the significant thing. . . . The end is no longer a terminus or

367

limit to be reached. It is the active process of transforming the existent situation. Not perfection as a final goal, but the ever-enduring process of perfecting, maturing, refining is the aim in living. . . . Growth itself is the only moral “end.”24

Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, is an example of a leader who used dramatic rehearsal to address immediate ethical problems. In so doing, he developed his character.25 In 1972, Yunus returned to his home country of Bangladesh to take up a teaching post after completing his doctorate in economics in the United States. However, the nation’s suffering troubled Yunus, and he began to focus on alleviating poverty. He and his students then undertook a series of research projects in order to understand the causes of poverty. They discovered that inability to secure credit kept many from economic security. Rather than turn to charities or the government for help, Yunus developed a creative solution—he started a for- profit bank to lend small amounts to rural villagers. By immersing himself in the plight of poor, he discovered that many village women had skills that they could use in small enterprises if they only had the capital to start their businesses. As a result, many of the bank’s loans go to female entrepreneurs.

Later Yunus promoted the use of cell phones in remote villages. He envisioned that women could start businesses by renting out phones for calls and that the phones would give villagers access to market information. Cell phones would also reduce the isolation of women, which made them vulnerable to abuse.

Because he decided to work on eliminating poverty rather than teaching economics, Yunus ended up pursuing a different career and developing a new set of beliefs and values. Throughout his journey, he always kept the end in view when making decisions:

I was not trying to become a money lender. I had (originally) no intention of lending money to anyone; all I really wanted was to solve an immediate problem. Even

368

to this day I still view myself, my work and that of my colleagues, as devoted to solving the same immediate problem: the problem of poverty which humiliates and denigrates everything that a human being stands for.26

369

Applications and Cautions

Applications Approach ethical problems as you would other dilemmas. Immerse yourself in the details of the situation. Engage your imagination. Acknowledge your limitations. Look for creative solutions. Embrace your emotions. Recognize that your ethical choices shape your character.

Solving ethical problems takes many of the same strategies as solving other dilemmas, like determining how to lower costs or increase sales. You must identify options, consider possible outcomes, gather information, experiment, and adjust your conclusions in the light of new information (see Chapter 6). You need to immerse yourself in the details of the situation to gain a better understanding of the challenges you face. In some cases, you may need to choose between imperfect alternatives.

Dramatic rehearsal is a useful tool when facing a moral dilemma. Imagination allows you to experiment with solutions and engage in perspective taking, both of which are essential to ethical problem solving. An experimental approach is particularly important when in a leadership role. You need to acknowledge your limitations— that means continually trying out ideas, recognizing when ideas need to be adjusted in the face of changing conditions, and respecting the input of followers. In other words, develop a “pragmatic temperament” that is flexible and open to change and other points of view. Whenever possible, seek novel solutions. These often emerge during the inquiry process. Rather than rejecting your emotions, embrace them. They can signal that an ethical problem exists and spur you to action. (We’ll take a closer look at the role of emotions in ethical decision making in the next chapter.)

Dewey also reminds us that ethical choices aren’t isolated events. Ethical choices and the habits they develop have a cumulative

370

impact. Taken together, they determine who we are becoming.

Cautions Pragmatism lacks a moral center. This approach can lead to undesirable decisions. Measuring growth is difficult.

You may be troubled by the fact that pragmatism lacks a “normative core.” It offers no guidelines, such as doing the greatest good for the greatest number, for determining right or wrong or for justifying a choice. Instead, you need to trust that a worthy solution will emerge through the process of inquiry. As some critics note, there is no guarantee that ethical inquiry and experimentation will produce ethical solutions. They point to the example of the Nazis, who engaged in a series of inhuman medical experiments. Doctors euthanized mentally challenged and disabled children, and Josef Mengele carried out gruesome medical experiments at Auschwitz.27 Then, too, there is confusion about the ultimate goal of pragmatic ethical decision making. Dewey argues that we need to pursue personal growth and development. You will have to define what this lofty but abstract goal mean to you.

371

Altruism: Love Your Neighbor Advocates of altruism argue that love of neighbor is the ultimate ethical standard. Our actions should be designed to help others, whatever the personal cost. The altruistic approach to moral reasoning shares much in common with virtue ethics. Many of the virtues that characterize people of high moral character, such as compassion, hospitality, empathy, and generosity, reflect concern for other people. Clearly, virtuous leaders are other centered, not self-centered.

Altruism appears to be a universal value, one promoted in cultures in every region of the world. The Dalai Lama urges followers to practice an ethic of compassion, for instance, and benevolence is a central value of Confucianism. Western thought has been greatly influenced by the altruistic emphasis of Judaism and Christianity. The command to love God and to love others as we love ourselves is our most important obligation in Judeo-Christian ethics. Because humans are made in the image of God and God is love, we have an obligation to love others no matter who they are and no matter their relationship to us. Jesus drove home this point in the parable of the Good Samaritan:

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. “Look after him,” he said, “and when I return, I will reimburse you for any

372

extra expense you may have.” Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers? The expert replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:30–37, New International Version)

Hospice volunteers provide a modern-day example of the unconditional love portrayed in the story of the Good Samaritan. They meet the needs of the dying regardless of their patients’ social or religious backgrounds, providing help at significant personal cost without expecting anything in return.

Concern for others promotes healthy social relationships. (See Box 5.1 for a closer look at an ethical approach centered on caring for others.) Society functions more effectively when people help one another in their daily interactions. Researchers in social psychology, economics, political science, and other fields have discovered that altruistic behavior is more often than not the norm, not the exception.28 Every day we help others—by pitching in to help finish a project, shoveling the driveway of an elderly neighbor, listening to a roommate’s problems, and so on. Altruism is the driving force behind all kinds of movements and organizations designed to help the less fortunate and to eliminate social problems. Name almost any nonprofit group, ranging from a hospital or medical relief team to a youth club or crisis hotline, and you’ll find that it was launched by someone with an altruistic motive. In addition, when we compare good to evil, altruistic acts generally come to mind. Moral heroes shine so brightly because they ignore personal risks to battle evil forces.

From this discussion, it’s easy to see why altruism is a significant ethical consideration for all types of citizens. (To determine your tendency to engage in altruistic behavior, complete Self- Assessment 5.2.) However, management professors Rabindra Kanungo and Manuel Mendonca believe that concern for others is even more important for leaders than it is for followers.29 By definition, leaders exercise influence on behalf of others. They can’t understand or articulate the needs of followers unless they focus on the concerns of constituents. To succeed, leaders may

373

have to take risks and forgo personal gain. Leaders intent on benefiting followers will pursue organizational goals, rely on referent and expert power bases, and give power away. Leaders intent on benefiting themselves will focus on personal achievements; rely on legitimate, coercive, and reward power bases; and try to control followers. Kanungo and Mendonca identify four forms of leader altruistic behaviors. Individual-focused leader altruistic behaviors include providing training, technical assistance, and mentoring. Group-focused leader altruistic behaviors include team building, participative group decision making, and minority advancement programs. Organizational- focused leader altruistic attitudes and actions include demonstrating commitment and loyalty, protecting organizational resources, and whistle-blowing. Societal-focused leader altruistic behaviors include making contributions to promote social welfare, reducing pollution, ensuring product safety, and maintaining customer satisfaction.30

Altruism plays a critical role in equipping individuals to absorb the emotional pain that is part and parcel of organizational life. Downsizing, mergers, reorganizations, new policies and procedures, competition for promotions and resources, difficult coworkers and clients, the sudden death of colleagues, abusive bosses and other factors generate fear, anxiety, anger, and other toxic emotions. These negative feelings produce stress which damages the health and well-being of members. Stress also damages organizational performance through low morale, absenteeism, turnover, gossip, and sabotage. Toxin handlers are compassionate individuals who absorb others’ pain, helping them confront and overcome their negative feelings to go forward.31

These individuals take on this role in addition to their regular duties. In fact, they are able to take on this burden because they are highly competent in carrying out their regular job responsibilities. Toxic handlers risk burnout as they take on the emotional and physical stress of colleagues. Further, their efforts go unnoticed in many organizations. While toxin handlers can be found at any organizational level, leaders often fill this role, operating near the top of the organization. For example, one senior utility manager stepped in to defend coworkers being attacked by the CEO and allowed his colleagues to vent their

374

frustrations. A vice president at a New York bank played peacemaker between administrative staff and new MBAs and calmed the fears of those worried about a possible merger.

Toxic handlers reduce pain in five different ways:

1. Listening. Compassionate leaders keep their office doors open, make time for visitors, and let others tell their stories. They are warm and empathetic, offering feedback and information. The person in pain feels heard and respected.

2. Suggesting solutions. Toxin handlers don’t only listen, they solve problems. They offer counseling and advice when needed. For instance, they will help a subordinate who has been passed over for a promotion prepare for a future promotion.

3. Working behind the scenes to prevent pain. Toxin handlers work quietly within the organizational system to prevent additional toxic feelings. They might secretly arrange the transfer of an employee to a better environment or place a struggling new hire with an experienced mentor.

4. Carrying the confidences of others. Toxin handlers don’t betray the secrets of others but allow them to walk away feeling heard and supported.

5. Reframing difficult messages. Handlers act as diplomats and translators. They may take the anger out of a message from a boss, for instance, or act as a buffer, preventing followers from sending messages to the boss that might damage their careers.

Box 5.1 The Ethic of Care

The altruistic ethic of care developed as an alternative to what feminists label as the traditional male-oriented approach to ethics. The utilitarian, categorical imperative and justice-as-fairness approaches emphasize the importance of acting on abstract moral principles, being impartial, and treating others fairly. Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings, and others initially argued that women take a different approach (have a “different voice”) to moral decision making based on caring for others. Instead of expressing concern for people in abstract terms, women care for others through their relationships and tailor their responses to the particular needs of the other individual.

375

Subsequent research revealed that the ethic of care is not exclusive to women. Men as well as women may prefer care to justice.

Philosopher Virginia Held identifies five key components of the care ethic:

1. Focuses on the importance of noting and meeting the needs of those we are responsible for. Most people are dependent for much of their existence, including during childhood, during illness, and near the end of life. Morality built on rights and autonomy overlooks this fact. The ethic of care makes concern for others central to human experience and puts the needs of specific individuals—a child, an elderly relative—first.

2. Values emotions. Sympathy, sensitivity, empathy, and responsiveness are moral emotions that need to be cultivated. This stands in sharp contrast to ethical approaches that urge decision makers to set aside their feelings in order to make rational, impartial determinations. However, emotions need to be carefully monitored and evaluated to make sure they are appropriate. For instance, caregivers caught up in empathy can deny their own needs or end up controlling the recipients of their care.

3. Specific needs and relationships take priority above universal principles. The ethic of care rejects the notion of impartiality and believes particular relationships are more important than universal moral principles like rights and freedom. For example, the needs of the immediate family take precedence over the needs of neighbors or of society as a whole. Persons in caring relationships aren’t out to promote their personal interests or the interests of humanity; instead, they want to foster ethical relationships with each other. Family and friendships have great moral value in the ethic of care, and caregiving is a critical moral responsibility.

4. Breaks down the barriers between the public and private spheres. In the past, men were dominant in the public sphere while relegating women to the “private” sphere. Men largely made decisions about how to exercise political and economic power while women were marginalized and dependent. The ethic of care argues that the private domain is just as important as the public domain and that problems faced in the private sphere, such as inequality and dependence, also arise in the public sphere.

5. Views persons as both relational and interdependent. Each of us starts life depending on others, and we depend on our webs of interpersonal relationships throughout our time on Earth. In the ethic of care, individuals are seen as “embedded” in

376

particular families, cultures, and historical periods. Being embedded means that we need to take responsibility for others, not merely leave them alone to exercise their individual rights.

Widespread adoption of the ethic of care would significantly change national and international priorities. Child rearing, education, elder care, and other caring activities, as well as the institutions that support them, would consume a greater proportion of governmental budgets. Societal leaders would ensure that caregivers receive more money, recognition, support, and status. More men would take on caregiving responsibilities. Organizational leaders would help employees strike a better balance between work and home responsibilities and provide more generous family leave policies. Corporations would devote more attention to addressing societal problems. The powerful would recognize their responsibility to provide care. Nations would welcome strangers forced into asylum by violence and oppression as well as migrants who travel across borders to provide care. More economic, medical, and educational aid would go to countries with the greatest needs.

377

Sources: Barnes, M., Brannelly, T., Ward, L, & Ward, N. (Eds.). (2015). Ethics of care: Critical advances in international perspective. Bristol, England: Policy Press

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of ethical theory (pp. 537–566). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York, NY: Routledge.

Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality, and justice. New York, NY: New York University Press.

378

Applications and Cautions

Applications Put the needs of followers before your own needs. Act as a role model. Recognize the need to handle toxic emotions. Use compassion as an important decision-making guideline.

Proponents of altruism make a compelling case for its importance. Compassion for others is critical to the health of society and to leadership. To be an effective leader, you need to be aware of the needs of your followers and be willing to act on their behalf. Put the goals of the group or organization first and empower followers. Practice the altruistic individual-, group-, organizational-, and societal-focused behaviors outlined earlier. Be prepared to absorb the pain of others; acknowledge and assist those who act as toxin handlers. By acting selflessly, you inspire others to do the same. Compassion should also be an important consideration in every decision you make. Consider how your choices will affect others; seek solutions that will benefit them.

Cautions It is impossible to meet every need. The extent of our obligations is unclear. Altruism can be driven by suspect motives. Many who profess to love their neighbors fail to act as if they do. Altruism takes many different, sometimes conflicting, forms.

You’ve probably already discovered that love of neighbor is not an easy principle to put into practice. The world’s needs far exceed our ability to meet them. How do you decide whom to help and whom to ignore? (See our earlier discussion of extreme utilitarianism.) Extreme altruists go to great lengths to help others. In order to serve the needy, they move to poverty-stricken countries, give away all of their possessions, gather food from

379

dumpsters so they can contribute more money to the poor, let homeless people live in their houses, donate kidneys to complete strangers, and adopt multiple children with significant disabilities. However, writer Lisa MacFarquar, who interviewed several of these “radical do-gooders,” found that even they put limits on how much they could help. In order to save themselves, they had to stop sacrificing for others, realizing that they couldn’t adopt another child, continue to live on the streets, or work without taking a break.32

Some altruistic behavior is driven, not by compassion, but by less lofty motives like guilt (“I’ll feel bad if I don’t help.”), peer pressure (“Everyone else is participating in the service project.”), and the desire to maintain a good image (“I’ll look bad if I don’t help out.”). Some companies engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) to boost their reputations and sales, not because they want to serve their communities. Suspect motives may or may not negate the good done by individuals and organizations. (Case Study 5.3 gives you the opportunity to judge whether the wrong motive can taint good deeds done for others.)

Finally, far too many people who claim to follow the Christian ethic fail miserably. They come across as less, not more, caring than those who don’t claim to follow this approach. Some of the bitterest wars are religious ones, fought by believers who seemingly ignore the altruistic values of their faiths. (As we saw in the last chapter, ideology is one of the faces of evil.) There is also disagreement about what constitutes loving behavior. For example, committed religious leaders disagree about the legitimacy of war. Some view military service as an act of love, one designed to defend their families and friends. Others oppose the military, believing that nonviolence is the only way to express compassion for others.

Implications and Applications

Well-established ethical systems and values can help you make wise moral choices. Whenever possible, employ more than one perspective when faced with an ethical dilemma.

380

Two well-meaning leaders can use the same ethical approach and reach different conclusions. Utilitarianism weighs the possible costs and benefits of moral choices. According to this approach, you should seek to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. To conduct a utilitarian analysis, clearly identify the action or issue, specify all who might be affected, determine the likely consequences, and sum up the negative and positive consequences. The action is morally right if the benefits outweigh the costs. Kant’s categorical imperative urges us to do what’s right no matter the consequences. By this standard, some actions (truth telling, helping others) are always right, while others (lying, cheating, murder) are always wrong. Kant also urges us to treat all people (followers, stakeholders, neighbors) with respect, never using them as tools for reaching our goals. The justice-as-fairness approach guarantees the same basic rights and opportunities to everyone in a democratic society. When these basic requirements are met, your responsibility as a leader is to give special consideration to the least advantaged. One way to ensure fairness is by standing behind a veil of ignorance when making choices. Try to set aside such considerations as wealth, education, gender, and race. Pragmatism focuses on the process of ethical decision making. Use your imagination to test out options and courses of action. Immerse yourself in the details of the situation and embrace your emotions. Remember that every decision helps to make up your character. Altruism encourages you to put others first, no matter the personal cost. Concern for others is particularly important for leaders who exert influence on behalf of others and requires self-sacrifice. The ethic of care is an altruistic approach to ethics based on meeting the needs of specific individuals.

For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Assessment

1. Choose a contemporary social issue (e.g., adopting universal health insurance, raising the minimum wage, providing citizenship for children of illegal immigrants) and conduct a utilitarian analysis. Do the benefits of the proposal outweigh its costs? Should public policy be changed?

2. In a group, generate a list of absolute moral laws or duties that must be obeyed without exception. To make the list, everyone in the group must agree on it. Keep a separate list of the laws

381

or duties that were nominated but failed to receive unanimous support. Present your lists to the rest of the class.

3. Reflect on one of your recent ethical decisions. What ethical system(s) did you follow? Were you satisfied with your choice?

4. Find a partner and generate additional applications and cautions for each of the ethical perspectives presented in this chapter.

5. Given that inequalities will always exist, what is the best way to allocate wealth, education, health care, and other benefits in a democratic society? In organizations? Write up your conclusions.

6. Analyze your response to Self-Assessment 5.1. What does your score reveal about your perception of justice in your organization? How can your organization act more justly? As an alternative, analyze your response to Self-Assessment 5.2. What does your score reveal about your willingness to help others? How can you engage in more altruistic behavior?

7. Debate one or more of the following propositions: – The scientific method is the best way to solve ethical problems. – Altruism is more important for leaders than for followers. – When making ethical choices, compassion is more important than justice. – Women are more compassionate than men. – We should care as much about the needs of strangers as we do for the needs of our families. – Emotional pain is an inevitable part of organizational life.

8. Describe a time when you acted as a toxin handler or went to a leader or colleague that played this role. Did you help this individual deal with her or his toxic emotions? Or did you receive adequate help? Which of the five pain reduction strategies was most important in this situation? Based on this experience, what skills are needed to absorb pain? What price do toxin handlers pay? Does your organization support those who play this role?

9. Create your own ethics case based on your personal experience or on current or historical events. Describe the key ethical issues raised in the case and evaluate the characters in the story according to each of the ethical approaches.

10. Apply each of the ethical perspectives (including the ethic of care) to a case study of your choosing from the text. Write up your conclusions.

382

Student Study Site

Visit the student study site at https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE journal articles for further research and information on key chapter topics.

Case 5.1 The Hidden, High Cost of Bribery

Global corporate bribery illustrates how difficult it is to anticipate the negative consequences of unethical behavior. The business costs of paying kickbacks are most evident. Bribes distort the market, giving an unfair advantage to some companies while keeping out competitors. However, the negative impact of bribery extends well beyond the marketplace. PBS Frontline producer and journalist David Montero highlights the many unanticipated consequences of corruption in his book Kickback: Exposing the Global Corporate Bribery Network. According to Montero, those who suffer most from bribery remain hidden. He provides the following examples of the high, hidden cost of bribery based on interviews with police officials, criminals, business executives, and corruption authorities from around the world:

– Over 2,000 firms from 66 nations collectively paid Saddam Hussein $1.7 billion in bribes during the United Nations Oil-For-Food program prior to the Gulf War. Fortune 500 companies paying kickbacks included Johnson & Johnson, Chevron, and General Electric. Kickbacks helped Saddam avoid the consequences of international sanctions while the Iraqis (who were supposed to receive humanitarian aid under the program) continued to suffer. As one congressional investigator noted, “For every dollar that was kicked back to Saddam on a contract was a dollar that did not go to buy humanitarian goods, food or medicine or anything else, for the Iraqi people” (p. 52). A portion of the illegal payments funded the Iraqi insurgency, an insurgency that resulted in the deaths of American soldiers and civilians. Bribery funds may have also provided the start-up capital for ISIS. – The sales forces of Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and other major pharmaceutical firms gave Chinese doctors cash, cigarettes, visits to strip clubs and Disneyland, and other gifts to convince them to prescribe their products. These payments boosted the costs of drugs, forcing patients to pay enormous medical bills. Kickbacks also encouraged overprescribing, as physicians were rewarded for the number of drugs they encouraged patients to take. As a result, an estimated 25% to 30% of China’s overall health care costs are spent on

https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

383

unnecessary drugs and services. Overprescribing antibiotics is particularly dangerous. One hundred fifty thousand died in one five- year period from severe adverse reactions to antibiotics. Antibiotic strains of tuberculosis and syphilis have developed. While the Chinese and U.S. governments have greatly reduced corruption in China’s pharmaceutical market, paying bribes is still a widespread practice. – Chevron and Shell Oil funneled money to Nigerian governor James Ibori by spending millions to rent houseboats from his company to serve as floating hostels for employees. To hide his ill- gotten gains, the strongman created a series of shell companies that deposited money in major overseas banks and purchased luxury properties in Houston, New York, and other cities. Bribery enriched Ibori and his family and cronies but left average Nigerians (who live above one of the largest oil fields in the world) impoverished. – Ericsson, Daimler, Siemens, Ferrostaal, and other companies paid kickbacks to government and military officials in Greece. These kickbacks grossly inflated costs of public works projects and weapons, leading to high debt and the subsequent collapse of that country’s economy. Millions of Greeks lost their jobs and pensions. The country was forced to slash its health costs (already inflated by kickbacks to doctors and hospitals) in order to receive a financial bail-out from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. Since the cutbacks, cases of malaria have been reported for the first time in 40 years and stillborn deaths (due to less prenatal care) are rising. – Siemens bribed top officials in the Bangladesh government in order to win a telecommunications contract. Sons of a former prime minister, who are members of the Islamic National Party (BNP), used these funds to start a terrorist group which carries out assassinations, bombings and other attacks on those supporting secular values. Moderate citizens live in fear as extortion, explosions, and murders continue.

Montero argues that penalties for bribery ought to consider the hidden victims of corruption. As it stands, regulators focus solely on the economic costs. A typical judgment matches the amount of the bribe plus an additional penalty. No money goes to the country where the bribery took place. Sanctions imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States, for instance, remain in the United States.

Montero believes that bribery penalties should recognize the societal impact of the crime. The attorney general of Costa Rica, for example, sued French telecommunication giant Alcatel-Lucent for causing “social harm” by paying millions in bribes to high-level government officials, including two past presidents, to win national contracts. He argued that

384

Alcatel bribes undermined the sound financial management that Costa Rican citizens had a right to expect; damaged the reputation of the country, which was called corrupt in the press; and undermined the political process because the populace may have lost faith in politicians and the government. Alcatel settled for $10 million.

Suing for social damage would acknowledge the true impact of bribery, ending the disconnect between the crime and the damage it causes. Penalizing social harm would also increase the size of corruption fines, which would help deter violators. Currently bribes pay off, generating anywhere from $5.60 to $11.00 in benefit for each dollar spent. Even massive fines do little to deter bribery because they pale in comparison to the size of many multinationals. Siemens paid a record-breaking $1.8 billion to the U.S. and German governments. One billion dollars was forfeiture of the profit made from bribery and $800 million was the additional penalty. The $800 million fine was the equivalent of less than 1% of Siemen’s $100 billion market capitalization.

Montero goes on to argue that penalties should be coupled with apologies and reparations. Requiring companies to publicly admit the damage they have done to foreign citizens would pose a greater threat to their reputations than paying a fine. Reparations would go to directly addressing the needs of victims, which has occasionally happened in the past. The U.S. Justice Department worked with World Bank officials and the government of Kazakhstan to establish a foundation to help the poor using money seized from an American businessman convicted of bribing Kazakhstan officials on behalf of major oil companies. Portions of settlements in the Oil-for-Food scandal in Iraq were directed to Iraqi reconstruction.

In addition to highlighting the hidden costs of bribery, Montero also points out the benefits of shunning bribery. Organizations committed to anticorruption are often more profitable and innovative. They also benefit from a more committed workforce because engaging in bribery reduces employee morale. Montero concludes that, when it comes to kickbacks, the ethical course of action is the most profitable in the long run.

385

Discussion Probes 1. How does utilitarian reasoning lead companies, including many of

the world’s largest and well-known firms, to engage in bribery? 2. How can governments increase the costs of corporate kickbacks

while reducing the benefits? 3. Should companies convicted of bribery have to pay for the social

harm they do in the countries where the kickbacks take place? How would you measure the costs of social harm?

4. Would requiring apologies and reparations help to reduce corporate bribery?

5. Do you agree that avoiding corruption is more profitable in the long run? Why or why not?

386

Source Montero, D. (2018). Kickback: Exposing the global corporate bribery network. New York, NY: Viking.

387

Case Study 5.2 Tax Transparency What is fair? The answer to that question can depend on where you live. Consider how different nations view the release of salary information, for example. In the United States, what people earn is often a closely guarded secret. Twenty-five percent of U.S. companies, according to one survey, forbid employees from revealing their salaries to other workers. Few citizens know the incomes of their neighbors or even of other family members. President Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns to the public. In Finland, on the other hand, what other people earn is public knowledge. Every November 1st at 8 a.m. the Finnish government releases the tax returns of all of its citizens. Any resident can look up the earnings of any other Finn without that person being notified of the search.

Releasing salary information in the United States is seen as an unfair invasion of privacy. There is the widespread belief that fairness means rewarding employees based on their contributions, not on how they compare to others. High-level executives deserve higher incomes because they create more economic value than the average worker. In contrast, Finland and other Nordic states define fairness as equality. Government leaders believe that transparency, which allows citizens to compare their pay to their colleagues and family members, is one way to slow income disparity. According to one Finnish reporter assigned to review the tax returns of prominent citizens, “We’re looking at the gap between normal people and those rich, rich people—is it getting too wide?”1 (Finland has one of the lowest income inequality levels of any European nation.) Releasing tax information is designed to increase salaries as employees discover they are making less than their colleagues and ask for raises. Transparency also reveals pay differences between men and women.

Many Americans hope to pay as little tax as possible. To that end, some companies and their leaders hide or protect income overseas. Apple, for example, avoided paying taxes on over $100 billion by using Ireland as a tax shelter. The Cayman Islands also serve as a tax haven for businesses and wealthy individuals. Finns are more enthused about paying taxes than their U.S. counterparts. Seventy-nine percent of Finns have a favorable attitude toward the tax system and 96% say it is important collect tax to support the welfare state. Finland’s corporate leaders, rather than trying to avoid taxes, appear happy to pay their fair share. Illka Paananen, one of the founders of the gaming company Supercell and the

388

country’s top earner, declared, “We’ve received so much help from (Finnish) society, it’s our turn to pay it back.”2 Those who dodge their taxes are subject to public shaming. The Finnish government renegotiated a tax agreement with Portugal when it discovered that Finnish executives were moving there to avoid taxes on their pensions. The executives who took advantage of the tax loop hole will face ongoing disapproval. “These particular executives have destroyed their reputation,” asserted one observer. “I would be surprised if they didn’t care. Finland is a small society. There is a sense that as long as you’re a Finn, you’re always a Finn. . . . they will feel it people’s eyes: the disrespect.”3

Finland’s tax transparency has its drawbacks. (Norway and Sweden also release tax data but only upon request and then inform people of who is seeking the information.) The tax returns released to the public are often inaccurate because they don’t include nontaxable income like capital gains and grants. Then, too, there is the problem of envy, which prompted The New York Times to declare November 1st in Finland as “National Jealousy Day.” There is evidence that knowing what others make can make people less satisfied, prompting employees to look for new jobs. And Finland’s tax transparency hasn’t ended gender pay discrimination. Only 12 women made the list of the top 100 earners in 2018.

389

Discussion Probes 1. How would you respond if your tax returns were made public? Do

you think that this would be unfair? 2. Should companies reveal the salaries of all their workers? What

impact might this have? 3. Would knowing that the salaries of your coworkers were higher than

your salary make you jealous or encourage you to work harder? 4. What accounts for the different attitudes toward taxes in the United

States (and many other countries) and Finland? 5. Is publishing tax data an effective way to reduce income disparity? 6. How do you define fairness? What is fair to you?

390

Notes 1. Barry, E. (2018, November 2). In Finland, every citizen’s taxable income is revealed. The New York Times, p. A8.

2. Paddison, L. (2018, November 2). This country publishes everyone’s income on “National Jealousy Day.” HuffPost.

3. Barry.

391

Sources Collinson, P. (2016, April 11). Norway, the country where you can see everyone’s tax returns. The Guardian.

Whiting, K. (2018, November 2). Finland has just published everyone taxes on “National Jealousy Day.” World Economic Forum.

392

Case Study 5.3 Altruism as Atonement Dr. Anne Spoerry was one of Kenya’s national heroes when she died in 1999. Spoerry was honored with a funeral generally reserved for important government officials. Some attending called her a saint. “Mama Daktari” or “Mother Doctor,” as she was known, flew all around Kenya in her small Piper Lance plane providing medical care to isolated rural people. (She was the first female flying doctor in the world.) Spoerry would land on rough, “ribbon thin” airstrips where villagers would wait under what shade they could find. She would set up a card table and begin making diagnoses, dispensing medications, giving shots, stitching up hyena bites and other wounds, and setting broken bones using splints made out of tree branches. Hers was a no-nonsense approach to medicine. She would quickly dismiss those who appeared to be seeking needless care and sew up patients without using anaesthesia.

In her nearly 35-year career, Spoerry treated over half a million Kenyans, mostly in remote areas. In addition, she would quietly meet the financial needs of some of her patients, paying for schooling and housing for one, surgery and hospital care for another. Decades later Mama Daktari is still remembered fondly by the people she served.

Anne’s work drew international attention, making her one of the world’s most celebrated humanitarians. Mama Daktari published her memoir, appeared in a film documentary on the Flying Doctors, and was the subject of magazine features. She was recognized as an Honorary Citizen of Paris, received Kenya’s medal of honor, and became friends with members of Europe’s royal families. All these accolades hid a dark secret, however. Spoerry was captured and imprisoned by the Gestapo for her work for the French resistance in World War II. She was sent to Ravensbruck concentration camp for women in Germany. While there, she fell under the spell of the camp’s most powerful prisoner, Carmen Mory, in Cell Block 10. (The two were reportedly lovers.) Mory banished a qualified doctor from the block, where tuberculosis patients and the insane were housed, and replaced her with Spoerry, who was still a medical student. As Mory’s assistant, Anne informed on fellow prisoners and threw cold water on starving inmates. She allegedly killed 60 to 70 “lunatics” in one night with injections. When one fellow physician refused to kill a mentally ill patient, Spoerry didn’t hesitate to do so. According this former inmate,

That anyone who is a medical doctor or wants to become one could deliberately execute a patient . . . I can only explain it by

393

her fear of reprisals . . . I felt sorry for her for the manifestation of a larger problem, which is not for us to judge. She had a black hole in her heart. (p. 164)

Once Spoerry was moved away from her protector to another cell block, her behavior changed dramatically. She treated the sick, forged medical records to help prisoners escape death transports, and warned Jews sentenced to execution. According to one witness to Anne’s transformation, “Away from Carmen Mory, Anne was quite different. She was good and kind, a devoted helper for all” (170).

Following the war, Carmen Mory was convicted of war crimes and sentenced to death. Anne was brought before an informal French Resistance tribunal. She confessed that she was “spellbound” by Mory and asked that her former companions forgive her and “help her lead a good life” (p. 184). Spoerry was stripped of her membership in the French Free Forces and exiled from France. Later, she was put on the registry of war criminals and charged with torture.

Spoerry fled Europe when it looked like she might be convicted of war crimes in France and Switzerland. Her travels took her to the Middle East, Ethiopia, and then to Kenya. There she learned to fly at age 45 and joined the Flying Doctors medical organization.

Biographer John Heminway believes that Mother Doctor’s work in Africa was a life sentence, one designed to atone for her actions at Ravensbruck. “Ravensbruck created Anne and Africa saved her,” asserts Heminway. If not for her experiences at the camp, he argues, she would have lived an ordinary (largely self-centered) upper-class French life. Instead, her failure at Ravensbruck drove her to seek redemption through tireless efforts to help others. “Once Anne had wrestled her dark self to the ground in Africa,” says Heminway, “she rose to exceptional heights, remarkable, given her dark past” (p. 269).

394

Discussion Probes 1. Did Dr. Spoerry manage to close the “black hole” in her heart? 2. Did Anne’s good deeds before and after her actions at Cell Block 10

atone for her evil deeds? Did she find redemption in Africa? 3. What role should motivation play in judging altruism? Can helping

others be tainted by the wrong motives? 4. Does Mama Daktari’s desire for redemption discredit her work on

behalf of the rural poor? 5. Can you think of other leaders who were driven to help others in

order to atone for their past behavior?

395

Source Heminway, J. (2018). In full flight: A story of Africa and atonement. New York, NY: Knopf.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 5.1 The Organizational Justice Scale

Instructions: Evaluate your employer or another organization of your choice on the following items. Respond to each of the statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

In general, this company (organization) treats its employees (members) fairly.

1 2 3 4 5 Generally employees (members) think of this company (organization) as fair. 1 2 3 4 5 Rewards are allocated fairly in this firm (organization). 1 2 3 4 5 Employees (members) in this firm (organization) are rewarded fairly. 1 2 3 4 5 In this firm (organization), people get the reward or punishment they deserve. 1 2 3 4 5 Supervisors (leaders) in this company (organization) treat employees (members) with dignity and respect. 1 2 3 4 5 Employees (members) can count on being treated with courtesy and respect in this firm (organization). 1 2 3 4 5

Scoring: Scores can range from 7 to 35. The higher the score, the more just you believe your organization to be. You may want to give this instrument to other organizational members to determine if their perceptions are similar to yours.

Source: Adapted from Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2001). Organizational justice and ethics program “follow through”: Influences on employees’ harmful and helpful behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11, 651–671. Used by permission.

396

SELF-ASSESSMENT 5.2 The Self Report Altruism Scale

Instructions: Check the category on the right that conforms to the frequency with which you have carried out the following acts. Never = 1 Very often = 5 Scores range from 20 to 100. The higher the score, the more you believe you engage in altruistic behavior.

Never Once More than once

Often Very often

1. I have helped push a stranger’s car out of the snow.

2. I have given directions to a stranger.

3. I have made change for a stranger.

4. I have given money to a charity.

5. I have given money to a stranger who needed it (or asked me for it).

6. I have donated goods or clothes to a charity.

7. I have done volunteer work for a charity.

8. I have donated blood.

9. I have helped carry a stranger’s belongings (books, parcels, etc.).

397

Never Once More than once

Often Very often

10. I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger.

11. I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a line (at photocopy machine, in the supermarket).

12. I have given a stranger a lift in my car.

13. I have pointed out a clerk’s error (in a bank, at the supermarket) in undercharging me for an item.

14. I have let a neighbour whom I didn’t know too well borrow an item of some value to me (e.g., a dish, tools, etc.)

15. I have bought “charity” Christmas cards deliberately because I knew it was a good cause.

16. I have helped a classmate who I did not know that well with a homework assignment when my knowledge was greater than his or hers.

398

Never Once More than once

Often Very often

17. I have before being asked, voluntarily looked after a neighbor’s pets or children without being paid for it.

18. I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street.

19. I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing.

20. I have helped an acquaintance to move households.

Source: Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 293–302. Used by permission.

399

Notes 1. See the following: Barry, V. (1978). Personal and social ethics: Moral problems with integrated theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. New York, NY: Hafner; Gorovitz, S. (Ed.). (1971). Utilitarianism: Text and critical essays. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs- Merrill; Timmons, M. (2002). Moral theory: An introduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; Troyer, J. (2003). The classical utilitarians: Bentham and Mill. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett; West, H. R. (2004). An introduction to Mill’s utilitarian ethics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

2. De George, R. T. (2006). Business ethics (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Ch. 3.

3. Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2015). The elements of moral philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

4. Fisher, B. (2019, January 12). Stepping into the wild horse debate, one hoof at a time. CarsonNOW.org; Flaccus, G. (2019, January 10). Oregon begins killing sea lions after relocation fails. US News & World Report; Glionna, J. M (2013, July 1). Mustangs: How to manage America’s wild horses? The debate rages. Los Angeles Times; Congress approves bill allowing the killing of sea lions . . . to protect salmon. NBC News.

5. Isaac, M. (2016, February 18). Why Apple is putting up a fight over privacy with the F.B.I. The New York Times, p. B4.

6. Singer, P. (2009). The life you can save: Acting now to end world poverty. New York, NY: Random House; Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 229–243.

7. Schaler, J. A. (Ed.). (2009). Peter Singer under fire. Chicago, IL: Open Court/Carus.

8. Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (H. J. Ryan, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row; Rachels & Rachels;

400

Sucher, S. J. (2008). The moral leader: Challenges, tools, and insights. London, England: Routledge; Timmons; Velasquez, M. G. (2014). Philosophy (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Ch. 7.

9. Kessler, G. (2018, December 30). A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018. The Washington Post.

10. Graham, G. (2004). Eight theories of ethics. London, England: Routledge, Ch. 6.

11. Bowie, N. E. (2005). Kantian ethical thought. In J. W. Budd & J. G. Scoville (Eds.), The ethics of human resources and industrial relations (pp. 61–87). Champaign, IL: Labor and Employment Relations Association; Bowie, N. (2000). A Kantian theory of leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21, 185–193.

12. Meilander, G. (1986). Virtue in contemporary religious thought. In R. J. Neuhaus (Ed.), Virtue: Public and private (pp. 7–30). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Alderman, H. (1997). By virtue of a virtue. In D. Statman (Ed.), Virtue ethics (pp. 145–164). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

13. Material on Rawls’s theory of justice, including criticism of his approach, is taken from Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap; Rawls, J. (1993). Distributive justice. In T. Donaldson & P. H. Werhane (Eds.), Ethical issues in business: A philosophical approach (4th ed., pp. 274–285). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement (E. Kelly, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap; Velasquez; Warnke, G. (1993). Justice and interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press, Ch. 3.

14. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; Rawls, J. (2001). The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15. See for example, Phillips, R. A., & Margolis, J. D. (1999). Toward an ethics of organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9, 623–638; Hsieh, N.-H. (2009). The normative study of business

401

organizations: A Rawlsian approach. In J. Smith (Ed.), Normative theory and business ethics (pp. 93–117). Lanham, NA: Rowman & Littlefield; Moriarty, J. (2005). On the relevance of political philosophy to business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 15, 455– 473.

16. Fesmire, S. (2015). Dewey. New York, NY: Routledge; Jacobs, D. C. (2004). A pragmatist approach to integrity in business ethics. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13, 215–223.

17. Margolis, J. (2006). Introduction: Pragmatism, retrospective and prospective. In J. R. Shook & J. Margolis (Eds.), A companion to pragmatism (pp. 1–9). Malden, MA: Blackwell; Bacon, M. (2012). Pragmatism. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

18. Feslenstein, M. (2008). John Dewey, inquiry ethics, and democracy. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American philosophy (pp. 87–109). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; Nicholson, C. (2013). Education and the pragmatic temperament. In A. Malachowski (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to pragmatism (pp. 249–271). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

19. Alexander, T. M. (1993). John Dewey and the moral imagination: Beyond Putnam and Rorty toward a postmodern ethics. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 29, 369– 400.

20. Weber, E. T. (2011). What experimentalism means in ethics. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 25(1), 98–115.

21. McVea, J. F. (2008). Ethics and pragmatism: John Dewey’s deliberative approach. In T. Donaldson & P. H. Werhane (Eds.), Ethical issues in business: A philosophical approach (8th ed., pp. 89–100). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

22. Moore, E. C. (1961). American pragmatism: Peirce, James and Dewey. Westport CT: Greenwood Press.

23. Pagan, N. O. (2008). Configuring the moral self: Aristotle and Dewey. Foundations of Science, 13, 239–250; Carden, S. D.

402

(2006). Virtue ethics: Dewey and Macintyre. London, England: Continuum.

24. Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York, NY: Henry Holt, p. 177.

25. Example taken from McVea, J. F. (2007). Constructing good decisions in ethically charged situations: The role of dramatic rehearsal. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 375–390.

26. Yunus, M. (1998, October 31). Banker to the poor. The Guardian.

27. Weber.

28. Piliavin, J. A., & Chang, H. W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. American Sociological Review, 16, 27 –65; Batson, C. D., Van Lange, P. A. M., Ahmad, N., & Lishner, D. A. (2003). Altruism and helping behavior. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 279 –295). London, England: Sage; Flescher, A. M., & Worthen, D. L. (2007). The altruistic species: Scientific, philosophical, and religious perspectives of human benevolence. Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

29. Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30. Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1990). The quest for altruism in organizations. In S. Srivastra & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Appreciative management and leadership (pp. 228–256). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

31. Frost, P. J., & Robinson, S. (2008). The leader as toxin handler: Organizational hero and casualty. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Business leadership (pp. 407–422). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass; Frost, P. J. (2003). Toxic emotions at work: How compassionate managers handle pain and conflict. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; Kulik, C. T., Cregan, C., Metz, I., & Brown, M. (2009). HR managers as toxin handlers: The buffering effect of formalizing toxin handling responsibilities.

403

Human Resource Management, 48, 695–716. Some examples in this section come from these sources.

32. MacFarquhar, L. (2015). Strangers drowning: Grappling with impossible idealism, drastic choices, and the overpowering urge to help. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

404

405

6 Ethical Decision Making and Behavior

406

Learning Objectives > Explain the role of logic and emotion in moral decision making. > Outline steps for improving moral sensitivity. > Compare the Kohlberg and Rest models of moral development. > Demonstrate how unethical choices are often the result of unconscious distortions. > Identify factors that increase or decrease the motivation to follow through on ethical choices. > Critique the four decision-making formats. > Analyze an ethical dilemma using one of the four decision-making formats.

It no longer makes sense to engage in debate over whether moral judgment is accomplished exclusively by “cognition” as opposed to “affect,” or exclusively by conscious reasoning as opposed to intuition.

—PSYCHOLOGISTS FIERY CUSHMAN, LIANE YOUNG, AND JOSHUA GREENE

As we practice resolving dilemmas we find ethics to be less a goal than a pathway, less a destination than a trip, less an inoculation than a process.

—ETHICIST RUSHWORTH KIDDER

407

What’s Ahead This chapter begins with a look at the role of reason and intuition/emotion in ethical decision making. It then surveys the components of ethical behavior—moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character—and introduces systematic approaches to ethical problem solving. We’ll take a look at four decision-making formats: The Four-Way Method, Five Timeless Questions, the Lonergan/Baird method, and the Foursquare Protocol. After presenting each approach, I’ll discuss its relative advantages and disadvantages.

Understanding how we make and follow through on ethical decisions is the first step to making better choices; taking a systematic approach is the second. We’ll explore both of these steps in this chapter. After examining the ethical decision-making process, we’ll see how guidelines or formats can guide our ethical deliberations.

408

Ethical Decision Making: A Dual Process Approach For decades, scholars viewed ethical decision making as a cognitive process. Moral psychologists, ethicists and ethics educators focused on how individuals consciously use logic and reason to solve ethical problems. They assumed that leaders reach their conclusions after careful deliberation. Researchers ignored emotions or treated them with suspicion because feelings could undermine moral reasoning.

In recent years, a growing number of scholars have challenged the cognitive approach to ethical decision making. One critic is psychologist Jonathan Haidt.1 He argues that we quickly make ethical determinations and then employ logic after the fact to justify our choices. Haidt points to moral dumbfounding as evidence that moral decision making is the product of intuition, not deliberation. In moral dumbfounding, leaders and followers have strong opinions about right or wrong but can’t explain why they feel as they do. For example, when he asked Americans if eating the family dog for dinner was morally wrong, most people felt disgusted but were at a loss to explain why they felt this way.

Haidt calls his approach to ethical decision making the Social Intuitionist Model to highlight the role that intuition and social norms play in moral determinations. He defines intuition as

the sudden appearance in consciousness, or at the fringe of consciousness, of an evaluative feeling (like- dislike, good-bad) about a person or event without any conscious awareness of having gone through steps of weighing evidence, crafting evaluative arguments, or inferring a conclusion.2

Haidt argues that automatic processes are the elephant and logic is the rider. In most cases, the elephant goes where it wants to go,

409

though the rider can occasionally steer the pachyderm in a different direction. Our instantaneous intuitions about right and wrong are the product of social forces like our cultural background. For example, dogs are routinely eaten in some societies. In these cultures, which don’t treat pets as family members, respondents would approve of eating a dog for dinner. Haidt doesn’t completely eliminate reason from his model. Other people may challenge our intuitions, introducing new information and arguments that change our initial position. Or we may modify our attitudes based on self-reflection. Many Americans used to immediately condemn interracial couples. As time passed, society recognized that this reaction was biased, unfounded, and unjust. The nature of moral dilemma may trigger either an intuitive or rational response.

Researchers in cognitive neuroscience or neuroethics also challenge the notion that ethical thinking is devoid of emotion.3 They report that individuals who suffer brain damage may retain their reasoning abilities but make poor decisions due to emotional deficits. Neuroimaging using MRI screens reveals that ethical decision making is not localized in one portion of the brain but involves several different regions. Ethical thinking activates both cognitive and emotional areas of the brain. Other investigators believe that our brains evolved with moral structures that operate automatically. Some draw a linguistic analogy, arguing that we are born with the ability to make ethical choices (a moral grammar) in the same way that we are born with the ability to use language (linguistic grammar).4

Investigators continue to disagree as to whether logic or intuition plays the more important role in moral decision making. However, nearly all researchers now adopt a dual process approach, agreeing that both logic and emotion are essential to making good ethical choices.5 Recognizing the role of intuition in decision making enables us to better direct its use. There are times that we need to regulate our initial intuitive reaction, controlling our tendency to automatically respond in anger or condemnation. We may need to step back and reappraise the situation or work on calming down. (You would likely want to control your automatic response if, while travelling, your foreign hosts serve you dog

410

meat.) We need to recognize how our intuitions are being shaped by the social situation. Are we accepting corruption because the organization has weakened our intuitions about right and wrong, for instance? Should we keep our distance from coworkers who might be corrupting influences? We may want to “train” our intuitions in the same way we develop our character, working to eliminate automatic prejudices against other groups, for instance, and combating the temptation to cheat by developing more respect for academic authority.6

We shouldn’t always tamp down our emotions. On some occasions, we may need to give priority our intuitions. Researchers have discovered that deliberate reasoning can “crowd out” altruism, for instance.7 Paying volunteers can significantly reduce volunteering. A day care center that began fining adults who were late picking up their children. The number of tardy parents actually increased. Why? Because parents no longer felt guilty for inconveniencing the day care staff.8

Incorporating intuition into ethics training can improve ethical behavior, as in the case of the Johnson & Johnson company. Instead of emphasizing obligations to customers in general, the firm invokes emotional images by citing specific groups through its credo: “Our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses, and patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services.”

One practical strategy for drawing upon both reason and feeling is to record your initial reaction to an ethical dilemma. When confronted with ethical scenarios like those presented in Case Study 6.1, write down your initial reaction. Then use the decision- making formats and other cognitive tools to test your immediate response. When you’re finished, compare your final decision to your initial reaction. Your ultimate conclusion after following a series of steps may be the same as your first judgment. Or you might come to a significantly different decision. (You may also want to test your conclusion to see if it “feels” right.) In any case, you should be more comfortable with your solution because your deliberations were informed both by your experiences, emotions, and intuitions as well as by your conscious reasoning. To assist

411

you in dual processing, I’ll be introducing research findings from both the cognitive and intuitionist traditions in the next section of the chapter.

412

Components of Moral Action James Rest of the University of Minnesota developed the most widely used model of moral behavior. Rest built his four- component model by working backward. He started with the end product—moral action—and then determined the steps that produce such behavior. He concluded that ethical action is the result of four psychological subprocesses: (1) moral sensitivity (recognition), (2) moral judgment, (3) moral focus (motivation), and (4) moral character.9

413

Component 1: Moral Sensitivity (Recognition) Moral sensitivity (recognizing the presence of an ethical issue) is the first step in ethical decision making because we can’t solve a moral problem unless we first know that one exists. A great many moral failures stem from ethical insensitivity. The safety committee at Ford Motor decided not to fix the defective gas tank on the Pinto automobile (see Chapter 2) because members saw no problem with saving money rather than human lives. Toshiba overstated earnings for 7 years as managers concentrated on reaching high quarterly goals instead of on maintaining the company’s previously high ethical standards.10 Many students, focused on finishing their degrees, see no problem with cheating.

According to Rest, problem recognition requires that we consider how our behavior affects others, identify possible courses of action, and determine the consequences of each potential strategy. Empathy and perspective skills are essential to this component of moral action. If we understand how others might feel or react, we are more sensitive to potential negative effects of our choices and can better predict the likely outcomes of each option.

A number of factors prevent us from recognizing ethical issues. Sometimes, we frame or interpret ethical issues as business or legal issues instead, believing that offering bribes is a normal way of doing business or that a marketing tactic, such as advertising sugary cereals to children, is acceptable because it doesn’t violate any laws.11 We may be reluctant to use moral terminology— values, justice, right, wrong—to describe our decisions because we want to avoid controversy or believe that keeping silent will make us appear strong and capable.12 We may even deceive ourselves into thinking that we are acting morally when we are clearly not, a process called ethical fading. The moral aspects of a decision fade into the background if we use euphemisms to disguise unethical behavior, numb our consciences through repeated misbehavior, blame others, and claim that only we know the “truth.”13

414

Low levels of moral attentiveness can also reduce our sensitivity to ethical issues.14 Moral attentiveness is a personality-like trait that describes the amount of attention individuals pay to the moral dimension of experiences and events. This trait is made up of two elements: (1) perceptual moral attentiveness (the tendency to notice morality in everyday life), and (2) reflective moral attentiveness (routinely considering ethics when making choices). Perceptual attentiveness taps into intuition while reflective attentiveness involves conscious reasoning. Those low in moral attentiveness aren’t as aware of the ethical implication of specific situations (i.e., bribery, conflicts of interest) and act less ethically as a result. (Complete Self-Assessment 6.1 to determine your level of perceptual and reflective moral attentiveness.)

Fortunately, we can take steps to enhance our ethical sensitivity (and the sensitivity of our fellow leaders and followers) by doing the following:

Recognizing the ethical dimension of routine decisions and events Taking ethics coursework and ethics training Routinely reflecting on ethical issues Actively listening and role-playing Imagining other perspectives Stepping back from a situation to determine whether it has moral implications Using moral terminology to discuss problems and issues Avoiding euphemisms Refusing to excuse misbehavior Accepting personal responsibility Practicing humility and openness to other points of view

In addition to these steps, we can also increase ethical sensitivity by making an issue more salient. The greater the moral intensity of an issue, the more likely it is that decision makers will take note of it and respond ethically.15 We can build moral intensity by (1) illustrating that the situation can cause significant harm or benefit to many people (magnitude of consequences); (2) establishing that there is social consensus or agreement that a behavior is moral or immoral (e.g., legal or illegal, approved or forbidden by a

415

professional association); (3) demonstrating probability of effect, that the act will happen and will cause harm or benefit; (4) showing that the consequences will happen soon (temporal immediacy); (5) emphasizing social, psychological, physical, or psychological closeness (proximity) with those affected by our actions; and (6) proving that one person or a group will greatly suffer due to a decision (concentration of effect).

416

Component 2: Moral Judgment Once an ethical problem is identified, decision makers select a course of action from the options generated in Component 1. In other words, they make judgments about what is the right or wrong thing to do in this situation.

Moral judgment has generated more research than the other components of Rest’s model. Investigators have been particularly interested in (1) cognitive moral development, the process by which people develop their moral reasoning abilities over time, and (2) biases or errors that undermine the decision making process.

Cognitive Moral Development Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg argued that individuals progress through a series of moral stages just as they do physical ones.16 Each stage is more advanced than the one before. Not only do people engage in more complex reasoning as they progress up the stages, but they also become less self-centered and develop broader definitions of morality.

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral development, each divided into two stages. Level I, preconventional thinking, is the most primitive and focuses on consequences. This form of moral reasoning is common among children who choose to obey to avoid punishment (Stage 1) or follow the rules in order to meet their interests (Stage 2). Stage 2 thinkers are interested in getting a fair deal: You help me, and I’ll help you.

Conventional thinkers (Level II) look to others for guidance when deciding how to act. Stage 3 people want to live up to the expectations of those they respect, such as parents, siblings, and friends, and value concern for others and respect. Stage 4 individuals take a somewhat broader perspective, looking to society as a whole for direction. They believe in following rules at work, for example, and the law. Kohlberg found that most adults are Level II thinkers.

417

Level III, postconventional or principled reasoning, is the most advanced type of ethical thinking. Stage 5 people are guided by utilitarian principles. They are concerned for the needs of the entire group and want to make sure that rules and laws serve the greatest good for the greatest number. Stage 6 people operate according to internalized, universal principles such as justice, equality, and human dignity. These principles consistently guide their behavior and take precedence over the laws of any particular society. According to Kohlberg, fewer than 20% of American adults ever reach Stage 5, and almost no one reaches Stage 6.

Critics take issue with both the philosophical foundation of Kohlberg’s model and its reliance on concrete stages of moral development.17 They contend that Kohlberg based his postconventional stage on Rawls’s justice-as-fairness theory and made deontological ethics superior to other ethical approaches. They note that the model applies more to societal issues than to individual ethical decisions. A great many psychologists challenge the notion that people go through a rigid or “hard” series of moral stages, leaving one stage completely behind before moving to the next. They argue instead that a person can engage in many ways of thinking about a problem, regardless of age.

Rest (who studied under Kohlberg), Darcia Narvaez, and their colleagues responded to the critics by replacing the hard stages with a staircase of developmental schemas.18 Schemas are networks of knowledge organized around life events. We use schemas when encountering new situations or information. You are able to master information in new classes, for instance, by using strategies you developed in previous courses. According to this “neo-Kohlbergian” approach, decision makers rely on more sophisticated moral schemas as they develop. The least sophisticated schema is based on personal interest. People at this level are concerned only with what they may gain or lose in an ethical dilemma. No consideration is given to the needs of broader society.

Those who reason at the next level, the maintaining norms schema, believe they have a moral obligation to maintain social order. They are concerned with following rules and laws and

418

making sure that regulations apply to everyone. These thinkers believe that there is a clear hierarchy with carefully defined roles (e.g., bosses–subordinates, teachers–students, officers–enlisted personnel). The postconventional schema is the most advanced level of moral reasoning. Thinking at this level is not limited to one ethical approach, as Kohlberg argued, but encompasses many different philosophical traditions. Postconventional individuals believe that moral obligations are to be based on shared ideals, should not favor some people at the expense of others, and are open to scrutiny (testing and examination). Such thinkers reason act like moral philosophers, looking behind societal norms to determine whether they serve moral purposes.

Rest developed the Defining Issues Test (DIT) to measure moral development. Subjects taking the DIT (and its successor, the DIT- 2) respond to ethical scenarios and then choose statements that best reflect the reasoning they used to come up with their choices. These statements, which correspond to the three levels of moral reasoning, are then scored. In the best-known dilemma, Heinz’s wife is dying of cancer and needs a drug he cannot afford to buy. He must decide whether to steal the drug to save her life.

Hundreds of studies using the DIT reveal that moral reasoning generally increases with age and education.19 Undergraduate and graduate students benefit from their educational experiences in general and ethical coursework in particular. Discussing ethical dilemmas is a particularly effective way to stimulate higher-level moral reasoning. In addition, moral development is a universal concept, crossing cultural boundaries. Principled leaders can boost the moral judgment of a group by encouraging members to adopt more sophisticated ethical schemas.20

Models of cognitive development provide important insights into the process of ethical decision making. First, contextual variables play an important role in shaping ethical behavior. Most people look to others as well as to rules and regulations when making ethical determinations. They are more likely to make wise moral judgments if coworkers and supervisors encourage and model ethical behavior. As leaders, we need to build ethical environments. (We’ll take a closer look at the formation of ethical

419

groups and organizations in Chapters 9 and 10.) Second, education fosters moral reasoning. Pursuing a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree can promote your moral development. As part of your education, focus as much attention as you can on ethics (i.e., take ethics courses, discuss ethical issues in groups and classes, reflect on the ethical challenges you experience in internships). Third, a broader perspective is better. Consider the needs and viewpoints of others outside your immediate group or organization; determine what is good for the local area, the larger society, and the global community. Fourth, moral principles produce superior solutions. The best ethical thinkers base their choices on widely accepted ethical guidelines. Do the same by drawing on important ethical approaches such as utilitarianism, the categorical imperative, altruism, the ethic of care, and justice-as-fairness theory.

Ethical Blind Spots Harvard professor Max Bazerman and his colleagues believe that unethical choices are often the result of unconscious distortions. These ethical blind spots cause us to participate in or approve of behaviors we would normally condemn. Significant biases include the following:21

1. Overestimating our ethicality. Studies consistently demonstrate that, when it comes to ethics, we have an inflated opinion of ourselves. We boldly predict, for example, that we will do the right thing when faced with an ethical dilemma. Unfortunately, we often fall well short of our predictions. This was illustrated by a study of female college students who were asked how they would respond to inappropriate job interview questions like whether they had a boyfriend or whether they think it is appropriate for women to wear a bra to work. Sixty to seventy percent of the participants said they would refuse to answer these questions, challenge the interviewer, or tell him that such queries were inappropriate. However, when a male interviewer actually asked them the offensive questions, none refused to answer. At the end of the session, only a few participants asked the interviewer why he had posed these

420

queries.22 (The Leadership at the Movies case found on the Student Study site introduces a leader who had an overly high opinion of his ethical strength.)

Our belief in our inherent goodness may blind us to potential conflicts of interests that can undermine our objectivity and influence our choices. Consider the case of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson, for example. HUD granted a contract to his daughter-in-law’s consulting firm. The Secretary allowed his son on a HUD housing tour despite the fact that his son had business dealings with some of those invited to meet with HUD officials. Carson defended his family’s involvement, saying: “My family, or people with relationships with my family, have never influenced any decision at HUD.”23

2. Forgiving our own unethical behavior. Driven by the desire to be moral and behave ethically, we feel a sense of psychological tension called cognitive dissonance when we fall short of our ethical standards (i.e., lying when we believe that we are honest). Our “want self” (our desire for status, money, etc.) overcomes our “should self” (who we think we ought to be ethically). To relieve the distress generated when our actions and self-images don’t match, we either change our behavior or excuse what we’ve done. We may convince ourselves that the objectionable behavior was really morally permissible—see the discussion of moral disengagement in Chapter 2. We blame the boss or claim that we were “just following orders” or that “everyone else is doing it.” The “everybody is doing it” excuse was used to justify the use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in major league baseball and professional cycling. We may also become “revisionist historians.” Using selective recall, we remember events in a way that supports our decisions. We recollect the times we stood up to an unjust boss or told the truth; we forget the times we caved into pressure from a supervisor or lied to make a sale or to get a job.

3. In-group favoritism. Doing favors for people we know that share our nationality, neighborhood, religion, social, class, or alma mater seems harmless. We may ask our neighbor to hire our son or daughter, for example, or recommend a

421

sorority sister for an overseas program. Trouble comes because when those in power give resources to members of their in-groups, they discriminate against those who are different from them. Caucasian loan officers who relax lending standards for white applicants may end up refusing loans to better-qualified black applicants, therefore hurting the bank’s bottom line. In-group favoritism can also prompt us to excuse other’s unethical behavior. For example, when basketball players on our team knock opponents to the court, they are playing “hard.” When players on the other team knock our team members to the floor, they are playing “dirty.” We are particularly willing to forgive shortcomings when we benefit from the choices they have made. Many bank and hedge fund managers funneled money into Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent investment fund, the biggest swindle in history, even though the returns he promised were statistically impossible. They likely ignored the danger signs because they were earning generous fees from Madoff.

4. Implicit prejudice. Implicit prejudice is different from visible or explicit forms of prejudice like racism or sexism. Individuals are not generally aware of these biases, which are based on our tendency to associate things that generally go together, like thunder and rain and wealthy people and luxury cars. However, these associations are not always accurate. Thunder doesn’t always bring rain and not all high-income individuals drive expensive vehicles. Unconscious biases can undermine ethical decision making. Take hiring decisions, for instance. Personnel managers are likely to exclude qualified applicants if they assume that someone with a physical disability is also mentally challenged or that women can’t fill traditional “masculine” jobs.

5. Judging based on outcomes, not the process. Two leaders can follow the same process when making a decision but we typically judge them differently based on their results. When the decision turns out well, we consider her or him successful. If the outcome is poor, we believe the leader is a failure. Nevertheless, just because a poorly made decision had positive consequences in one case doesn’t mean that following the same process will have positive results the next time. In fact, poor decision-making procedures eventually

422

produce bad (unethical) results. Officials at the Peanut Corporation of America repeatedly shipped tainted peanut products. Few, if any people got sick. However, the last shipment of contaminated products eventually caused eight deaths and sickened thousands more.24 The CEO was later sentenced to prison.

Bazerman and his colleagues argue that our good intentions and our determination to act ethically won’t be enough to overcome these biases because we aren’t aware of them. Instead, we need to acknowledge these blind spots. Admit that that you aren’t as ethical and unbiased as you believe, for instance, and that you forgive your ethical misbehavior and that of other group members. Then take steps to combat these ethical distortions. Publicly commit yourself to an ethical course of action ahead of time so your “should” self doesn’t get overwhelmed your “want” self in the heat of the moment. Focus on the moral principles involved in a choice, not on the immediate benefit you might receive. Put yourself in environments that challenge your implicit stereotypes. Include a wider variety of people in the decision-making process; consider a wider variety of job applicants. Audit your organization to determine if it is trapped by in-group biases and eliminate programs that perpetuate the hiring and promotion of those of similar backgrounds. Step behind the veil of ignorance (see Chapter 5) to make more equitable choices. Evaluate the quality of the decision-making process, not the outcome; don’t condemn those who make good quality decisions only to see them turn out badly.

423

Component 3: Moral Focus (Motivation) After concluding what course of action is best, decision makers must be focused (motivated to follow through) on their choices. Moral values often conflict with other significant values. For instance, an accountant who wants to blow the whistle on illegal accounting practices at her firm must balance her desire to do the right thing against her desire to keep her job, provide income for her family, and maintain relationships with her fellow workers. She will report the accounting abuses to outside authorities only if moral considerations take precedence over these competing priorities. It’s no wonder, then, that there is often a significant gap between knowing and doing, between moral judgment (Component 2) and moral action (Components 3 and 4).25

Developing moral potency is one way to address the moral thought-action gap.26 Moral potency is a psychological state or resource made up of moral ownership, moral courage and moral efficacy. Moral ownership occurs when individuals believe that their teams, organizations and communities are extensions of themselves. This sense of ownership increases their obligation to behave in an ethical manner. Thus, a project manager who identifies strongly with his team will view status reports as a symbol of his own ethicality. He has a strong motivation to see that such reports are accurate. Moral courage provides the impetus to act despite outside pressures and adversity. Moral efficacy is a leader’s belief or confidence that he or she has the ability to carry out the plan of action. For instance, a manager may determine that a high-performing salesperson should be fired for submitting bogus expense reports. Yet, she won’t take action if she doesn’t think she has the support of top company leaders or if she believes she doesn’t have the necessary skills to confront the individual.

As a capability or capacity, moral potency can be developed, in ourselves as well as in our followers. (The “Focus on Follower Ethics” box provides a closer look at how subordinates can exercise their moral potency.) To foster moral ownership, clarify the ethical responsibilities associated with each organizational

424

role. Identify and commit to professional codes and values while encouraging others to do the same. To develop moral courage, look to courageous leaders as role models and seek to be a courageous role model yourself (see Chapter 3). Build in organizational cues that encourage courageous actions. Cadets at U.S. Military Academy at West Point, for instance, must sign an honor code that states they “will not lie, cheat or steal,” but also that they will not “tolerate those that do.” The second part of the honor code requires cadets to display moral courage if they witness unethical behavior. They are disciplined or removed from the Academy if they fail to do so.

To develop moral efficacy, take on increasingly difficult ethical challenges and then debrief them to evaluate your responses. Learn from how others have handled ethical dilemmas. Prepare for ethical challenges through simulations, cases, discussions, and training. The moral efficacy of your followers is directly tied to your moral efficacy as a leader. If you are confident that you can effectively deal with moral problems, your followers will also be confident they can handle such situations.

Psychologists report that self-interest and hypocrisy undermine moral motivation.27 Sometimes individuals genuinely want to do the right thing, but their integrity is “overpowered” when they discover that they will have to pay a personal cost for acting in an ethical manner. Others never intend to follow an ethical course of action but engage in moral hypocrisy instead. These decision makers “want to appear moral while, if possible, avoiding the cost of actually being moral.”28 In experimental settings, they say that assignments should be distributed fairly but then assign themselves the most desirable tasks while giving less desirable chores to others. Both self-interest and hypocrisy encourage leaders to set their moral principles aside. For instance, corporate executives might declare that lower-level employees deserve higher wages. However, these executives may not pay employees more if it means that they will earn less as a result.

Rewards play an important role in ethical follow-through. People are prone to give ethical values top priority when rewarded through raises, promotions, public recognition, and other means

425

for doing so. Conversely, moral motivation drops when the reward system reinforces unethical behavior.29 Unfortunately, misplaced rewards are all too common, as in the case of electronics retailers who reward employees for selling expensive extended warranties on new products. Such warranties are generally a bad deal for consumers.

Emotions also play a part in moral motivation.30 Researchers report that positive emotions such as joy and happiness encourage people to live out their moral choices and to help others. Depression, on the other hand, lowers motivation, and jealousy, rage, and envy contribute to lying, revenge, stealing, and other antisocial behaviors. Moral emotions are of particular importance to ethical follow-through. Moral emotions are part of our makeup as humans.31 These feelings are triggered even when we do not have a personal stake in an event. For example, we may feel sympathy when we see a picture of a refugee living in a squalid camp or contempt for a public official charged with domestic violence.

Anger, disgust, and contempt are other-condemning moral emotions. They are elicited by unfairness, betrayal, immorality, cruelty, poor performance, and status differences. Anger can motivate us to redress injustices like racism, oppression, and poverty. For example, driven by moral anger, some citizens traveled to the U.S.–Mexican border to try to prevent authorities from separating immigrant children from their families. Disgust encourages us to set up rewards and punishments to deter inappropriate behaviors, like sexual deviancy or mistreating animals.32 Contempt generally causes us to step back from others and to feel less compassion for them.

Shame, embarrassment, and guilt are self-conscious emotions that encourage us to obey the rules and uphold the social order. Shame and embarrassment are elicited when we violate norms and social conventions, present the wrong image to others, and fail to live up to moral guidelines. Shame produces a negative evaluation of the self for being flawed, such as when we are disappointed in ourselves for not helping a coworker struggling with a computer problem. Embarrassment produces a negative

426

evaluation of a specific act, such as when we violate cultural norms by failing to present gifts when meeting businesspeople abroad. Shame and embarrassment can keep us from engaging in further damaging behavior and may drive us to withdraw from social contact. Guilt arises in relationships when one party causes harm or distress to the other through lying, betrayal, physical harm, or other behavior. We then want to right the wrong, to help others, and to treat them well.

Sympathy and compassion are other-suffering emotions. They are activated when we perceive suffering or sorrow in our fellow human beings. We are most likely to feel compassion for our family, friends and community but sympathy typically extends toward total strangers as well. Such feelings encourage us to comfort, help, and alleviate the pain of others by, for example, setting up a GoFundMe account for a seriously ill friend, volunteering at the local food bank, and protesting cuts in social service programs. (See our earlier discussion of altruism in Chapter 5.)

Gratitude, awe, and elevation are other-praising (positive) emotions that open us up to new opportunities and relationships. Gratitude is a form of reciprocal altruism, coming into play when someone has done something on our behalf. We then want to repay their generosity and kindness. Those feeling gratitude generally have a greater sense of personal and spiritual well- being and are more likely to become engaged in their communities. Awe (admiration) comes from experiencing natural (a sunset, mountain vista), artistic (a great painting or statue) or spiritual (God, perfection) beauty. Those experiencing awe generally stop and admire; they open their hearts and minds. Energized, they work harder at self-improvement. Elevation comes from viewing the best in humanity—acts of charity, loyalty, and self-sacrifice—and when we read or hear about moral exemplars. Experiencing elevation makes us more likely to help others.

You can channel the power of rewards and emotions to increase your moral motivation and the moral motivation of those you lead. Seek out and create ethically rewarding environments. Make sure

427

the reward system of an organization supports ethical behavior before joining it as an employee or a volunteer. Try to reduce the costs of behaving morally by instituting policies and procedures that make it easier to report unethical behavior, combat discrimination, and so forth. Work to align rewards with desired behavior. Be concerned about how goals are reached. If all else fails, reward yourself. Take pride in acting on your choices and on living up to your self-image as a person of integrity. Finally, tap into your feelings. Make a conscious effort to control negative emotions and to put yourself in a positive frame of mind. Channel the motivational force of moral emotions to help you follow through. Pay particular attention to other praising emotions, which are energizing and prompt self-improvement.33 Express gratitude more often. Seek out natural, artistic and moral beauty. Take a walk in a forest or on the beach; visit an art exhibit, watch a YouTube video of a moral role model and so on.

Focus on Follower Ethics Intelligent Disobedience

Executive coach and consultant Ira Chaleff believes that a great many scandals could be avoided if followers knew when and how to disobey unethical or misguided orders from their leaders. He argues that followers need to learn to practice “intelligent disobedience.” The concept of intelligent disobedience comes from guide dog training. Guide dogs for the blind must not only follow the directions of their owners but must also know when to disobey commands that would put both dog and human in harm’s way, such as an order to cross the street when a car is coming. Practicing intelligent disobedience is a four-step process: (1) understand the mission, values and goals of the organization or group; (2) pause and examine any order that seems inconstant with the mission, values and goals; (3) make a conscious choice to comply or resist the order, offering an alternative when possible; and (4) assume personal accountability for your choice to obey or disobey.

Chaleff notes that, in most cases, obedience is the right option that allows us to benefit from living in communities and organizations. Yet, followers far too often give in to pressure to overstate earnings, falsify student test scores, underreport safety violations and so on. Some practical suggestions for resisting an unethical order include pausing to gather your thoughts, asking relevant questions, pointing out how the order isn’t in the best interest of the leader or the group, and refusing to participate with the leader (and accepting the

428

consequences of doing so). Teachers and supervisors can help children and employees develop refusal skills through discussions, simulations, practice sessions, role-plays, and stories of followers who practiced intelligent disobedience.

The tale of a young nurse provides one dramatic example of intelligent disobedience in action. Her first job out of nursing school was in a hospital emergency room. When a cardiac patient was wheeled in, the emergency room physician ordered her to administer a medication she knew would kill the patient. When she questioned the order, the doctor yelled at her: “You just do it!” The nurse hooked up the IV bag with medication and told the physician it was ready. However, she said she couldn’t open valve on the IV bag because it violated her training. He would have to do so himself. Her resistance was enough to prompt the doctor to reconsider the risks and other options. He ordered a different medication and the patient made a complete recovery.

Source: Chaleff, I. (2015). Intelligent disobedience: Doing right when what you’re told to do is wrong. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Component 4: Moral Character Executing the plan of action takes character. The positive virtues described in Chapter 3 contribute to ethical follow-through. Courage helps leaders implement their plans despite the risks and costs of doing so while prudence helps them choose the best course of action. Integrity encourages leaders to be true to themselves and their choices. Humility forces leaders to address limitations that might prevent them from taking action. Optimism equips leaders to persist in the face of obstacles and difficulties. Compassion and justice focus the attention of leaders on the needs of others rather than on personal priorities.

In addition to virtues, other personal qualities contribute to moral action.34 Those with a strong will, as well as confidence in themselves and their abilities, are more likely to persist. The same is true for those with an internal locus of control. Internally oriented people (internals) believe that they have control over their lives and can determine what happens to them. Externally oriented people (externals) believe that life events are beyond their control and are the product of fate or luck instead. Because

429

they take personal responsibility for their actions, internals are more motivated to do what is right. Externals are more susceptible to situational pressures and therefore less likely to persist in ethical tasks.

Duty orientation is another characteristic linked to moral behavior. Those driven by duty make and act on ethical decisions based largely on their loyalty to the group. They are willing to give up some of their free choice in order to fulfil their obligations.35

Researchers using samples drawn from the U.S. Army, the National Guard, federal employees, and the corporate sector found that a sense of obligation promotes prosocial behaviors while limiting deviant acts. Duty orientation is made up of three dimensions: (1) duty to members, (2) duty to mission, and (3) duty to codes. Duty to members involves supporting and serving the other members of the group, even at cost to the self. Those driven by their obligations to others may mentor a new hire, defend a team member from gossip, donate unused vacation time to an ill coworker, and refuse to share proprietary information with a competitor. Duty to mission means supporting the work and purpose of the group by doing what it takes to see that the group or organization succeeds. This might mean working additional hours or taking on additional responsibilities, for instance. Duty to codes is consistent adherence to rules and norms of the group. Formal codes of ethics (see Chapter 10) lay out rules regarding treatment of others both inside and outside the organization. Norms are the unwritten guidelines that direct behavior. Examples might include “always work your hardest,” “admit your mistakes,” and “treat all colleagues with respect.” Violating formal codes and informal norms brings dishonor to the self and the group. (You can determine your level of duty orientation by completing Self- Assessment 6.2.)

Successful implementation of a decision also requires competence. For instance, modifying the organizational reward system may entail researching, organizing, arguing, networking, and relationship-building skills. These skills are put to maximum use when actors have an in-depth understanding of the organizational context—important policies, the group’s history and culture, informal leaders, and so on.

430

Following the virtue and character-building guidelines presented in Chapter 3 will go a long way to helping you build the virtues you need to put your moral choices into action. Believe that you can have an impact. Otherwise, you are probably not going to carry through when obstacles surface. Develop your skills so that you can better put your moral choice into action and master the context in which you operate. (Turn to Box 6.1 for more suggestions on how to follow through on your ethical choices.) Consider how you might improve your commitment to your group or organization. Finally, practice ethical leadership to encourage followers to develop a duty orientation. Your followers are more likely to feel a sense of obligation if you act as a moral role model, set clear ethical rules and structures, communicate what ethical behaviors are expected, and focus on shared goals.

Box 6.1 Giving Voice to Values

The Giving Voice to Values program, started by the Aspen Institute and Yale University and now housed at Babson College, is an international effort designed to help participants resist the pressure to set aside their personal standards. Mary Gentile, director of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum, argues that the first step to acting on personal moral standards (developing “moral muscle”) is to conduct a thought experiment. Ask, “What if you were going to act on your values—what would you say and do?” (p. xxxv). She then outlines seven pillars or foundational concepts that equip us to act on our ethical choices.

1. Recognize that certain values are widely shared. Identifying shared values like courage, compassion, integrity, and wisdom can provide the foundation for resolving values conflicts and for developing shared goals in a variety of cultural settings.

2. Acknowledge the power of choice. Most of us can think of a time when we acted on our ethical beliefs or, conversely, failed to do so. Telling the story of both events reveals that we have the power to choose. These narratives help us identify factors that contributed to success in the first case (enablers) and failure in the second (disablers). Gentile reports that some common enablers include finding allies, gathering information, asking questions, taking incremental steps, and reframing (i.e., redefining ethical misbehavior as a risk or turning competition into a win–win negotiation).

431

3. Treat values conflicts as normal. Disagreements over ethical choices are common in organizations. If we acknowledge that fact, then we won’t be surprised when such disputes arise and will remain calm. We’ll also find it easier to appreciate the viewpoint of the other parties instead of vilifying them.

4. Consider your personal and professional purpose. Before values conflicts arise, consider the impact you want to have in your job and career. Thinking about why you work and the mission of your organization can provide new arguments to use when voicing values. You’ll feel more empowered to speak up and others may be attracted to your purpose.

5. Play to personal strengths. We are more likely to speak up if we know who we are. Acting on values then arises out of our core identity. In addition to identifying your personal purpose, consider the degree of risk you are willing to take, your personal communication style, where your loyalties lie, and your image of yourself. Create a personal narrative or self-story that builds on your strengths and encourages you to act own your convictions.

6. Find your unique voice. Expressing values is a learnable skill. There are many different ways to speak out about values in the work setting. Find and develop yours through reflection on your experience, practice (each time you speak up builds moral muscle), and coaching from mentors and peers. When you voice your values as a leader, you encourage your followers to do the same.

7. Anticipate rationalizations for unethical behavior. Consider the most likely arguments used to support immoral behavior. Common rationalizations include “Everyone does this; it is standard practice” and “This is not my responsibility; I’m just following orders.” Then consider how to best respond. For example, the “everybody is doing it” argument is an exaggeration since (a) not everyone engages in the practice, and (b) if it were standard practice then there wouldn’t be a law against it. The “just following orders” argument reveals that the speaker is uncomfortable with her or his response to the situation and should be open to further discussion.

Source: Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what’s right. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. For additional information, visit www.givingvoicetovalues.com

http://www.givingvoicetovalues.com/

432

Decision-Making Formats Decision-making guidelines or formats can help us make better ethical choices. Taking a systematic approach encourages teams and individuals to carefully define the problem, gather information, apply ethical standards and values, identify and evaluate alternative courses of action, and follow through on their choices. They’re also better equipped to defend their decisions. Four ethical decision-making formats are described in the pages to come. I’ll provide a balance sheet for each format, outlining its strengths and weaknesses (pros and cons). All four approaches are useful. You may want to use just one or a combination of all of them. The particular format you use is not as important as using a systematic approach to moral reasoning. You can practice these guidelines by applying them to the scenarios described at the end of the chapter.

433

The Four-Way Method Virterbo College ethics professor Richard Kyte argues that any ethical decision-making format must address the problem of moral disengagement, of convincing ourselves that what is normally wrong is really right (see Chapter 2), as well the problem of partial disengagement.36 Partial disengagement is narrowing our focus to only those principles that support our position. Partial disengagement makes it difficult to listen to and understand the arguments of someone using a different ethical framework. Consider how an employee and small business owner might view cutting back on scheduled work hours, for instance. The worker operating from a fairness framework is likely to see reduced hours as unjust. The owner, focused on consequences, believes that the reduction in scheduled hours is justified in order to keep the business profitable. Neither party will likely convince the other to change his/her point of view.

Professor Kyte introduces a Four-Way Method to promote different ways of thinking. Each stage of the model addresses one thinking mode. Whenever possible, use the model with others.

Truth. The first thinking mode focuses on understanding the facts and context of the dilemma. People often think that they correctly understand a situation when they don’t. Key questions to answer here include the following:

What are the facts? What are the relevant laws? What is the organizational/company policy? What are the pertinent professional standards?

Consequences. Utilitarianism is the second thinking method. Carefully consider the following:

434

Who is most likely to be effected? How are they likely to be affected? Which solution will be most beneficial/least harmful to those affected?

Fairness. In this mode of thinking, consider the perspective of the other party and strive for equality. Treat others with respect and design a fair process for resolving the dilemma. Respond to the following queries:

Do the proposed (possible) solutions treat others the same way you would want to be treated? Do the proposed solutions treat everyone involved with respect and dignity? Are the proposed solutions motivated by goodwill? Do the proposed solutions enhance or diminish the autonomy of all involved?

Character. The fourth way of thinking highlights the person. Consider the motivation of the actor and the outcome of the act. Reflect on the following:

Can the proposed solutions be enacted virtuously? (i.e., compassionately, wisely, courageously)? Will carrying out the proposed actions make the agent(s) more or less virtuous? Can the proposed solutions be implemented in a way that builds trusting relationships?

435

Balance Sheet

Advantages (Pros) Acknowledges barriers to moral reasoning Facilitates ethical group discussion Incorporates a variety of ethical theories Specifically addresses character Can be used in implementing decisions

Disadvantages (Cons) Disagreement about facts Conflicting views of consequences and fairness

The Four-Way Method specifically addresses moral disengagement, which frequently undermines moral reasoning (see Chapter 2). It also recognizes that we may suffer from partial disengagement. We think we are open-minded when, in fact, we favor one ethical approach over others. Following the four ways of thinking with others should encourage careful reflection while listening to additional perspectives. The Four-Way approach also incorporates Kantianism, utilitarianism, and justice theory as well as virtue and character. According to Kyte, the format provides a framework for explaining decisions once they are made. Leaders need to address all forms of thinking when communicating controversial choices, such as when announcing then end of a pension plan or a plant relocation. Some employees will be more interested in the consequences of the decision; others will wonder if the process for making the decision was fair; still others will be most concerned that the decision is implemented in a compassionate manner.

The method’s creator acknowledges that following the thinking types is no guarantee of reaching consensus. To begin, decision makers often disagree about the “facts.” They reject evidence or interpret the same evidence differently. Consider how people differ over global warming, for example. Some are alarmed by climate

436

change while others, viewing the same data, deny that climate change exists. Democrats and Republicans clash over the facts surrounding Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Democrats claim that the evidence proves collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Republicans argue that there is a FBI and intelligence community conspiracy against President Trump. Since the Four-Way Method incorporates utilitarianism and justice as fairness theory, it shares the weaknesses of these perspectives (see Chapter 3). Decision makers may come to different conclusions about possible consequences, what is fair, and so on.

437

Five Timeless Questions Leaders spend much of their time “managing in the gray.” Gray area problems highly complex and have no black or white, right or wrong answers. Resolving gray problems requires careful judgment and hard choices. To meet the challenges of a gray problem, leaders must rely on their managerial skills (working with others, gathering data, analyzing information) and desire to resolve the issue as a human being (adopting a humanistic perspective). Harvard business professor Joseph Badaracco offers five questions to help leaders grapple with the human side of gray problems.37 These questions draw upon the insights of some of history’s greatest thinkers—Jesus, Aristotle, Confucius, Buddha, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, and others. Together these queries form a humanistic philosophy of management and leadership, one based on what is really important to living as fully human.

Question 1: What Are the Net, Net Consequences? Begin by considering the consequences of your possible choices. When doing so, be careful not to overlook anyone who might be affected. Everyone impacted by the decision should be considered to be of equal value. Don’t oversimplify by thinking only about the bottom line. To adequately respond to this first question, (1) stop and look for more information, (2) use a good process that involves consulting others, (3) get the right people with the right expertise involved in making the choice, and (4) use a decision-making format or decision tree for your deliberations. Aaron Feurstein of Malden Mills failed to consider all the consequences when he decided to use an insurance settlement to pay his workers and rebuild his textile factory after a fire. While initially praised for his generosity, Feurstein didn’t take into consideration the fact that the U.S. textile industry couldn’t compete with foreign producers. The new plant was forced to close and all the employees lost their jobs. Better options might have been to rebuild part of the factory, invest more in R & D, and/or provide generous retraining packages to laid-off workers.

438

Question 2: What Are My Core Obligations? This second question is a reminder that human beings have obligations or duties to one another. Answering this query starts with looking beyond economic concerns. Apple CEO Tim Cook invoked social responsibility when responding to the challenge of a shareholder, for instance. The critic argued that the company should only use renewable energy if it were profitable to do so. Cook pointed out that the company did many things that didn’t generate return on investment (ROI), such as making devices available to the blind. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons,” he told the critic, “you should get out of this stock.” Take care to not only focus on large, well-established stakeholders while overlooking other less visible groups and future stakeholders. Invoke your moral imagination to generate new perspectives. Draw upon your understanding of what humans have long viewed as good or evil. Ask, “What is hateful (hurtful)?” In other words, don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you. Go directly to those who might be impacted by the choice and get their perspectives.

Question 3: What Will Work in the World as It Is? This question invokes consideration of organizational realities. Situations change, plans fail, leaders have limited power and so on. This query also recognizes the reality of human nature, which includes a mix of desirable and undesirable qualities. According to Badaracco,

All these types of individuals—the brilliantly devious, the inept and confused, and the mostly solid citizens—are out there, all around us. They are continuously acting, reacting, vying, jostling, maneuvering, scheming, and colliding. That is the world as it is.38

To see the world as it is, first think carefully about how power operates in your organization. Consider the interests of each party

439

(including your own). Be modest and humble—there is much you don’t know and can’t control. You might want to fire a poor performer who is a friend of your boss, for instance. However, given the political reality, you may have to settle for warning that person, providing training, or helping him or her find a position that is a better fit in the organization. Adapt to unfolding events and take advantage of opportunities when they arise. Assert your power and authority when necessary.

Question 4: Who Are We? This query highlights the decision-making context and should only be asked after the first three questions have been answered. As leaders, we are social beings tied to the histories of our organizations and communities. Our ethical choices should reflect and reinforce the norms and values of our social groups. Answering question four requires a shift from analysis to sensing the larger context. Refer to the organization’s mission and values statements for guidance. Consider how the action fits into the messages carried by the organization’s story. Imagine yourself having to defend your choice. How would workers respond to your decision to terminate a loyal, long-term employee? To your choice to ignore evidence that a star performer is using an office computer to visit porn sites?

Question 5: What Can I Live With? The final question recognizes the reality that there is no one right answer to a gray area problem. No matter what the choice, individuals are likely to be hurt. The goal is then to make a choice you can be comfortable with (or be least uncomfortable with). Biogen CEO Jim Mullen had to decide what he and his firm could live with when marketing the multiple sclerosis drug Tysabri. A clinical trial revealed that the drug dramatically improved the lives of patients but triggered a rare fatal brain disease in a few individuals. After gathering information with the help of regulators and experts, Biogen went forward with marketing the drug after setting up protocols for those most at risk. One hundred thousand patients got relief from their symptoms but 500 contracted the

440

brain infection and 100 died. Despite the undesirable consequences, the decision to market the drug can be defended as well-reasoned and medically acceptable.

The judgment of what constitutes a reasonable solution will be based in large part on “tempered intuition”—considered reflection based on character and experience. Pause; take time out to ponder the first four questions (don’t favor one over the others). Expect to struggle, experiencing regrets and losing sleep. These aren’t signs of failure but indications that you have given the situation the attention it deserves. When possible, make a trial choice and see if you could live with the decision in the future. Think about how you might explain the decision to someone you admire. Finally, make the decision, communicate the decision and move forward, recognizing that you might need to adjust the choice if needed.

441

Balance Sheet

Advantages (Pros) Recognizes the “messiness” of ethical problems faced by leaders Draws upon prominent thinkers and traditions Blends management and humanism, reason, and intuition Acknowledges painful realities Emphasizes the importance of making the choice

Disadvantages (Cons) Temptation to favor one question over another Lacks specifics Makes high demands on decision makers

The five timeless questions, more than any other model, recognize that the ethical problems facing leaders are gray or “messy.” These are the types of issues that get forwarded up the chain of command. The higher your level on the organizational hierarchy, the more gray area problems you will face. To address these problems, the model draws upon managerial skills, reason, and data as well as humanism and intuition. The questions are grounded in the insights of both Eastern and Western traditions. Realism is another strength of the format. Not only do the questions acknowledge that some problems lack clear answers, they encourage decision makers to take stock of the situations they find themselves in, acknowledge their limitations, and recognize the flaws of human nature. Leaders also need to accept the fact that they will have to settle for a sound solution (one they can live with) rather than an ideal solution. We can expect to lose sleep even after the choice is made. Finally, the model highlights importance of making the decision and then communicating the choice. Answering the five questions should lead to action.

Badaracco emphasizes the importance of asking and responding to all five questions since they work together and set boundaries

442

on one another. Yet, I suspect that decision makers will be tempted to favor some questions over others, deciding, for example, to put more weight on organizational values while downplaying possible consequences. Or others might focus so much on consequences that they give little thought to their obligations to others. Those with limited experience have little to base their intuitions on. Then, too, asking broad questions means the model offers less specific guidance than other formats.

Responding to the queries, which requires deep thinking, is highly demanding. Implementing the model requires self-reflection, analyzing possible outcomes, identifying core obligations, dissecting organizational power systems and values, and drawing upon experience and character. Even after all this effort, a leader may feel vaguely dissatisfied with the outcome.

443

The Lonergan/Baird Method Twentieth-century philosopher Bernard Lonergan (1904–1980) believed all people act like natural scientists, following the same basic pattern of cognitive operations in order to make sense of the world.39 First, they observe at the physical or empirical level (perceive, sense, move, speak). Next they process this information on an intellectual level by asking questions, expressing relationships, developing hypotheses, and coming to an understanding. Then, they put together arguments and come to a judgment on the truthfulness and certainty of the hypotheses or propositions at the rational level. Finally, individuals move to the responsible level. At this stage, they determine how to act on their conclusions, evaluating various courses of action and then carrying out their decisions.

Ethics expert Catharyn Baird uses Lonergan’s model as a framework for making ethical choices, condensing it into the following steps: Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible. She then develops a set of questions and guidelines for each of his four levels.40

Step 1: Be attentive—Consider what works and what doesn’t. The first stage sets the parameters of the problem by asking these questions:

Who is the ethical actor? An individual or organization must carry out every ethical decision. (But remember that people and organizations always act on limited knowledge.) Make sure the person or group with the authority to carry out the decision makes the final determination. Who are the stakeholders in the conflict? All moral decisions have a relational component. Consider all the stakeholders who could be impacted by the choice, including those who have to implement the decision, those directly impacted by the decision, and those whose interests should be protected. What are the facts of the situation? Be aware of personal biases and try not to prejudge the situation.

444

Describe the situation in neutral language. Set the problem in context, considering such factors as the history of the issue and the relationship between important players.

Step 2. Be intelligent—Sort through the data. Begin to make sense of the information gathered in Step 1 by considering the following:

Is this an ethical question? Some issues involve conflicts between core values while others are aesthetic (matters of taste) or technical (differing strategies for completing a task or reaching a goal). For the ethical question, identify what is the very specific issue to be resolved. Identify which exact values are in conflict in this particular situation. According to Baird, many conflicts arise along two axes. The first axis is autonomy versus equality. Those who favor autonomy believe that individuals should have as much freedom as possible to determine how they live—to control their bodies, their labor and their property. Those valuing equality want to treat everyone fairly. They want to make sure everyone has access to such resources as food, health care, and employment. Baird’s other continuum is rationality versus sensibility. Followers who put a priority on rationality know what is expected and follow the rules. They are willing to give up some of their freedom for protection against criminals and terrorists, for example. Those who value sensibility, on the other hand, are flexible, adapting to each new situation. They encourage risk taking and innovation, such as in the creation of new businesses and technologies. Selection of options for action. Identify courses of action for answering the ethical question. Sometimes the best option is inaction (letting the current policy continue).

Step 3. Be Reasonable—Evaluate the options. Making responsible decisions involves critical evaluation of the options:

445

Follow the analytical rules that bring the best result. Hone your critical thinking skills. Rigorously examine all assertions and assumptions; make sure that supporting evidence is accurate and relevant. Clearly define your terms. Apply the same critical standards to your own reasoning as you do to the reasoning of others. Evaluate the problem against core principles and values. Employ ethical perspectives like those described in Chapter 5. Don’t just choose your favorite approach but imagine how other perspectives apply. Reasonably apply moral principles and values. Consider how best to carry out the ethical choice in an ethical manner. (Terminating employees may be necessary but needs to be done with respect, for example.) Employ both the head and the heart, reason and emotion, to make responsible choices. Use imagination to envision an outcome that balances competing interests and values.

Step 4: Be Responsible—Act with courage. To act responsibly, incorporate the following:

Correct for bias through ethical maturity. Ethically mature individuals use reason effectively, nourish relationships, make proper use of power, and strive for integration that models ethical wholeness to others. Attend to the common good. Consider how your actions will impact the larger community, the global economy, and the environment. Act with courage. Make the most thoughtful choice possible given the limited information available. Remember, “choosing not to act is acting.”41

According to Baird, to become mature ethical agents (ethical experts), we need to engage in continuous improvement based on a constant cycle of behavior and reflection. Mature ethical agents act and then evaluate the results of their decisions. They determine which principles and strategies worked well and which

446

did not. Based on their reflection, they are better equipped to tackle the next moral issue using the four steps described above.

447

Balance Sheet

Advantages (Pros) Is widely used Emphasizes the importance of paying attention and gathering data Highlights conflicting values Recognizes the importance of follow through

Disadvantages (Cons) Overlooks many other types of ethical conflicts Used as a tool rather than as part of an ongoing process

Baird’s method has been adopted at a number of colleges and universities that use her Ethics Game simulation. If your school uses this format, you and your classmates already have a common framework for addressing ethical issues. Lonergan/Baird’s emphasis on awareness is particularly noteworthy. All too often we want to jump to the decision stage. Like good natural scientists, we first need to observe what is going on around us, carefully identifying the important components of the situation. If we don’t pay close attention, we will reach flawed conclusions. Then, too, the method acknowledges that many ethical issues are centered on conflicting values and that decisions must produce action.

Baird seems to give too much importance to two types of ethical conflicts: autonomy versus equality and rationality versus sensibility. She doesn’t address many other common ethical conflicts, such as truth versus loyalty and justice versus mercy— for instance, Should I tell the truth but hurt a friend? Should I discipline an employee for poor performance when she is going through a divorce? I imagine that most people using her method view it as a tool. Once used, they put it back into their ethical toolboxes. They likely lose sight of the fact that Baird describes ethical decision making as an ongoing process. The goal is

448

continuous improvement and personal ethical development, not just solving particular moral dilemmas.

449

The Foursquare Protocol Catholic University law professor and attorney Stephen Goldman offers a decision-making format designed specifically for use in organizational settings. He calls his method a protocol because it focuses on the procedures that members use to reach their conclusions.42 While a general approach, it is designed to help leaders make choices in particular situations involving product safety, conflicts of interests, employee misconduct, and other topics. Codes of ethics lay out general principles about sexual harassment, personal use of company equipment, protecting trade secrets, and other ethical issues (see Chapter 10). However, those broad guidelines still have to be applied to specific cases. Did an employee’s use of a company computer to order Christmas gifts from Amazon violate the code, for instance? Can a salesperson take a client out for an expensive lunch? Can purchasing agents accept any gifts from vendors? Goldman believes that following the protocol ensures that such decisions are reached fairly.

Protocol Element 1: Close description of the situation. (Dig into the facts.) Ethical decision making begins with digging into the facts. Goldman compares the process to how a physician generates a diagnosis. When determining what is wrong with a patient, the doctor gathers information about the patient’s symptoms and relates them to one another to identify the problem. In the same way, we need to get a complete account of the ethical “patient” or problem. Gather data and identify the relevant facts.

Protocol Element 2: Gathering accumulated experience in similar situations. (Examine individual reactions to past solutions.) Doctors rely on their past experience when treating patients; organizational decision makers should do the same. Draw upon

450

organizational history or memory. Look to past experiences with similar problems. How did the organization respond to cases of sexual harassment or conflicts of interest in the past, for instance? Explore how other managers have responded to related dilemmas. To be fair, similar cases should treated the same way. Also consider how others will talk about your decision. What has been the previous organizational conversation about similar choices? What have members described as the “right way” or the “wrong way” to handle an ethical issue? In Goldman’s words, “If you want to make effective decisions today, you must understand how past responses played out: what worked, what didn’t, and what stunk to high heaven.”43 Those conversations should inform your current deliberations. Remember, too, that how you respond to the issue will shape the group’s ethical culture going forward. For instance, if you excuse those who bully others now, you can expect more cases of bullying in the future.

Protocol Element 3: Recognize the significant distinctions between the current problem and past ones. (Gauge similarities with past situations.) Identify the important differences between the current situation and past incidents. Some distinctions are insignificant, while others are critical. The ability to discern between the unimportant and important differences separates average ethical decision makers from the really good ones. Take two cases of accepting gifts from a vendor, for instance. Punishment for the offenders should differ depending on the severity of the offense (i.e., accepting a low cost meal vs. a major vacation trip), whether there was an attempt to cover up the gift and so on.

Protocol Element 4: Situating yourself to decide. (Analyze your decision making process.) Once the facts are gathered and sorted, it is time to make the choice. To “situate” yourself to make the decision, consider three

451

factors. First, what, if any, self-interest do you have in the choice that might compromise your judgment? You might have a financial stake in a course of action, such as when laying off the top salesperson will lower sales figures for your sales department. Or you may be tempted to purchase supplies from a close friend. Pay attention to how much your personal stake could shape your decision. Second, imagine that you are on the receiving end of your decision, which is likely to be costly to some groups. Consider how you would respond if you were to be laid off, for instance. Third, determine what your moral instincts or intuitions are telling you to do. For example, are you uneasy about your decision to lay off those with the longest tenure? Do you have a strong sense that protecting the organization’s diversity by retaining minority employees is the right thing to do? Try to strike a balance between intuition and reason, neither over- nor underemphasizing either one. Use your instincts to test the choice you make through the application of ethical principles like utilitarianism.

452

Balance Sheet

Advantages (Pros) Highlights the importance of justice and fairness Applies broad principles to individual situations Situates the decision maker Recognizes the influence of self-interest Incorporates both intuition and reason

Disadvantages (Cons) Undervalues other important ethical values and principles Hard to recognize what is relevant and significant and what is not Self-interest may still influence our decisions

The Foursquare Protocol rightly recognizes the importance justice and fairness in the organizational context. As I noted in Chapter 1, followers frequently complain about unfair treatment in the workplace. Another advantage of the model is its recognition that many ethical dilemmas in organizations are concerned with how to apply broad policies to specific situations. The particulars of each case are critical to the final determination. Goldman also draws our attention to the dangers of self-interest, the importance of situating ourselves as we decide, and incorporating or balancing both intuition and reason when making choices.

The Protocol’s justice focus may undervalue other important ethical considerations like care for others. For instance, keeping a poor performing older employee on the payroll for a few more months, until he or she reaches retirement age, may not appear fair to younger workers but could be justified on the basis of compassion. Goldman emphasizes the importance of focusing on relevant facts but even he acknowledges that, at first, it is hard to determine which information is important. Further, identifying important and unimportant distinctions between ethical situations appears to be function of experience. Many who use his model

453

may not have the background to make these determinations. Finally, acknowledging personal bias is no guarantee that we will keep self-interest from shaping our ethical decisions.

Implications and Applications

Both logic and emotions are essential to ethical decision making. Draw upon both processes when making moral choices. There may be times when you need to regulate your intuitive response. At other times you may want to give priority to your intuitions. Ethical behavior is the product of moral sensitivity, (recognition), moral judgment, moral focus (motivation), and moral character. Increase your sensitivity to potential ethical issues through perspective taking, using moral terminology, improving your moral attentiveness, and increasing the moral intensity of issues. Improve your ability to make moral judgments by creating an ethical environment that provides ethical role models and guidelines, continuing your education with a special focus on ethics, considering the needs and perspectives of broader audiences, and basing your decisions on widely accepted moral principles and guidelines. Ethical biases or blind spots can cause you to participate in or approve of behaviors you would normally condemn. These errors include overestimating our ethicality, forgiving our unethical behavior, in-group favoritism, implicit prejudice, and judging based on outcomes, not processes. Acknowledging that you could have these blind spots is the first step to overcoming them. Increase your moral motivation and that of followers by fostering a sense of moral potency (ownership, courage, efficacy), rewarding ethical choices, controlling negative feelings, and responding to moral emotions. Moral emotions are triggered even when we do not have a personal stake in an event. Anger, disgust, and contempt are other-condemning emotions that motivate us to redress injustices. Shame, embarrassment and guilt are self-conscious emotions that encourage us to obey the rules and uphold the social order. Sympathy and compassion are other-suffering emotions that prompt us to comfort and help others. Gratitude, awe, and elevation are other-praising emotions that open us up to new opportunities and relationships. Your chances of following through on ethical decisions (moral character) are higher if you (1) develop a duty orientation (to

454

members, mission and codes), (2) demonstrate virtue, (3) believe you have some control over events in your life, and (4) develop the necessary skills to put your plan into action. Decision-making guidelines can help you make better ethical choices. Possible ethical decision-making formats include the Four Way Method, Five Timeless Questions., the Lonergan/Baird method, and the Foursquare Protocol. The particular format you choose is not as important as taking a systematic approach to ethical decision making. Whatever format you follow, make every effort to gather in- depth, current, and accurate information. Think of ethical deliberation as an ongoing process. You may go through a sequence of steps and use them again. Return to your decision later to evaluate and learn from it. As soon as one ethical crisis passes, there’s likely to be another on the horizon. Don’t expect perfection. As a leader, make the best choice you can after thorough deliberation but recognize that sometimes you may have to choose between two flawed alternatives.

For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment

1. Divide into groups and debate the following statement: Pro or con: “When it comes to moral decision making, intuition is the elephant and reason is the rider.”

2. How can you better manage and utilize your intuitions when making ethical choices? Write up your conclusions.

3. Analyze your scores on the moral attentiveness test found in Self-Assessment 6.1. On which dimension did you score highest? Lowest? Why? What do you learn from this assessment? How can you improve your tendency to notice and reflect on ethical issues?

4. Apply the Four-Component Model to the process you went through when faced with a moral dilemma. How successfully did you complete each stage? What would you do differently next time? Write up your analysis.

5. Develop a plan for improving your moral reasoning as part of your education. How can you take advantage of your college experiences to become more of a postconventional thinker?

6. Evaluate your duty orientation based on your responses to Self- Assessment 6.2. Where do you feel the strongest sense of obligation? The least? How are your scores reflected in your behavior and ethical decisions? Are you comfortable with your scores? If not, how might you raise them?

455

7. Create an original case study that demonstrates one or more of the ethical blind spots in action.

8. Which of the four decision-making formats do you find most useful? Why?

9. In a group, brainstorm a list of possible ethical dilemmas faced by a college student. How many of these problems involve a clash between two important values? Identify which values are in conflict in each situation.

10. Apply one or more of the formats to one of the scenarios at the end of the chapter. First, reach your own conclusion. Then discuss the situation in a group. See whether you can reach a consensus. Make note of the important factors dividing or uniting group members.

11. Use a format from the chapter to analyze an ethical decision facing society (e.g., gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, immigration, health care, gun rights, the death penalty). Write up your analysis and conclusions.

Student Study Site

Visit the student study site at https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE journal articles for further research and information on key chapter topics.

https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

456

Case Study 6.1 Ethical Scenarios for Analysis

457

Scenario A: Marketing Easy Money You are the marketing manager for a regional mortgage company. Prior to coming to your current position, you worked at a national lender that went bankrupt during the housing crisis of 2008–2009. Your previous employer aggressively marketed mortgages to those who couldn’t afford them and encouraged borrowers to take out home equity loans to pay for cars, vacations, and other luxuries. When home values crashed, borrowers were unable to repay their loans. The improving housing market has encouraged your competitors to once again ramp up their sales pitches. One local mortgage lender advertises “zip mortgages,” highlighting the speed of its application process. Another promises to help borrowers with credit problems get mortgages. Yet another encourages homeowners to view their houses as “banks,” refinancing their homes to pay off credit card debts, to invest in stocks and bitcoins, and to make purchases. You worry that these messages will once again tempt consumers to live beyond their means, buying homes they cannot afford and putting them at risk should house prices dip. So far your firm has avoided such marketing tactics. However, your CEO is worried that the firm will lose market share to its more aggressive competitors. He has asked you and your department to draw up a new advertising campaign that describes how easy it is to borrow from your company and the firm’s willingness to work with those who have credit issues. He also wants the campaign to highlight how borrowers can use the money from refinancing their houses to pay for such non-home-related items as vacations, boats, motorcycles, college tuition, medical bills, and credit card debt.

Will you create the advertising campaign your CEO wants?

458

Scenario B: The Tenure Review Report You are the chair of the tenure and promotion committee at your small university. Your committee, made up of senior faculty, evaluates the teaching and scholarship of professors and then makes recommendations to the university provost. Committee members take their responsibilities seriously, knowing that peer review—where faculty members evaluate the work of other faculty—plays a critical role in higher education. They feel an obligation to maintain high teaching and research standards. No professor can be tenured (given guaranteed employment) or promoted to a higher rank (associate professor, full professor) without a positive recommendation from your group. Those denied tenure must leave the school at the end of the current school year. Your closest departmental colleague is being reviewed for tenure. (Your families sometimes celebrate holidays together and your children are friends.) He expects that you will offer a positive review and encourage the committee to recommend tenure. Unfortunately, your coworker’s teaching evaluations are below average. His scholarship is not strong enough to make up for these shortcomings. You know that your colleague will be devastated by a negative evaluation and will be forced to move to another city to take a new position. He will feel betrayed and blame you for the committee’s decision, though you are only one voice in the group.

Will you support your colleague’s application for tenure?

459

Scenario C: The School Name Change* You are a school board member for an urban school district. Most of the African American high school students in the district attend Thomas Jefferson, making it the only high school where minority students outnumber whites. Leaders—both black and white—from the neighborhood surrounding Jefferson High have requested that the district change the name of the school. They point out that the only black-majority high school in the district is named after someone who owned hundreds of slaves, had at least one child with a slave, and expressed racist views. However, some minority students and alumni defend the Jefferson name, noting that the school has a long, proud history and is nationally known for its marching band and debate team. You realize that renaming buildings that honor racist historical figures is a national trend. Yet, at the same time, you recognize that Thomas Jefferson holds a special place in American history. He was a primary author of the Declaration of Independence, a founding father, and is enshrined on Mt. Rushmore. Tonight the board will vote to accept or reject the neighborhood proposal. If accepted, the process of selecting a new name would begin. Possible replacements include abolitionists, local historical figures, Barack Obama, or the name of the neighborhood where the school is located.

Will you vote for or against the proposal to change the name of Jefferson high school?

*Inspired by actual events.

460

Scenario D: The “Win–Win” Decision You direct the real estate department of a major retail clothing chain. Your primary responsibility is choosing sites for new stores as the company expands. When selecting sites, you use a grading system based on such factors as the average income of area residents, the cost of land, surrounding businesses, and access to local highways and mass transit. Your firm wants to add an outlet in a mid-size city in a new territory. Your sister owns one of the proposed sites under consideration. When you grade the possible locations, hers is the only one that earns an A. The other two sites come in at a B and a C grade. You decide to recommend your sister’s property since it received the highest rating. You do not think you need to notify your supervisors that a relative owns this parcel of land. After all, this appears to be a “win–win” decision, one that benefits the company and your family. However, you decide to take a couple of days to reflect on your choice before submitting your report.

Should you stay with your initial decision to recommend the property without revealing you are related to the owner?

Source: Adapted from Goldman, S. M. (2008). Temptations in the office: Ethical choices and legal obligations. Westport, CT: Praeger, Ch. 5.

461

Scenario E: Out the Side Door?* You are a municipal judge deciding less serious cases involving violations of traffic laws, disorderly conduct, fish and game regulations, and local ordinances. A case involving an undocumented landscape worker charged with reckless driving is on your court docket. You know that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials will be waiting outside the courtroom to take this individual into custody following the hearing. He has lived in the country for over 20 years, is married to an American citizen, and has three children. He will be deported even though his crime is a minor one. Relations between your local court system and ICE are tense. Federal officials have stepped up their efforts to deport illegal aliens at the same time your town has declared itself a sanctuary city, which limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. You and the other judges are committed to keeping the courtroom a safe place for all citizens. You and your colleagues worry that members of immigrant communities will refuse to report rape, domestic violence, and other crimes if they know they will be taken into custody when they come to court to testify. You could let your reckless driving defendant escape ICE officers by having him exit through the door used by court officials. Doing so could be seen as interfering with federal law enforcement and might bring obstruction of justice charges and an investigation by the local bar association. Nevertheless, you believe that you would have the support of the chief municipal judge and your fellow jurists if you let the defendant walk out the side door.

Would you let this defendant use the side (court employee) door?

*Inspired by actual events.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 6.1 Moral Attentiveness

462

Instructions Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

1. In a typical day, I face several ethical dilemmas. 2. I often have to choose between doing what’s right and doing

something that’s wrong. 3. I regularly face decisions that have significant ethical

implications. 4. My life has been filled with one moral predicament after

another. 5. Many of the decisions that I make have ethical dimensions to

them. 6. I rarely face ethical dilemmas. 7. I frequently encounter ethical situations. 8. I regularly think about the ethical implications of my decisions. 9. I think about the morality of my actions almost every day.

10. I often find myself pondering about ethical issues. 11. I often reflect on the moral aspects of my decisions. 12. I like to think about ethics.

Scoring: Reverse your score on item 6 and then add up your scores. Items 1 through 7 measure the extent to which you recognize moral aspects in your everyday experiences. Items 8 through 12 measure the extent to which you consider and reflect upon moral matters. Scores can range from 7 to 49 on items 1 through 7 and 5 to 35 on items 8 through 12. Total possible scores for the combined items range from 12 to 84. The higher your scores, the more attentive or sensitive you are to moral issues.

Source: Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, p. 1030. Used by permission of the American Psychological Association.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 6.2 Duty Orientation Scale

463

Instructions Think about yourself as a member of a group that is important to you. Rate your level of agreement with each item as it pertains to you as a member.

1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

My actions demonstrate that I . . .

1. Put the interests of my team ahead of my personal interests 2. Do all that I can to support the organization 3. Am faithful to my team members 4. Am loyal to my leaders and team 5. Accept personal risk or loss in support of the

mission/organizational goals 6. Make personal sacrifices to serve the mission/organizational

goals 7. Do whatever it takes to not let the mission/organization fail 8. Get the job done under the toughest conditions 9. Do what is right always

10. Demonstrate personal integrity when challenged 11. Will not accept dishonor 12. Set the example for honorable behavior for others

Scoring: Items 1 through 4 measure duty to members, 5 through 8 measure duty to mission, and items 9 through 12 measure duty to codes. Scores for each dimension range from 4 to 20. Total scores can range from 12 to 60. The higher your score, the greater your sense of duty or obligation to the group or organization.

Source: Adapted from Hannah, S. T., Jennings, P. L., Bluhm, D., Chunyan Peng, A., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2014). Duty orientation: Theoretical development and preliminary construct testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123, 227. Used by permission.

464

Notes 1. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books; Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834; Lapsley, D. K., & Hill, P. L. (2008). On dual processing and heuristic approaches to moral cognition. Journal of Moral Education, 37, 313–332.

2. Haidt J. & Bjorklund, F. (2008). Social intuitionists answer six questions about moral psychology. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology, Vol. 2: The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 181–277). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, p. 188.

3. Boksem, M. A. S., & de Cremer, D. (2009). The neural basis of morality. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision-making (pp. 153–166). Charlotte, NC: Information Age; Reynolds, S. J. (2006). A neurocognitive model of the ethical decision-making process: Implications for study and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 737–748; Casebeer, W. D. (2003). Moral cognition and its neural constituents. Neuroscience, 4, 841–846; Tessman, L. (2014). Virtue ethics and moral failure: Lessons from neuroscientific moral psychology. In M. W. Austin (Ed), Virtues in action: New essays in applied virtue ethics (pp. 171–189). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

4. Greene, J. (2005). Cognitive neuroscience and the structure of the moral mind. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Structure and content (pp. 338–352). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; Hauser, M. D., Young, L., & Cushman, F. (2008). Reviving Rawls’s linguistic analogy: Operative principles and the causal structure of moral actions. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology, Vol. 2: The Cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

465

5. Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics 139, 755–776.

6. Weaver, G. R., Reynolds, S. J., & Brown, M. E. (2014). Moral intuition: Connecting current knowledge to future organizational research and practice. Journal of Management 40, 100–129.

7. Zhong, C.-B. (2011). The ethical dangers of deliberative decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 1–25.

8. Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 1–18.

9. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY: Praeger; Rest, J. R. (1993). Research on moral judgment in college students. In A. Garrod (Ed.), Approaches to moral development (pp. 201–211). New York, NY: Teachers College Press; Rest, J. R. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 1–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

10. Soble, J. (2015, July 22). Scandal upends Toshiba’s lauded reputation. The New York Times, p. B3.

11. Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Business ethics: An ethical decision- making approach. Sussex, England: Wiley.

12. Bird, F. B. (1996). The muted conscience: Moral silence and the practice of ethics in business. Westport, CT: Quorum.

13. Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17, 223–236.

14. Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 233–243; Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1027–1041; Sturm, R. E. (2017). Decreasing

466

unethical decisions: The role of morality-based individual differences. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 37–57.

15. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 15, 366–395; Frey, B. F. (2000). The impact of moral intensity on decision making in a business context. Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 181–195; May, D. R., & Pauli, K. P. (2002). The role of moral intensity in ethical decision-making: A review and investigation of moral recognition, evaluation, and intention. Business & Society, 41, 84–117.

16. Kohlberg, L. A. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row; Kohlberg, L. A. (1986). A current statement on some theoretical issues. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and controversy (pp. 485–546). Philadelphia, PA: Palmer.

17. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2003). Managing ethics in business organizations: Social scientific perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

18. Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma; Thoma, S. J. (2006). Research on the defining issues test. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 67–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Thoma, S. J., & Dong, Y. (2014). The defining issues test of moral judgment development. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19, 55–60.

19. See the following: Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1991). The college experience and moral development. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development. Vol. 2: Research (pp. 229–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; Rest (1993); Thoma, S. J. (2006). Research on the defining issues test. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 67–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Thoma & Deng (2014).

467

20. Trevino & Weaver.

21. See, for example, Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrusel, A. E. (2011). Blind spots: Why we fail to do what’s right and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Why your negotiating behavior may be ethically challenged—and how to fix it. (2008, April). Negotiation, 11(4), 1–5.

22. Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real verses imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues 57(1), 15– 30.

23. Ellperin, J., & Gillum, J. (2018, January 31). “Using his position for private gain”: Ben Carson was warned he might run afoul of ethics rules by enlisting his son. The Washington Post.

24. Harris, G. (2009, February 12). Peanut foods shipped before testing came in. The New York Times, p. A24.

25. Rest (1999), p. 101.

26. Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Moral potency: Building the capacity for character-based leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 291–310; Mitchell, M. S., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). The managerial relevance of ethical efficacy. In M. Schminke (Ed), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality (pp. 89–108).

27. Batson, C. D., & Thompson, E. R. (2001). Why don’t moral people act morally? Motivational considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 54–57; Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., & Chen, H. (2002). Moral hypocrisy: Addressing some alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 330–339.

28. Batson & Thompson, p. 54.

29. James, H. S. (2000). Reinforcing ethical decision-making through organizational structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(1), 43–58; O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review

468

of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.

30. See the following: Connelly, S., Helton-Fauth, W., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). A managerial in-basket study of the impact of trait emotions on ethical choice. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 245– 267; Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697; Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision- making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 175–187; Griffin, R. W., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (Eds.). (2004). The dark side of organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

31. Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; Moll, J., de Oliveira-Souza, Zahn, R., & Grafman, J. (2008). The cognitive neuroscience of moral emotions. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology (Vol. 3).The neuroscience of morality: Emotion, brain disorders, and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

32. Herzog, H. A., & Golden, L. L. (2009). Moral emotions and social activism: The case of animal rights. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 485–498.

33. Algoe, S. B. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The “other-praising” emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 105–127; Diessner, R., Iyer, R., Smith, M. M., & Haidt, J. (2013). Who engages with moral beauty? Journal of Moral Education, 42, 139–163.

34. Trevino & Weaver.

35. Hannah, S. T., Jennings, P. L., Bluhm, D., Chunyan Peng, A., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2014). Duty orientation: Theoretical development and preliminary construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123, 220–238.

36. Kyte, R. (2016). Ethical business: Cultivating the good in organizational culture. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic; Kyte, R.

469

(2012). An ethical life: A practical guide to ethical reasoning. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic.

37. Badaracco, J. L. (2016). Managing in the gray: 5 timeless questions for resolving your toughest problems at work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

38. Badaracco, p. 80.

39. Lonergan, B. (1957). Insight: A study of human understanding. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press; Lonergan, B. (1973). Method in theology. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

40. Baird, C. A. (2003). Everyday ethics: Making hard choices in a complex world. Denver, CO: CB Resources.

41. Baird (2003), p. 138.

42. Goldman, S. M. (2008). Temptations in the office: Ethical choices and legal obligations. Westport, CT: Praeger.; Goldman, S. M. (2010, August 5). Loyalty vs. ethics: From the White House to the workplace. American Management Association. Retrieved from www.amanet.org/training

43. Goldman (2008).

http://www.amanet.org/training

470

471

7 Exercising Ethical Influence

472

Learning Objectives > Explain moral frames. > Produce guidelines for selecting ethical compliance gaining tactics. > Contrast verbal aggressiveness and argumentation. > Formulate a strategy for communicating positive expectations to followers. > Describe the differences between integrative and distributive negotiation. > Examine the ethical issues associated with each of the five influence tools. > Demonstrate how the five mental shortcuts lower resistance to influence attempts.

The humblest individual exerts some influence, either for good or evil, upon others.

—HENRY WARD BEECHER, 19TH-CENTURY MINISTER AND ACTIVIST

Managers get the subordinates they expect.

—TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR EMERITUS DOV EDEN

473

What’s Ahead In this chapter, we’ll explore the ethical issues surrounding five sets of influence tools that are particularly important to leaders: framing, compliance gaining, the communication of expectations, argumentation, and negotiation. After examining each type of tactic, I’ll end the chapter with a look at how leaders can resist unethical influence attempts.

474

Ethical Issues in Influence Leadership is based on the exercise of influence. Leading means influencing since leaders must modify the attitudes and behaviors of followers in order to help groups reach their goals. The key for leaders, then, is not whether to exercise influence but how to do so in an ethical manner. Selecting the appropriate tactic is one of the most important moral choices facing leaders, helping determine whether they brighten or darken the lives of those around them. Ethical considerations should guide the use of the following.

475

Framing Sense making is one of a leader’s most important tasks. Followers look to leaders to help them interpret the meaning of—to make sense of—mergers, acquisitions, market corrections, new competitors and technologies, changes in organizational structure and programs, tax reform, cyber hacks, and other events. Leaders frequently use framing to make sense or meaning. In framing, leaders create a mental picture of the world and encourage followers to accept their frame or interpretation.1 Frames influence actions by drawing attention to certain elements of a situation while diverting attention from others. Moral framing invokes moral and ethical values like respect for the individual, honesty, fairness, concern for the poor, and obligations to society.2

As we noted in Chapter 6, many moral issues go unnoticed because leaders ignore ethics when interpreting events, which results in unethical choices and actions. Framing bribes and under the table payments as “the cost of doing business,” for example, excuses such behavior. Over time, this frame becomes part of the organization’s culture. This was the case at Brazil’s Petrobras oil company, where officials routinely made payments to politicians and received kickbacks from corporations doing business with the firm.3

Ethical framing can have a significant positive impact on the moral performance of organizations and followers. Consider the growing popularity of triple bottom line accounting, for instance. In the past, businesses defined success solely in financial terms and only reported out financial data like profits and losses. Now, by reframing success to include care for communities and the environment, many firms publish data on corporate social responsibility and sustainability in addition to financial performance. The result has been greater community outreach and reduced environmental impact.

Moral framing begins by asking about the possible ethical implications of every event. Don’t remain morally mute but use ethical terminology—“values,” “morals,” “duty,” “compassion”—to

476

interpret the situation. (See the Focus on Followership Ethics box to see how subtle cues can help change the perception of a situation and change behavior.) Tie frames into the ethical codes and values of the organization. CEOs who take public political stances often justify their activism by pointing to core corporate values. Starbucks is driven to take stands on immigration issues, race relations, and other issues based on the company’s strong commitment to social responsibility. Firms who have invested millions in fostering diverse workplaces, like PayPal, support diversity in society. Their leaders oppose bans on Moslem immigrants and attempts to cut back on LGBT rights.4

There is no guarantee that others will accept our meaning. Frames are often contested, with others offering alternative interpretations. Fellow leaders and followers may deny that there is a moral dimension to a situation, sticking to a pragmatic frame focused on cost, efficiency or some other practical consideration. Or they may offer a competing moral frame, as is often the case when debating public policy issues. Consider the debate surrounding stem-cell research. Supporters of stem-cell research adopt a care frame, emphasizing the lifesaving benefits of the studies. Opponents use a sanctity frame that claims that such research, because it involves the use of human embryos, violates the sanctity and sacredness of human life.5 (We’ll take a closer look at how to make effective arguments later in the chapter.)

We will have to take some risks when offering moral frames. Ethical framers aren’t always well received. They are often seen as less competent and as less likeable. (This helps explain why many managers remain morally mute.) Moral talk can be seen as undermining group harmony and may threaten long-standing organizational unethical practices like nepotism and favoritism.6

Focus on Follower Ethics The “Garlic Necklace” of Moral Symbols

The best way to ward off blood-sucking vampires, according to ancient myths, is to wear a necklace of garlic. Researchers Sreedhari Desai and Mayam Kouchaki wondered if moral symbols might act like garlic necklaces for followers, warding off unethical requests from leaders and improving the overall ethical climate of the

477

organization. Moral symbols stand for moral concepts and range from material objects like crosses and bronze Buddhas to posters with inspirational slogans to pictures of moral exemplars like Mahatma Gandhi and Desmond Tutu.

To determine if moral symbols function as “garlic necklaces,” Desai and Kouchaki conducted a series of studies where participants served as leaders. Leaders had to decide whether or not to lie and, if communicating with another group, who on their team would carry the false message. In most of the experiments, ethical followers were identified by the use of a moral quote at the bottom of their e-mails: “Better to fail with honor than succeed by fraud.” In one study, the team members were represented by avatars, one of whom wore a T- shirt advertising the website YourMorals.org. Leaders exposed to the moral quote and moral T-shirt were significantly less likely to send deceptive messages themselves or through a follower. When they did decide to send the false message to another team via a follower, they assigned an ethically neutral team member to the task, not an individual citing the moral quote or wearing the moral T-shirt. The researchers then surveyed subordinate–supervisor dyads in India to establish whether their findings would hold outside the experimental setting. Subordinates displaying pictures of Krishna and other gods, as well as other religious icons, received higher character ratings from their bosses. At the same time, they received fewer unethical directives from their leaders.

Desai and Kouchaki conclude that moral symbols ward off unethical requests just as garlic necklaces reportedly repel vampires. Because such symbols are seen as a sign of high moral character, leaders make fewer unethical demands of those who display them. Moral symbols also remind leaders of the ethical implications of their behaviors, reducing the likelihood that they will engage in deception and other unethical actions. Moral symbols are subtle and indirect (the researchers describe them as “ethical nudges”) but they can exert powerful upward ethical influence.

Source: Desai, S. D., & Kouchaki, M. (2017). Moral symbols: A necklace of garlic against unethical requests. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 7–28.

478

Compliance Gaining Compliance-gaining strategies are the verbal tactics that leaders and others use to get their way. They are designed to achieve immediate objectives by convincing targets to go along with requests. Compliance gaining is common in daily life, as in asking to borrow a roommate’s car, convincing a friend to go with you to see a movie, persuading a neighbor to not park in front of your driveway, and enlisting referees for the youth baseball league. Leaders routinely engage compliance gaining as well. Gary Yukl of the State University of New York at Albany and his associates identify the following as common proactive managerial influence tactics used in the organizational setting.7 (Complete Self- Assessment 7.1 to examine the compliance messages you send and receive.)

*Rational persuasion. Offering factual evidence, explanations, and logical arguments to illustrate that a proposal or request will attain task and organization objectives. Examples: “Customer surveys reveal that the website is hard to navigate and needs to be updated.” “Offering more courses online should increase enrollment.” *Apprising. Explaining how compliance with a request will benefit the target (e.g., help a career, make a job more interesting, bring recognition). Examples: “Taking this overseas assignment will put you on the fast track for promotion to international sales manager.” “Serving on this committee will give you more visibility around the company.” * Inspirational appeals. Generating enthusiasm by appealing to values and ideals; arousing emotions. Examples: “Installing the new emergency communication system will reduce response times and save lives.” “Joining our medical research team will put you on the front lines in the fight against Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.” * Consultation. Soliciting support by seeking suggestions for improvement; asking for input when planning an activity, strategy, or change. Examples: “How do you think we can retain more students?” “Take a look at this agenda for the stockholders meeting and let me know what you think.”

479

*Collaboration. Providing resources and assistance if the target complies with the request. Examples: “I can make the presentation with you.” “If you agree to head the project, I will make sure you have no other assignments.” *Ingratiation. Generating positive feelings by the use of flattery and praise before or during the request; expressing confidence in the target’s ability to fulfill a difficult request. Examples: “Since you know the accounting software much better than I do, you ought to create the financial report.” “You should approach the boss with our concerns since she trusts you.” *Personal appeals. Appealing to feelings of loyalty and friendship when asking for something. Examples: “Do me a favor and cover the front desk while I am gone.” “We’ve been friends for a long time, so I am counting on you to support my new project.” *Exchange. Providing something the target wants in return for compliance; trading favors; promising to reciprocate later or to share the benefits when the job is completed. Examples: “If you support my farm bill, I’ll vote for your urban mass transit legislation.” “Loan me some staff now and I’ll loan you some staff when your department gets busy.” *Coalition tactics. Enlisting the help of others or the support of coworkers to convince that target to go along with the request. Examples: “The board of directors really likes the expansion proposal.” “Your colleague Sue from engineering was one of the first people to get behind this idea.” *Legitimating tactics. Claiming the right or authority to make a request; aligning the request with the organization’s rules, policies, and traditions. Examples: “The policy manual states I am eligible for two weeks’ vacation any time during my first year of employment.” “In the past, offices were allocated according to seniority.” *Pressure. Demanding, threatening, checking up; persistent reminders. Examples: “If you don’t consistently make it to work on time, you’ll be fired.” “Have you had a chance to review that personnel file yet?”

Consider the power base of the tactic when selecting a compliance strategy. As we noted in Chapter 1, leaders can use

480

hard or soft power. Legitimating and pressure tactics (hard power strategies which are based on coercion and force) are more susceptible to abuse. Rational exchange, inspirational appeals, collaboration and consultation strategies, which rely on attraction and positive relationships, are soft power tactics that pose less danger. (Yukl reports that they are generally more effective as well.) However, the morality of a particular strategy rests on the ends or goals we seek. We may need to use hard power strategies to achieve our ethical goals. Then, too, soft power tactics can be used to support illegitimate requests, such as when executives collaborate with one another to steal from the company.

John Hunter and Franklin Boster point out that compliance gainers must decide just how much negative emotion they are willing to generate in order to get their way.8 Attempts to gain compliance produce emotional reactions in targets. Prosocial tactics, like rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, collaboration, and consultation, are widely accepted and are more likely to produce positive feelings. Antisocial strategies such as pressure and legitimation, which raise threat levels, are more likely to produce negative feelings. The risk of generating negative emotions needs to be balanced against the desired outcome, what Hunter and Boster call the emotional-ethical threshold. In some situations, the emotional-ethical threshold is high, such as when asking for a personal favor at work. In these cases, we would probably be unwilling to use a strategy that put the other person in a bad mood because we are serving our own interests. In other situations, the threshold is low. For example: when safety is at stake or when dealing with destructive behaviors like stealing, aggression and sexual harassment. In these cases, we are serving the interests of other people and the organization. The cost of the negative feelings (anger, resentment) is outweighed by the goals we seek.

481

Communication of Expectations The expectations of leaders can have a powerful impact on followers. That’s because we tend to live up to the expectations others place on us. Investigators refer to this tendency as self- fulfilling prophecy or the Pygmalion effect, after the prince in Greek mythology. Pygmalion created a statue of a beautiful woman, whom he named Galatea. After the figure was complete, he fell in love with his creation. The goddess Aphrodite took pity on the dejected prince and brought Galatea to life.

The Pygmalion effect operates in a variety of settings.9 For example, patients in medical experiments receiving placebos improve because they believe they will get better. Military personnel labeled as having high potential live up to the expectations of their superiors and are more likely to volunteer for dangerous special duty. The high expectations of teachers lead to higher student test and IQ scores as well as to improved performance on cognitive tasks. Clients labeled as “high potential” are less likely to drop out of alcohol treatment programs than those described as “unmotivated.” Nursing home residents are less depressed and less likely to be admitted to hospitals when staff members believe these clients will respond more favorably to rehabilitation. Patterns created through expectations tend to persist over time. One long-term study of 500 high school students found that their standardized math test scores in the twelfth grade were influenced, in part, by the expectations their teachers had of their mathematical aptitude in the fourth grade.10

Self-fulfilling prophecies have a greater impact on some individuals than others. Disadvantaged groups (those stereotyped as low achievers) tend to benefit most from positive expectations, as do those who lack a clear sense of their abilities or find themselves in a new situation. Men seem to be more influenced by the expectations of their managers than are women.11

Followers who believe that their leaders are trustworthy— competent, benevolent, and act with integrity—are more responsive to their influence attempts.12 Just as positive

482

expectations can raise performance, negative expectations lower it. This is referred to the Golem effect (golem means “dumbbell” in Yiddish).

Expectations are communicated directly and indirectly. Direct methods include expressing confidence in others’ ability to complete the task, offering complements, and saying that you expect a good final product. However, self-fulfilling prophecies are more often communicated indirectly because they tend to operate at the subconscious level. Consider, for instance, that many leaders believe that they treat all their followers the same way even when they don’t. They don’t realize that they are using these four channels to signal high or low expectancies:13

1. Climate. Climate describes the social and emotional atmosphere leaders create for followers. Leaders act in a friendly supportive, accepting, and encouraging manner with people they like. They largely do so through nonverbal behaviors that portray warmth and respect while avoiding behaviors that communicate disrespect, coolness, and superiority. Supervisors and instructors signal positive expectations by giving adequate time to employees and students, holding appointments in pleasant surroundings, sitting or standing close to workers or class members, nodding and smiling, making frequent eye contact, and using a warm tone of voice.

2. Feedback. Leaders give more frequent positive feedback when they have high expectations of followers, both praising them more often for success and criticizing them less often for failure. In addition, leaders provide more detailed performance feedback to high-expectation followers. Just the opposite occurs with those labeled as poor performers. Organizational supervisors praise their minimal performance more, reinforcing the impression that they expect less from these employees.

3. Input. Input refers to the attention and focus given to followers. Superiors give more significant projects and assignments to high potential workers. High expectations create a positive performance spiral. As employees receive and successfully complete more tasks, they gain self-

483

confidence and the confidence of leaders. These outstanding performers are then given further duties, which they are more likely to complete as well.

4. Output. Those tagged as high performers are given more opportunities to speak, to offer their opinions, and to disagree. Leaders pay more attention to these followers when they talk and offer more assistance to them when they’re solving problems. In the classroom, teachers call on “high achievers” more than “low achievers,” wait less time for low achievers to answer questions, and provide fewer clues and follow-up questions to low achievers.14

The Pygmalion effect poses some significant ethical dilemmas, starting with deception. Researchers tell leaders that groups differ in ability even though members have been randomly assigned. This strategy could be used in organizations by telling managers that selected subordinates have more potential when, in reality, there is no evidence to support that claim. Some might argue that this deceit would be justified because the organization would benefit from the superior work of those labeled as high performers. Nevertheless, this would mean lying to these supervisors, which, as in all cases of deception, demonstrates disrespect for others and undermines trust.

Ability grouping is also problematical. Companies routinely fast track some younger employees. Individuals identified as “high potential” then get special training, are assigned to mentors, receive more challenging assignments, and so on. The fortunate few selected for these experiences benefit from the Pygmalion effect while everyone else may suffer from the Golem effect. Those not selected (average or low performers) receive less encouragement and may live down to reduced expectations. Ability grouping in elementary school can be even more damaging because the impact of such labeling is long lasting. Poor readers and test takers grouped together may give up and fall further and further behind, never to catch up.

Communicating high expectations to everyone in the group or organization is an ethical alternative to deception and ability grouping.15 This approach is more just and encourages everyone

484

to do her or his best. Strategies for improving organization-wide performance should focus on building follower self-efficacy or self- confidence. This can be done through (1) breaking down tasks into manageable segments and providing followers with the time to practice their skills, (2) delivering constructive suggestions about how to improve performance or how to carry out tasks, (3) modeling skills as well as positive thinking and how to deal with failure, and (4) verbal persuasion (“I know you can do this.”) backed with reasons why the follower will succeed (“You have been trained to do this.”). In addition to fostering self-efficacy, encourage a learning orientation that emphasizes improvement toward goals. Wanting to learn motivates people to develop their skills and to look for effective task strategies. Mistakes are seen as an opportunity for development. Those who are focused on learning take satisfaction in mastering challenging tasks. (To apply these strategies, turn to Case Study 7.1.)

Even if our organization as a whole doesn’t adopt a high- expectations approach, we can still do so as individual leaders. The power of self-fulfilling prophecy puts an ethical burden on us. If followers are to reach their full potential, we need to communicate positive expectations, not negative ones. We should carefully monitor our behavior, particularly subtle cues, to reduce inequities in our treatment of followers. We can also use the Galatea effect to insulate ourselves from the negative expectations of those who lead us. The Galatea effect (named after the statue in the Pygmalion myth) refers to the fact that high self-expectation leads to high performance. If we have high expectations for our own performance, we will strive to reach that standard even when our leaders expect little from us. Meeting and exceeding standards encourages leaders to raise their expectations of us.16 We can also encourage followers to be their own Galateas.

There is one final ethical issue surrounding self-fulfilling prophecy: Just how high should our expectations be? Setting expectations too low frustrates followers and keeps them from reaching their potential. Setting expectations too high is unrealistic and unjust. Yet, there are times that leaders can convince followers to achieve more than they ever dreamed possible. That was the case with

485

Apple’s former CEO Steve Jobs. Time after time, he convinced his engineers to meet seemingly impossible deadlines while inventing new technologies. The young company competed successfully with much larger firms because Jobs was able to persuade followers to buy into his vision of the future. Said one employee, “It was a self-fulfilling distortion. You did the impossible, because you didn’t realize it was impossible.”17

Obviously, goals that are realistic for one group of followers will be different for another. However, when setting objectives, remember that specific goals are more effective than vague ones like “Do your best.” Goals should be challenging but achievable and followers should be rewarded for making progress toward objectives. Provide ongoing feedback to clarify expectations and to mark progress toward the goal.18

486

Argumentation Leaders generally rely on arguments when they want to influence others who take a different side on controversial issues like immigration reform or tax increases. To succeed, they must build a strong case for their positions while, at the same time, refuting the arguments of those who take alternative positions. Argumentation is important to leaders in every context. In small groups, argumentative members are more likely to emerge as leaders and groups that argue about ideas generate higher quality solutions.19 In organizations, supervisors must defend their own ideas and argue on behalf of subordinates.20 In public settings, political leaders, public relations specialists, lobbyists, and others debate the merits of raising the minimum wage, increasing food safety regulations, reducing carbon emissions, and other policies. (Complete Self-Assessment 7.2 to determine how willing you are to argue.)

Ethical argument is based on the recognition of the difference between argumentation and verbal aggression. Argumentation is focused on ideas. Speakers make assertions or claims that they support with evidence and reasons. They present and defend positions with the ultimate goal of reaching the best solution for the group. Verbal aggressiveness, on the other hand, is hostile communication that attacks the self-concepts of others instead of (or in addition to) their stands on the issues. Aggressive tactics include21

Competence attacks (“You’re clueless!”) Character attacks (“You’re a liar!”) Insults Teasing Ridicule Maledictions (statements wishing harm to the other like “Drop dead.”) Profanity Physical appearance attacks Threats

487

Nonverbal indicators that express hostility (looks of disgust, clenched fists, rolling eyes, demeaning tone of voice)

Argument is constructive while verbal aggression is destructive. Argument respects the dignity and worth of the other person and produces a number of positive outcomes.22 Organizational followers give higher ratings to supervisors who are argumentative but not aggressive, and these leaders enjoy higher salaries and career satisfaction. Organizational leaders, in turn, prefer followers who have similar traits, giving argumentative (but not aggressive) subordinates higher performance reviews. In contrast, verbal aggression demeans the other party while generating a host of undesirable effects. Verbal aggressiveness has been linked, for instance, to spousal abuse and family violence and has been found to reduce student learning and instructor credibility. Employees do not like to work for aggressive supervisors who threaten their self-concepts.

Lack of argumentative competence increases the chances that leaders and others will engage in verbal aggression. If participants don’t know how to make an argument, they are more likely to fall back on insults, competence attacks, and other unethical tactics (including violence) as they to try to win the dispute. According to argumentation expert Dominic Infante, we can improve our argumentation abilities and thus reduce the likelihood that we will revert to verbal aggression. Infante outlines five skills that, collectively, make up argumentative competence.23

Stating the controversy in propositional form. State the problem in the form of a proposition or proposal to clarify what the conflict is about. Framing the argument in the form of a proposal helps identify the sides that people are likely to take on this issue while clarifying where you stand on the issue. You also learn what kind of information you need to gather. Propositions of fact deal with what happened in the past (“Our electronic chip company failed to recognize that consumers were switching from laptops to mobile devices.”), the present (“Company revenues are down.”), or the future (“Unless the company develops new chips for mobile devices, there will be major reductions in our

488

workforce.”). Propositions of value deal with issues of right or wrong: “CEO salaries are way too high.” “The country should accept more immigrants from Syria.” Propositions of policy deal with proposed courses of action, such as how to reduce gang violence or how to secure more funding for social service programs. Generally those making the proposition have the burden to prove that a change is in order.

Inventing arguments. Once the controversy is clearly identified, you need to assemble your arguments. Carefully examine the proposition and develop a case either for or against the proposal. Consider the nature and extent of the problem, who or what is to blame for the situation, possible solutions as well as the best resolution, and the consequences (good and bad) that come from your solution. (Turn to Box 7.1 for additional information on how to assemble arguments.)

Presenting and defending your position. Begin by stating what you want others to accept—the conclusion or claim of your argument. Back up your claim with examples, personal experience, testimonials from others, and statistics. Also, supply reasons or logic for your position. The most common patterns of logic include analogical (drawing similarities between one case and another), causal (one event leads to another), inductive (generalizing from one or a few cases to many), and deductive (moving from a larger category or grouping to a smaller one). You can structure your argument by (1) highlighting the problem and how your solutions will meet the need (problem– solution); (2) comparing the advantages of the proposal against the status quo (comparative advantage); (3) specifying the criteria for an ideal solution and how your proposal meets those standards (ideal solution). End your presentation with a summary of what you have established. You may need to supplement your position with further evidence and reason if it comes under attack.

Attacking other positions.

489

This argumentative skill identifies the weaknesses in the evidence and reasoning of the other party. However, we also have an ethical obligation to identify the shortcomings of our own arguments in order to eliminate them. Look for the following fallacies of evidence and reasoning in your own position as well as in the positions of others:24

Faulty Evidence Unreliable and biased sources Sources lacking proper knowledge and background Inconsistency (disagrees with other sources, source contradicts himself or herself) Outdated evidence Evidence that appears to support a claim but does not Information gathered from secondhand observers Uncritical acceptance of statistical data Inaccurate or incomplete citation of sources and quotations Plagiarism (using the ideas or words of others without proper attribution)

Faulty Reasoning Comparing two things that are not alike (false analogy) Drawing conclusions based on too few examples or examples that aren’t typical of the population as a whole (hasty generalization) Believing that the event that happens first always causes the event that happens second (false cause) Arguing that complicated problems have only one cause (single cause) Assuming without evidence that one event will inevitably lead to a bad result (slippery slope) Using the argument to support the argument (begging the question) Failing to offer evidence that supports the position (non sequitur) Attacking the person instead of the argument (ad hominem) Appealing to the crowd or popular opinion (ad populum)

490

Resisting change based on past practices (appeal to tradition) Attacking a weakened version of an opponent’s argument (straw argument)

Managing interpersonal relations. Prevent arguments from deteriorating into verbal aggression. If others aren’t as skilled in argument as you, don’t humiliate them by showing off your argumentation skills. Save your best efforts for those times you are matched with someone of equal ability. Emphasize equality and what you have in common; demonstrate that you are interested in their viewpoints. Let other participants finish their thoughts instead of interrupting and deliver your messages in a calm voice at a moderate pace. Infante outlines an argumentative response to those who go on the verbal attack against you: (1) Refute the verbally aggressive claim underlying a personal attack; (2) point out the differences between argument and verbal attack and suggest that the aggressor get back to the argument; (3) do not reciprocate the attack; (4) appeal to reason by pointing out personal attacks are not rational and that the discussion should stay on topic; (5) threaten to leave if the attacks don’t cease (and carry through on your threat if necessary).

Box 7.1 The Toulmin Model

Professor Stephen Toulmin developed one widely used model for developing arguments. In Toulmin’s system (which has elements in common with Infante’s), the argument begins when an advocate states a conclusion or claim based on fact (“The United States imprisons too many of its citizens.”); definition (“Vaping is a form of smoking.”); value (“The government owns too much land in the West.”); or policy (“Off shore oil drilling should be permitted.”). Grounds or proof then support the claim. Grounding should be reliable, accurate, of high quality, consistent within itself and with other evidence, and acceptable to the audience. The warrant makes the link from the grounds to the claim. It is the reasoning that justifies that the claim is true. Good warrants make sense—appear valid and rational—to listeners.

In addition to these three primary elements, Toulmin introduces a secondary triad that can come into play when constructing a unit of

491

argument. Backing is additional evidence that supports the warrant, often providing important background information. To determine if too many Americans are in jail, the audience may need to learn about the history of the prison system in the United States, for instance. Qualifiers come into play when arguers need to account for exceptions; they reduce the force of the argument. For example, many abortion opponents argue that abortions should be outlawed except in cases of rape or incest. Rebuttals limit claims, showing when they might not be accurate as well as anticipating objections. For instance: “Future offshore oil drilling should be permitted, unless governors of coastal states object.”

Sources:

Toulmin, S. (1958, 2003). The uses of argument. London, England: Cambridge University Press.

Rybacki, K. C., & Rybacki, D. J. (2004). Advocacy and opposition: An introduction to argumentation. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Along with distinguishing between argument and aggression and developing our argumentative competence, we also need to set some ethical ground rules for argumentation. German philosopher Jürgen Habermas offers one such set of ethical guidelines called discourse ethics.25 Habermas argues that communities—towns, societies, organizations—develop their policies and moral norms by making and refuting claims and assertions. For these community standards to be valid, everyone impacted by a decision has a right to be involved in making that determination, what Habermas calls the Principle of Universalization (Principle U):

All affected can accept the consequences and the side effects its general observance can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of everyone’s interests (and these consequences are preferred to those of known alternative possibilities for regulation).26 (Italics added)

According to Principle U, all parties must be free to participate in the discussion without fear of coercion and have roughly the same power to influence each other. Participants should also be

492

prepared to justify their claims and ensure that their statements are logically sound, morally right, and sincerely offered.

Discourse ethics may set the bar for argument impossibly high. After all, power and status differences are always present. Nevertheless, keeping this ideal in mind makes moral argument more likely. In a democracy, the presumption is that citizens have a right to set the rules under which they live. Organizations are typically less democratic but even then leaders can do their part to foster ethical discourse. They can try to locate and involve all those who have a stake in the decision and do their best to ensure that these groups and individuals have a roughly equal voice. They can encourage employees to voice their concerns and resist the temptation to suppress the expression of unpopular ideas. Organizational leaders also have an ethical obligation to encourage sound, truthful evidence and reasoning on the part of all participants.

493

Negotiation Negotiation, like argumentation, involves influencing those who actively disagree. However, while the goal of argument is to establish the superiority of one position over another, the goal of negotiation is to reach a settlement that satisfies both sides. The negotiation process consists of back-and-forth communication aimed at reaching a joint solution when people are in disagreement.27 A mix of compatible and incompatible interests marks all negotiations. If the parties didn’t share a common goal, they wouldn’t negotiate. On the other hand, they must be divided by at least one issue or they wouldn’t have to negotiate to reach an agreement. Consider faculty–administration relationships, for instance. Both sides share a common interest in seeing the university survive and prosper as it carries out its mission to educate students. However, faculty members seek higher salaries and benefits and want more colleagues so they can expand their majors and programs. Administrators, for their part, seek to balance the budget. Campus executives have to make sure they can cover not only faculty costs but also pay for other staff, building projects, and other needs. They want to control faculty salaries and hire as few faculty members as possible. Professors and administrators have to negotiate their differences in order to retain faculty while assuring the school operates within its means.

Leaders of all kinds engage in negotiation. Project management team leaders negotiate assignments with members. Corporate purchasing agents settle on the price of goods and services with outside suppliers. CEOs and boards negotiate the price of the companies they want to acquire. Legislators haggle over the features of bills in order to pass them. Small business owners bargain with commercial property companies over lease agreements. Entertainment and sports agents, lawyers, and realtors try to strike the best deals for their clients.

Ethical issues in negotiation generally fall into three categories: the choice of tactics, the distribution of benefits, and the impact of the settlement on those who are not at the bargaining table.28

494

Bargainers have a number of decisions to make about the tactics they will use. Most of these ethical dilemmas involve forms of deceit. Do I declare I will not go above a certain price when I am prepared to go higher? Do I lie about the facts supporting my position? Do I threaten to pull out of the talks when I don’t intend to do so? Do I claim that my supporters won’t accept the terms of a settlement that they really would agree to? Do I try to secretly gather information about the other party’s position? Do I make commitments that my side is not prepared to keep? (For an example of a leader who failed to keep his negotiation promise, see the Chapter 7 Leadership Ethics at the Movies case on the website.)

Some argue that deception is okay because both parties know that deceit is to be expected in negotiations. They treat bargaining like a poker game. Just as we expect poker players to hide their cards and bluff about the hands they hold, when we enter negotiations we should anticipate deceit. However, not everyone understands the “rules” of negotiation. As we’ll see, a cooperative negotiator operates under a different set of assumptions than a competitive one. Rules also vary by culture and may not be clear to visitors. Should tourists haggle over the price of bananas at a roadside stand in Honduras, for example? At the very least, deceit shows disrespect for the worth of the other party and thus violates Kant’s imperative to treat people as ends not means. Deception reflects self-centeredness, not the other centeredness at the heart of altruism.

David Lax and James Sebenius suggest that we consider the following queries when determining if we should use deceit as a bargaining tactic or tell the truth:29

– Will you be comfortable with yourself the next morning? Would you want friends and family to know what you have done? The public? – Does the tactic conform to the norm of reciprocity—that we treat others like we would like to be treated? How would you feel if the roles were reversed? – Would you be comfortable counseling someone else to use this strategy?

495

– If you were to design a negotiation system from scratch, would you allow this strategy? How would you rule on this tactic if you were an outside arbitrator? – What if everyone used the same method? Would this tactic create a desirable society? – Are there alternative tactics you can use to avoid lying and deception? – How can you create value instead of claiming what you think is rightfully yours? – Does using this tactic further poison the ethical atmosphere for this type of negotiation or in this industry?

In addition to behaving honestly ourselves, we also need to promote honesty in the other party.30 Seek to reduce the defensiveness that arises out of mutual suspicion by being trustworthy and by being willing to trust. Build a sense of mutual benevolence or concern (“we-ness”). Look for similarities (e.g., family and community ties), socialize with the other party, and hold prenegotiation sessions in neutral locations.

Create opportunities for displaying trust by breaking the negotiation process into stages. Demonstrating trust in one step makes it easier to trust in the next stage. Model trustworthiness by keeping your promises, providing information and standing behind your claims. Place the negotiation in a broader context. Businesses and suppliers generally have long-term relationships. Remind the other party that dishonesty in the current negotiation will impact future negotiations. If, despite your best efforts, you believe the other negotiator is lying, try the following tactics:31

– Ask probing questions to reveal otherwise undisclosed information. – Phrase questions in different ways. For example, asking “How is the equipment?” when buying a manufacturing facility might elicit a technically true statement (“The equipment is working fine.”). However, this reply may be hiding the truth you really want to know. Ask how long the equipment is expected to last instead. The answer might be “The equipment is working well now but will have to be replaced in two years.” That information could change your decision

496

about whether or not to purchase the plant and how much you would be willing to pay. – Force the other party who is evasive to tell an outright lie or to back down from the falsehood. Most people prefer to deceive by omission, which is leaving information out of the message, than by commission, which is telling a direct lie. Forcing the issue may prompt them to tell the truth. – Test the other party by asking a question to which you already know the answer. His or her answer will reveal his or her trustworthiness. – Call attention the fact that you believe the other party is bluffing or lying. – Ignore the deception if it is only a minor part of the negotiation. Some people believe that bluffing and lying are expected in negotiation. They may become more cooperative later in the negotiation process.

The second set of ethical issues in negotiation concerns how the outcomes of the negotiation are distributed. Unequal settlements are condemned as unfair. For example, Walmart has been criticized for squeezing the last penny out of its suppliers. In some cases, Walmart buyers refuse to pay more for products even when they cost more to make.32 Some vendors have gone out of business as a result. (Case Study 7.2 describes another company accused of using unfair tactics to generate of unfair outcomes.) Determining exactly what is fair can be difficult, but making sure all sides benefit is a good start.33 Also, some of the questions about tactics can be applied to determining fairness as well. Does the settlement violate norms of reciprocity? Would you counsel others to follow the same approach? What if everyone claimed a disproportionate amount of the benefits? What kind of society would that create? Remember, too, that the structure of the bargaining process can be problematic. That’s why it is hard for an illegal farm worker to bargain with a fruit grower who can have him deported. Walmart can dictate terms to suppliers because it is so big and accounts for so much of their business. When the bargaining table is so uneven, make additional effort to ensure the process is conducted as fairly as possible.

497

The third set of ethical issues shifts attention beyond those directly involved in the negotiation. Decisions made by bargainers can have a negative impact on outside groups. For instance, when the local city council agrees to pay much more for garbage removal, all citizens pay the higher rates. Then, too, settlements can adversely impact the environment and future generations. Take the case of landowners who negotiate agreements with oil companies who use fracking to release gas and oil. The property owners may get generous settlements, and the firms gain access to the energy they need to generate profits. However, fracking, which involves injecting water deep underground, can contaminate water sources, release radioactive materials from shale, and cause small earthquakes. One way to minimize the potential damage of a settlement is to keep the interests of outside stakeholders—current and future—in mind. Consider the legacy you want to leave behind. Would you want to be known and remembered for the terms of this settlement?

Bargainers typically adopt either a distributive or integrative approach to negotiation.34 Distributive negotiators think in win– lose terms. They assume that they are locked in a battle over a fixed “pie” or value. To them, any gains by one party come at the expense of the other party. Integrative negotiators adopt a win– win approach. They are convinced that the pie can be expanded and that both parties can benefit. They view negotiation as joint problem-solving sessions. These contrasting perspectives generate very different behaviors:

Integrative Negotiation Distributive Negotiation

Open sharing of information Hidden information

Trade of values interests Demand of interests

Interest-based discussion Positional discussion

Mutual goals Self goals

498

Integrative Negotiation Distributive Negotiation

Problem solving Forcing

Explanation Argument

Relationship building Relationship sacrificing

Hard on problem Hard on people

Source: Spangle, M. L, & Isenhart, M. W. (2003). Negotiation: Communication for diverse settings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 15. Used by permission.

Comparing the two approaches reveals that distributive bargainers are more likely to engage in unethical negotiation behavior. They are tempted to deceive, generate unfair settlements and enter into agreements that have negative consequences for outsiders. Leaders, then, should adopt an integrative approach whenever possible. Nonetheless, there do appear to be times when the situation calls for a win–lose approach, such as when buying a used car. We also risk being taken advantage of if we come to the table with an integrative approach and the other party is to get as much as she or he can.

Harvard negotiation experts Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton developed one widely used integrative approach that equips negotiators to take a win–win approach while protecting themselves from being victimized. They call their problem-solving approach the principled negotiation model. Here are the four steps of principled negotiation:35

1. Separate the people from the problem. Make sure you address the human side of negotiation. Try to build a good working relationship from the start. (See Box 7.2 for more information on how the identities of negotiators can undermine relationship building.) Visualize yourself sitting at the same side of the table as the other person, working

499

together to reach an agreement good for both of you. Address the three types of people problems: perception, emotion, and communication. Don’t blame the other party but try to understand his or her perspective. Deal with any misconceptions they have of you. Recognize and address the emotions both sides feel. Don’t react to emotional outbursts but let the other party let off steam. Actively listen; address the other party directly (not outsiders); use “I” language (“I am disappointed with your latest offer”) rather than “you” language (“You are trying to take advantage of me”); and think carefully about what you want to say.

2. Focus on interests, not positions. A bargaining position is the negotiator’s public stance (e.g., “I want a starting salary of $100,000.”; “The United States should build a border wall.”). An interest, on the other hand, is the reason why the negotiator takes that position. Focusing on positions blinds negotiators to the fact that an interest can be met several ways. In the salary example, the interest of the employee is having enough money to afford housing in an expensive city. This interest could be met with a smaller salary combined with a housing allowance. Or perhaps the company could loan the money for down payment on a house, a loan that is forgiven after several years of employment. In the case of a border wall, the underlying interest is border security. Border security can be enhanced, not just by a wall, but by reinforcing current barriers; making more use of drones, lasers, and other high tech devices; beefing up checkpoints where drugs flow in; increasing the number of border agents and immigration judges; and helping Mexico provide opportunities for Central American refugees on their side of the border.

Remember that basic human needs like security, well- being, belonging, control over one’s life, and recognition can play an important role in negotiations. In talks between the United States and Mexico, for example, the U.S. Secretary of Energy refused to pay a higher price for natural gas, a price negotiated earlier by an oil consortium. The energy secretary (who assumed that the negotiation was about money only) thought that the Mexicans would give in and lower the price because they

500

didn’t have another buyer. But the Mexicans also had an interest in being treated with respect. They saw the U.S. action as bullying their country. Instead of selling the gas, Mexico burned it off.

3. Invent options for mutual gain. Having a number of options leads to decisions that are better for both sides. Nevertheless, negotiators often skip this step because they come to premature judgment, look for one single answer, assume that there is one fixed pie, and believe that the other side is responsible for solving their own problems. To overcome these obstacles, bargainers need to separate inventing options from deciding on them, broaden their options, look for mutual gain, and provide other parties with a decision that is easy to accept. Consider the creative solution generated by a man and a woman in a wine shop. They both reached for the last bottle of a particular vintage. Neither was willing to give up the prize. The man wanted the wine because he and his wife drank this particular wine on their first date and they were going to celebrate their first anniversary. The woman, who was a bottle collector, needed this wine bottle for her collection but she didn’t drink wine. In the end, they decided to share the cost of the wine. The husband promised to send the bottle to the collector after he and his wife consumed its contents.36

4. Insist on objective criteria. Don’t get into a battle of wills as you approach the final agreement, as one of you will have to back down. One party may force the other into an unsatisfactory solution as a result. Instead, agree on a set of criteria when coming to a settlement. Employ fair standards. This might include referring to the Kelly Blue Book for used car prices, for instance, or the Zillow real estate website for area home values. Use fair procedures—taking turns, turning to an outside expert—as well. One fair procedure is the forced-choice technique. When you were young, your mom or dad may have used this strategy to divide up cakes and pies. In this procedure, one child cuts the pie and the other gets the first choice of which slice to take. Bargainers used the same approach to divide up deep seabed mining sites in the Law of the Sea negotiations. Half of the mining sites were to be mined by private companies from richer nations and the

501

other half by the United Nations on behalf of poorer countries. The poorer nations worried that the private mining companies, which were more knowledgeable, would keep the best sites to themselves. To break the deadlock, negotiators determined that the private firm would present the UN group with two sites and the UN would then select one. The private company thus had incentive to offer two promising locations since it didn’t know which site it would get.

Box 7.2 Stepping Beyond Our Tribal Minds

Building a negotiating relationship with the other party is nearly impossible if we are trapped by our identities. Identities are made up of (1) beliefs, (2) rituals (holidays, daily prayers, dinners with colleagues), (3) allegiances or loyalties to individuals or groups (past or present), (4) values, and (5) intense emotional experiences (life changing events that define us). According to Daniel Shapiro, founder of the Harvard International Negotiation Program, identities are tribal. That is, our identities bind us to groups or tribes. We define ourselves as Irish Catholics, gays, engineers, Googlers (Google employees), New Yorkers, gun owners, and so on. Our identities often keep us from understanding the perspective of the other party and heighten conflict rather than building collaboration. Shapiro argues that identities do the most damage in emotionally charged conflicts, such as between work team members divided along cultural lines, senior corporate leaders battling over budgets and values, and neighborhoods divided into racial and ethnic groups.

To step beyond our tribal minds, we need to

1. Stop vertigo. Vertigo is a warped or dizzying sense of consciousness where the relationship with the other party consumes all of our emotional energies. (You may have experienced this sensation when breaking up with a partner or in a confrontation with a coworker.) We fixate on the conflict and get trapped into unhealthy patterns, focusing on the negative (even from the distant past). To step out of this trancelike state, recognize the symptoms and try to reframe the relationship through such tactics as making an unexpected apology, remembering the purpose of the negotiation, summoning an outside authority, developing a new perspective, and working with the other party to develop a strategy to deal with the negative.

502

2. Resist the repetition compulsion. Shapiro defines the repetition compulsion as “a dysfunctional pattern of behavior that you feel driven to repeat.” This compulsion prompts us to hide painful feelings, to avoid dealing with conflict or to lash out during a negotiation. We repeatedly engage in these behaviors even if we have vowed not to do so again. To break the pattern, be alert to topics that trigger the cycle and preempt them (change when you address money or other emotional issues, for instance). Try a new behavior instead of repeating the old one. For example, talk about painful emotions rather than hiding them.

3. Acknowledge taboos. Taboos identify actions, feelings, and thoughts that are off-limits, creating boundaries between the acceptable and the forbidden. Families have many such taboos: “Don’t have sex outside of marriage.” “Don’t have any contact with the sister who is alienated from the rest of the family.” “Don’t criticize dad for smoking.” Violations bring punishments (feelings of guilt, excommunication, public criticism). Taboo organizational issues generally center around (1) personal expression (“Don’t share company secrets with outsiders.”), (2) blasphemy or disrespect for the sacred (“Don’t disrespect the company founder.”), or (3) association (“Don’t date a person from the firm’s major competitor.”). Recognize the power of taboos over your behavior and that of the other person. Establish a safe zone where sensitive topics can be temporarily discussed without repercussions. Consider whether to accept the taboo, to slowly break it down, or to completely eliminate it.

4. Respect the sacred. The sacred refers to our deepest beliefs, what we believe has “divine” significance. Divine can refer to the religious (the Buddha, the Passover, the Bible) or to the secular (a beloved leader, a family member or an event like the 911 terror attack). The power of the sacred can be seen in the outrage sparked by author Salmon Rushdie. He was marked for death when he violated what many Moslems view as sacred in his book The Satanic Verses. Rushdie risked death because he viewed artistic freedom as sacred.

Be sensitive to the sacred when negotiating. Recognize the issues that spark the passion of the other party. Listen to their stories. Note when the other party sets aside time for sanctified activities, as well as places—mosques, synagogues, temples, schools, hospitals—that serve as sacred sanctuaries and cannot be desecrated. Speak sacred, not secular language. Instead of talking about tangibles like money, terms, and contracts, speak of moral

503

and spiritual values and concerns and draw on metaphor and narrative.

5. Use identity politics to unify. Employ your identity to achieve your political purpose. Be aware of the political landscape— centers of power, influential formal and informal leaders, whom the other party reports to. Instead of defining yourself by what you stand against, create a positive identity—honest, trustworthy, values driven—that will help you in future negotiations.

“Emphasize the relentless we” in negotiations by continually reinforcing the message that you and the other party are working together to come up with a solution. Design an inclusive decision-making process by identifying what is to be decided, who will be affected, and how much input each stakeholder should have in making the decision. Some parties will be excluded from the negotiation; others will be consulted; others will conduct the negotiation; and still others will need to be informed after the decision has been reached.

Source: Shapiro, D. (2017). Negotiating the nonnegotiable: How to resolve your most emotionally charged conflicts. New York, NY: Penguin.

504

Resisting Influence Up to this point our focus has been on making ethical use of influence strategies. However, along the way I noted that, as leaders, we must also resist unethical influence attempts. We must be prepared to resist the power of low expectations. When faced with verbal aggression, we need to respond with argumentative competence. When negotiators try to take advantage of us, we should refuse to be victimized. Our groups and organizations suffer if we fail to resist unethical influence. Possible costs include engaging in unethical and illegal (and even deadly) activities, hiring the wrong employees, paying too much for goods and services, giving to unworthy causes, undermining the organization’s mission and values, and taking unnecessary risks.

Recognizing our vulnerability to persuasive attempts lays the foundation for resisting them. Unfortunately, just as we overestimate how ethical we are (see Chapter 6), we also overestimate our ability to resist influence. Researchers describe this overconfidence as the illusion of invulnerability. We believe that while others can be fooled by salespeople and other persuaders, we are immune to such manipulation. But we are mistaken.37 We have probably all have regretted giving into unreasonable requests, purchasing products that didn’t live up to their hype or supporting politicians who made promises they couldn’t possibly keep.

Acknowledging that we can be victimized should put us on the alert, thus increasing our resistance.38 This recognition is critical given the fact that persuaders often take advantage of mental shortcuts to exert unethical influence. Arizona State social psychologist Robert Cialdini describes these intuitive shortcuts as “automatic, click-whirr responses.”39 Such shortcuts are becoming increasing important as technology increases the pace of life. It is impossible to carefully evaluate every piece of information that comes to us through Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, websites, digital books, papers and magazines, cell phones, cable television, streaming video, and other sources. To cope with this flood of

505

data, we frequently make decisions based on a single piece of information instead of considering the entire situation. These mental shortcuts help us deal with information overload and save time. For example, many of us associate price with quality (“If it is expensive it must be better.”) and believe that putting something on sale automatically makes it a bargain. Automatic responses produce poor choices if profiteers and others take advantage of the shortcuts to their advantage. Higher price doesn’t guarantee quality and the item on sale may have been grossly overpriced to begin with, meaning it still isn’t a bargain.

Recognizing the triggers that activate our click-whirr responses should prompt us to take a critical look at persuasive attempts and to avoid costly missteps. Important triggers include the following.

506

Reciprocation (Give-and-Take) Reciprocation—the obligation to repay others—is a universal norm of human society that encourages cooperation. We feel obligated to respond in kind to the help that we have received from others. The power of reciprocation is long lasting. Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Netherlands provided flood assistance to New Orleans to repay the city for the help it provided to the Dutch after a 1953 flood.

Marketers, salespeople, and public relations professionals are well aware of this standard of human behavior. The Audubon Society, the March of Dimes, and other charities send out free address labels, calendars, and even stamps in hopes that recipients will return the favor by making a donation. Go to warehouse retailer Costco on a weekend and you might be able to eat an entire lunch made up of free samples of cheese, crackers, fruit, sausage, pizza, juice, smoothies, and other foods. Shoppers often respond by buying the items, not because they always taste good, but because they feel a sense of obligation. Lobbyists donate to Congressional representatives in hopes they will reciprocate by supporting their legislation.

In another variation of give-and-take (called rejection then retreat), persuaders first make an extreme request and then back off, asking for less. The small request is seen as a concession and, as a result, targets are more likely to comply with it. Also, the follow up request appears more reasonable than the first one. Cialdini fell victim to this tactic when a Boy Scout approached him to spend $5 on tickets to a circus. He refused. However, when the Scout then asked him to buy $1 candy bars, he agreed even though he doesn’t like chocolate bars. On a more serious note, rejection and retreat may have been behind the Watergate scandal. Nixon’s reelection committee agreed to this $250,000 plan by G. Gordon Liddy to break into Democratic party headquarters after first rejecting his earlier proposals for two much more elaborate plans to carry out campaign dirty tricks. One earlier plan would have cost $1 million and the other $500,000.

507

Committee members probably thought the $250,000 Watergate project was a bargain.

The reciprocity norm can lead to disastrous decisions, as the Watergate Scandal demonstrates. It can also produce unwanted debts and trigger unequal exchanges. Concerns about reciprocity are behind attempts to limit political contributions, to limit the size of gifts that buyers can receive from suppliers, and to prevent medical school faculty from working for drug companies.

One way to resist the power of reciprocity is by turning down the initial favor. Don’t take free samples at the store, don’t accept free trials of Amway products, turn down contributions from controversial donors, don’t accept golf outings and lavish dinners from suppliers, and so on. Another strategy is to determine if the offer is genuinely offered. If it is genuine, then reciprocate. If it is a trick, then you are under no obligation to return the favor. Finally, you can turn the tables on unethical influencers. Use the address labels, eat the free cheese and crackers, accept a road atlas, and attend a free financial planning dinner and presentation but don’t give anything in return.

508

Commitment and Consistency The second mental shortcut comes out of the desire to appear consistent with previous choices and actions. Consistency reduces the need for careful thought and reduces the likelihood of regret or dissonance after making a decision. Commitments play an important role in consistency. Once we make a commitment, no matter how minor, we want to remain consistent. Using small commitments to leverage bigger ones is called the foot-in-the-door strategy. Donors who give small amounts at first are likely to follow up with larger contributions and may even volunteer for the organization. Small sales convert prospects into customers who are likely to make further purchases. Writing down goals increases the likelihood that individuals will follow through and reach those objectives.

Public statements increase the power of commitment. During the Korean War, some American prisoners made pro-communist statements. When their comments were posted around camp or broadcast on the radio, these captives stood by their declarations. Those who want to lose weight or quit smoking are more likely to succeed if they publicly commit to do so. In addition, the greater the effort that goes into the commitment, the more likely that the individual will stay the course. Fraternity hazing rituals demonstrate this principle. During Hell Weeks at some colleges, initiates stand in the snow, suffer beatings, drink until they pass out, are locked in dark rooms, and so on. These hardships increase, not decrease, their loyalty to the group and they are eager to make next year’s pledges undergo the same painful experiences. (Case Study 7.3 examines the power of hazing in more detail.)

Finally, when an attitude is internalized through commitment, it is highly resistant to change. The power of internalization was demonstrated in one experiment designed to promote energy saving. Investigators promised Iowa homeowners that if they saved energy their names would be put in the local newspaper. When the experimenters withdrew the promise of publicity (an

509

external reward), the homeowners actually increased their energy saving because they had internalized the commitment to do so.

The commitment trigger can be used for good ends, such as to increase contributions to charities and to recruit more volunteers. Nonetheless, unscrupulous persuaders often use this tactic to get us to buy unneeded items, to go along with unethical requests and so on. Cialdini admits that it would be impossible (and undesirable) to eliminate this shortcut from our lives. However, he urges us to avoid dangerous consistency by listening to our stomachs and hearts. If we get a knot in the pit of our stomachs, we need to step back. In these cases, let the exploiter know you are aware of his or her methods. If we feel a momentary doubt about our decision, ask, “Would I make the same choice again?” If not, then don’t make the decision in the first place.

510

Social Proof In many social situations, we look to others to determine how we should behave, a fact that advertisers seize on to declare that products are “best sellers” or to declare that they are the “fastest growing” companies. Uncertainty increases the impact of social proof. If we don’t know how to interpret the situation, we are more likely to look to others for guidance. This helps account for the fact that so many act as passive bystanders. (See the discussion for becoming an active bystander in Chapter 4.) Onlookers fail to intervene to help shooting victims or those suffering from strokes or other health emergencies. In many cases, passersby are not sure if the individual is hurt. If others walk on, they assume that there is no emergency and pass by themselves. This is more likely in crowded cities where citizens are distracted and are less likely to know one another.

Due to the power of social proof, one well publicized suicide or school shooting is often followed by copycat suicides and mass shootings. Social proof also helps bind members, who may be isolated and uncertain how to act, to extremist groups and religious cults.

To resist the social proof trigger, disengage the automatic pilot. Recognize counterfeit evidence of social proof. Actors, for example, give many commercial testimonials and laugh tracks don’t mean a situation comedy is funny. Recognize, too, that there is “pluralistic ignorance” that can lead us to the wrong conclusion. A respected bank in Singapore saw a run on its funds for no particular reason. Why? During a bus strike a large crowd gathered at a bus stop in front of the bank. Passersby panicked, thinking that that the crowd was there to withdraw funds from a failing bank. Other passersby then got in line to take out funds and the bank was forced to close in order to avoid a complete crash.

511

Liking Most of us recognize that we are more likely to comply with the requests of people we like. This helps explain the success of the Discovery Toy party where acquaintances buy from friends and neighbors who host the gatherings. Liking is based on a number of factors, including (1) physical appearance (more attractive people are more likely to get elected, to avoid jail, and to get help), (2) similarity (in dress, hobbies, age, religion, habits, political party), (3) compliments (statements of liking, complements, praise), (4) contact and cooperation (familiarity breeds liking), and (5) association (being linked to positive events, attractive people, and status symbols makes people like us more). Affinity scams are based on liking. Fraudsters often prey on those in their social circles, convincing fellow church members, friends, club members, and others to put their money into worthless investments.

Liking is a powerful force that is almost impossible to resist. Rather than spend energy on resisting, determine instead if the liking is justified. Do you like the persuader more than you should, given the circumstances? If so, then separate the person from the proposal. Focus on the merits of the deal instead.

512

Authority Obeying authority allows organizations, communities, and societies to coordinate their activities. However, blind obedience can be disastrous, such as when nurses obey the misguided directives of doctors and soldiers fail to challenge illegal orders. (See the discussion of intelligent disobedience in Chapter 5.) Often we comply with the appearance of authority, not real authority. We are more likely to obey when persuaders have prestigious titles (MD, Professor, Reverend), are dressed in the cloak of authority (suits, uniforms), and are surrounded by status symbols like fancy jewelry, spacious corner offices and large houses.

When confronted with an authority figure’s influence attempt, ask, “Is this authority truly an expert?” Consider both the person’s credentials as well as the relevance of the credentials to the issue at hand. Consider the trustworthiness of the source as well. Even if the expert is truly an expert, she or he may not act in your best interest. A financial planner might put you in a poor investment, for example, if she or he gets a generous commission for selling this particular product.

513

Scarcity The scarcity principle is based on the notion that when opportunities are less available, they appear more valuable. Companies take advantage of this shortcut when they declare, for instance, that there are limited seats left on a particular flight or that the mattress sale ends soon. Scarcity gains its power from the fact that things that are tough to get are generally better but also from the fact that we react against restrictions on our freedoms. Gun sales soar when new regulations are proposed (even if there is little chance that they will pass). Censoring sexual content can make it more desirable.

The scarcity principle exerts the most influence when items or information are newly scarce, such as when a government grants rights to traditionally oppressed groups. If these new rights are restricted, the dispossessed are more likely to rebel. Competition amps up the impact of scarcity. Consider, for example, the stampede of customers at retailers during Black Friday sales. Occasionally individuals are crushed to death as shoppers battle for bargains. A number of firms use competitive games to boost employee engagement and productivity. Employees, who can measure their progress against their coworkers, compete for prizes or enter lotteries to win gifts and bonuses.40 Leaders can also find themselves caught up in competition that clouds their judgment. CEOs competing with rivals to buy another firm may offer too much. Sports executives can find themselves paying exorbitant amounts for free agents when they bid against other teams.

Because scarcity muddles our thinking, this trigger is hard to resist. We often find our blood pressure rising when we compete. Yet, this physical reaction should signal us to calm down and proceed with caution. Consider the fact that function, not scarcity, brings value. An item, person or entity has value because of its usefulness, not because of how scarce it is. Pay only what the item, company, or free agent is worth to you and your organization regardless of its limited availability.

514

Implications and Applications

Selecting the appropriate influence tactic is one of the most important ethical determinations you will make as a leader, shaping whether you brighten or darken the lives of followers. Helping followers make sense or meaning is one of a leader’s most important tasks. Leaders create mental pictures or frames to help create meaning. Frames influence actions by drawing attention to certain elements of situations while diverting attention from others. Moral frames, which invoke moral and ethical values, can have a significant positive impact on moral performance. To create a moral frame, look for the ethical implications of every event, use ethical terminology, and tie the frame into the ethical codes and values of the organization. Compliance-gaining tactics are direct attempts to get targets to go along with requests. Prosocial strategies (rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, coordination, collaboration) are based on soft power and are more likely to generate positive emotions in receivers. Antisocial tactics (legitimating, pressure) are more threatening and generate negative feelings. Be cautious about using antisocial tactics but recognize that the morality of a strategy depends on the ends it serves. Consider your emotional-ethical threshold—how far you are willing to go to generate negative emotions in order to get your way. Your expectations as a leader can have a powerful impact on your followers who live up or down to your expectancies. Positive self-fulfilling prophecies (the Pygmalion effect) improve performance. Negative prophecies (the Golem effect) lower performance. You can combat the negative expectations that your leaders have of you by having high expectancies of yourself (the Galatea effect). Use direct and indirect methods to communicate positive expectations. Direct means include statements of support and complements. Indirect channels include (1) climate (positive social and emotional atmosphere), (2) feedback (frequent, positive, detailed), (3) input (attention and focus), and (4) output (opportunities to speak, offer opinions and to disagree). When communicating expectations, avoid deception, ability grouping and setting unrealistic expectations. Instead, seek to raise the performance of the entire group through building self- efficacy and promoting a learning orientation. Set specific, challenging yet reasonable goals. Provide ongoing feedback and reward progress toward the objectives. Argumentation is the key to influencing others who take opposing positions on controversial issues. To engage in moral argument, first recognize the difference between constructive

515

argumentation, which focuses on ideas, and destructive verbal aggression, which attacks the self-concepts of others. You are more likely to engage in argument, not verbal aggression, if you develop your argumentative competence. Competent argument is based on five skills: (1) stating the controversy in propositional form, (2) inventing arguments, (3) presenting and defending your position, (4) attacking other positions, and (5) maintaining positive relations with other arguers. Setting ethical ground rules can increase the likelihood that participants will engage in moral argument. Try to include those who are impacted by the decision in the discussion, allow all voices to be heard, and monitor the quality and truthfulness of claims, evidence and logic. Negotiation is back and forth communication designed to reach a settlement that satisfies both sides when parties share compatible and incompatible interests. Keep in mind the three ethical issues you’ll face as a negotiator: choice of tactics, the distribution of benefits, and the impact of the settlement on outsiders. Avoid deception and promote honesty in the other party. Ensure fair distribution of outcomes. Minimize damage to outside stakeholders. Avoid distributive bargaining, a win–lose approach to negotiation, which may tempt you to engage in unethical tactics. Take an integrative or win–win approach that promotes ethical behaviors instead. Principled negotiation is one integrative approach to negotiation that protects bargainers from being taken advantage of. To engage in principled negotiation (1) separate the people from the problem; (2) focus on interests, not positions; (3) invent options for mutual gain; and (4) and insist on objective criteria when reaching a settlement. As a leader, you will need to resist influence as well as exert influence. Mental shortcuts make us vulnerable to unscrupulous persuaders and can be costly to our groups and organizations. Defend against triggers that generate automatic and sometimes faulty (costly, unethical) compliance: reciprocation (give-and- take), commitment and consistency, social proof, liking, authority, and scarcity.

For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment

1. Think of a major change or event in your college or other organization. How is this development being framed? Are there

516

competing frames and who is offering them? How do these frames shape how members understand and respond to the change or event? Do any of the frames invoke moral values? Write up your findings and share them with other class members.

2. What expectation does your leader have of you? How does she or he communicate these expectations? If these expectations are low, how can you counteract their effect and raise the expectancies of your leader? Write up your conclusions.

3. What has been your experience with ability grouping? Is this strategy unethical? Share your thoughts with a partner.

4. Identify forms of faulty evidence and reasoning in a public argument about an ethical issue. Draw from websites, blogs, newspaper editorials, speeches, interviews, debates, congressional hearings, and other sources. Possible topics might include gun control, capital punishment, genetically modified foods (GMOs), dam removal, global warming, and national health insurance. Evaluate whether the sources are engaged in ethical argument according to the guidelines of discourse ethics.

5. Develop an argument based on a topic assigned by your professor. Join with others who take the same side as you and present and defend your position.

6. Pair off with someone else and compare your responses on Self-Assessment 7.1 or Self-Assessment 7.2. Describe your conclusions and what you learn from completing the exercise.

7. Prepare for a negotiation using the steps of the Principled Negotiation method. How will you separate the people from the problem? Identify your interests while acknowledging their interests? What might be some creative win–win options for settlement? What might be objective criteria that could be used to reach a fair agreement?

8. Identify the influence triggers used in the commercials in an hour of television. Are the advertisers making unethical use of these strategies? Does identifying the short cut increase your resistance to the influence attempt?

Student Study Site

Visit the student study site at https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE journal articles for further research and information on key chapter topics.

https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

517

Case Study 7.1 Going Digital After 125 years, the South Town Press is going digital. A large Connecticut-based newspaper chain recently purchased South Town, which is the only paper in a medium-size Alabama city. Soon South Town will be converting from traditional daily paper delivery to an online format. Executives at headquarters decided to make this change at all of the chain’s papers in response to shifting reading habits. The subscriber base for traditional newspapers is shrinking as more people access their news through phones, tablets, and computers. The chain’s owners believe that going to a digital format will ensure that its publications survive.

Converting to a digital format is a major challenge, particularly for a newspaper with a long history like South Town. Every aspect of the operation will be impacted, including the news department, advertising, and circulation. The electronic version of the paper will be much shorter, requiring layoffs in the newsroom. At the same time, new technical support staff will be hired.

Alicia Pia has been assigned as the new publisher at South Town Press to oversee the transition. Pia has a long history in the newspaper business. She believes that journalism is more important than ever given recent attacks on the media. Alicia recently led the move to digital publishing at another of the company’s papers in the Midwest. That transition succeeded but at a high cost. Employees didn’t think they could make the change, which slowed the process, and some quit. Salespeople struggled to sell digital ads and the number of online subscriptions was low at first, though circulation eventually rebounded. Some of the initial digital editions of the paper crashed due to technical problems.

Alicia wants to learn from her prior experience to ensure a smoother switch over at South Town Press. She believes that South Town employees have the ability to make the change but, like the staff at her last post, lack confidence in their ability to do so. She also knows that layoffs will initially lower employee morale.

Pia takes a couple of days before arriving at South Town to develop a strategy for the transition. In addition to all the technical details, she gives careful thought to whom she needs to influence and what she wants to communicate to each group and individual. She knows she wants to boost the confidence of both the entire staff of 40 while setting a high standard for her leadership team made up of the news editor, information systems manager, circulation manager, and advertising manager. She

518

wants all employees to know that they are doing important work that supports a greater cause—a free press. However, she is not sure how he should go about conveying these messages to her staff and team.

519

Discussion Probes 1. How should Alicia frame this change to employees at South Town

Press? What ethical messages should she communicate? What alternative frames might be offered by workers and subscribers? How should she respond to these interpretations?

2. What obstacles does Pia face in communicating high expectations to the entire staff? What advantages does she have?

3. What initial steps should Alicia take when arrives at South Town? 4. How can the new publisher foster self-efficacy in her entire staff?

Promote a learning orientation? 5. How can Pia use indirect channels to communicate high

expectations to each individual member of her leadership team?

520

Case Study 7.2 Don’t Mess With the Mouse: Labor Negotiations at Disney Disney employees were excited to learn that they would be getting a $1,000 bonus after the federal government lowered the tax rate for major corporations. The Disney company announced that it would give a portion of a $1.6 billion tax windfall to 125,000 nonmanagement workers. The excitement was short-lived, however, for the company’s union employees. Disney officials threatened to withhold the bonus unless members of the Service Trades Council Union representing housekeepers, kitchen staff, shop clerks, and other low-wage employees ratified the company’s latest contract offer. Ninety-three percent of the union membership had previously rejected the contract proposal, which called for a 50-cent an hour raise over two years with a $200 bonus.

Union leaders cried foul, claiming that the company was engaged in “extortion,” punishing members who had voted against the contract proposal. The union representing employees at Disneyland Resort filed a complaint under the National Labor Relations Act, alleging that Disney was withdrawing the bonus as a threat against workers. For its part, Disney claimed that the bonus should be included as part of any settlement.

Those familiar with Disney’s history shouldn’t be surprised by the latest labor unrest. In 1941, Disney cartoonists and illustrators went on strike, unionizing and asking for higher wages. Walt and Roy Disney retaliated, threatening workers and firing head animators. Later Walt would use the House Un-American Activities Committee as a platform to condemn the strikers as Communists. In 2008, visitors to Disney parks were greeted by union protestors dressed as Snow White, Tinkerbell, and other Disney figures holding picket signs. In 2017, the company was forced to pay 16,000 Florida employees $3.8 million in back wages for illegally charging them for costumes. Lawsuits by laid off technology employees claim that Disney illegally replaced them with foreign workers.

While labor conflict is nothing new to the home of Mickey Mouse, recent negotiations were particularly tense. That’s because the company took a hard-line stance even as corporate profits and executive salaries soared. Of the company’s recent $10.7 billion profit, $2.2 billion came from its theme parks. (Disney raised prices on daily and multiday ticket packages to its properties.) Disney CEO Robert Iger made $43.9 million, chief

521

operating officer Tom Staggs received $15.6 million, and chief financial officer Christine McCarthy took home $10.2 million.

In addition to holding public protests and sponsoring a rally featuring Bernie Sanders, union leaders commissioned a report by researchers at Occidental College. The investigators found that most union employees have been unable to keep up with soaring housing costs in Orange County, California, where Disney is the largest employer. Eighty-five percent earn less than $12 an hour, which puts them below the poverty line for a family of four. Many are homeless, living out of their cars or at the homes of friends and relatives. Three quarters say that they do not earn enough to meet basic expenses. Sixty percent said the food they bought didn’t last the month. According to the authors of the report,

The Walt Disney Company promotes Disneyland Resort as the “happiest place on earth.” But for many of the approximately 30,000 people who work there, it is not the happiest place to work. Despite steep increases in the cost of housing and other necessities, Disneyland workers have suffered steady pay cuts and are struggling to make ends meet.

Spurred by the report’s findings, Disney labor leaders in Anaheim placed a “living wage” initiative on the ballot, which proposed raising the minimum wage to $15 and then $18 an hour for hospitality companies receiving a city tax subsidy. Disney settled with the Disney World and Disneyland unions before the initiative came to a vote. Disney boosted starting wages to $15 an hour at both theme parks and guaranteed future raises over the life of the contract. The living wage ballot measure then passed by a comfortable margin. The head of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce called the ballot result a “tragic outcome” that would drive away future hospitality projects, costing jobs. A union spokesperson called his claim “laughable.”

522

Discussion Probes 1. Are you surprised that Disney has a history of labor unrest? Are you

less likely to go to Disneyland and Disney World knowing how workers have been treated by management in the past?

2. Does the wide gap between the pay of low wage employees and Disney executives cast the shadow of privilege? Is such a wide gap ethically justified?

3. Was withholding the bonus from union employees an unfair negotiation tactic or a legitimate strategy?

4. What role did the Occidental report play in the union’s success? 5. Do you think Disney would have agreed to meet union demands if it

hadn’t been for the threat of the ballot initiative? Was this an unfair negotiation tactic?

6. Should all workers be guaranteed a “living wage”? What impact would raising the minimum wage have on business and the economy?

523

Sources Bergfeld, K., & Bergfeld, M. (2017, November 21). Cartoons and class struggle. Jacobin.

Calfas, J. (2017, March 17). Disney is going to pay $3.8 million to employees who were charged for their costumes. Fortune. Caron, C. (2018, August 25). Walt Disney World workers reach deal for $15 minimum wage by 2021. The New York Times.

Isidore, C. (2018, February 20). Union workers want Disney to pay $1,000 tax cut bonuses. CNNMoney.

Madrid, M. (2018, February 23). The happiest place on earth? Not for Disney employees. The American Prospect. Martin, H. (2018, November 12). Anaheim’s “living wage” initiative is expected to pass. A business advocate calls it a “tragic outcome.” Los Angeles Times.

Medina, J. (2018, February 28). Trying to make ends meet with job at the happiest place on earth. The New York Times, p. A1.

Noguchi, Y. (2018, February 22). Disney says promised bonus depends on workers signing wage contract. NPR.

Picchi, A. (2018, July 27). Disneyland’s minimum wage gets a boost to $15 an hour. CBS News.

Preston, J. (2016, January 25). Lawsuits claim Disney colluded to replace U.S. workers with immigrants. The New York Times.

Rainey, J. (2017, January 13). Robert Iger’s pay as Disney CEO dips slightly in 2016 to $43.9 million. Variety.

Roosevelt, M. (2018, February 27). Disneyland Resort workers struggle to pay for food, housing and medical care, union survey finds. Orange County Register.

Roosevelt, M. (2018, February 28). Disney unions ballot drive seeks $18 an hour at hospitality companies that receive Anaheim subsidies. Orange County Register.

524

Case Study 7.3 Rooting Out the Weed of Hazing Joining a sorority or fraternity could be hazardous to your health. A number of Greek societies put pledges through dangerous initiation rituals. Some victims of hazing suffer posttraumatic stress, injuries, paralysis, and scarring. A few die. At least one hazing death has been recorded every year in the United States from 1967 through 2017, according to hazing expert Hank Nuwer, a journalism professor at Franklin College. (The streak extends back to 1954 if Canada is included in the count.) Since the first known hazing death in the United States in 1873, pledges have perished from a variety of causes, including, for example,

– being run over by a train – electrocution – burning – suffocation after a self-dug grave collapsed – choking on oil-soaked liver – beatings – drowning – alcohol poisoning – car wrecks – water poisoning – gunshots

While the vast majority of deaths are tied to fraternities, deaths of sorority sisters have also been reported.

Recent (and particularly callous) deaths have heightened public awareness of the dangers of hazing. In one well-publicized case, Baruch College freshman Chun “Michael” Deng, who was pledging Pi Delta Psi, an Asian American fraternity, died of brain trauma. He was beaten to death by fraternity officers and members at a house in Pennsylvania while wearing a 20-pound backpack. Fraternity brothers delayed calling an ambulance because it was too expensive. A national fraternity official advised members over the phone to hide anything with the fraternity’s logo. Four fraternity Pi Delta members pled guilty to voluntary homicide and the fraternity was banned from the state of Pennsylvania for 10 years. During her ruling, the judge noted, “This has proved to be the most troubling case to me in 19 years.”1

525

Penn State freshman Timothy Piazza died from a fall down a flight of stairs after he ran “the gauntlet,” consuming 18 drinks in 82 minutes (even though the Beta Theta Pi chapter was banned from serving alcohol). Piazza suffered a fractured skull and a ruptured spleen. Instead of calling 911, fraternity brothers placed his limp body on a basement couch. (A physician believes that he would have survived had he had been taken to the hospital immediately.) They lied to investigators, erasing a security tape while claiming that the tape machine wasn’t working. The video, restored by the FBI, shows members “prodding, photographing, and ignoring the injured pledge.”2 In a Today show interview, Tim’s father declared, “What happened throughout the night was just careless disregard for human life. They basically treated our son as roadkill and a rag doll.”3 Twenty students face charges in this incident.

In a third incident, LSU freshmen Max Gruver died of alcohol poisoning after participating in a “Bible Study” session where Phi Delta Theta pledges were quizzed about Greek life and the Greek alphabet. When Gruver answered incorrectly, he was pelted with hot sauce and mustard and forced to chug 190-proof liquor. He died of alcohol poisoning with a blood alcohol level of .496 (more than six times the legal limit for driving). Gruver’s mother calls her son’s death a murder since no one could drink that much without being forced to do so. Ten current and former students faced charges; one was convicted of negligent homicide.

In response to these and other deadly hazing incidents, Penn State shut down the Beta Theta Pi chapter and put all Greek organizations under university, not student, governance. LSU closed the Phi Delta Theta chapter, temporarily shut down all Greek activities, and formed a task force to study Greek associations. Ohio State, the University of Michigan, Florida State, and Texas State temporarily halted Greek activities. The parents of Deng, Piazza, and Gruver have called for stricter antihazing laws in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana. Bills introduced in the state legislatures of these states would increase criminal penalties for hazing (44 states currently have antihazing laws on the books), and open the way for civil penalties for perpetrators, universities, and national Greek organizations. One activist proposed a law requiring colleges to report instances of criminal hazing (similar to requirements to post data on sexual crimes) and to present educational programs on hazing. Other recommendations include banning same-sex fraternities and better enforcement of sanctions.

While such steps may reduce hazing, they likely won’t eliminate the practice altogether. Hazing has been around almost as long as education. For example, St. Augustine complained about “riotous destroyers” who tormented students at his school in ancient Carthage. So far hazing has resisted the attempts by groups like HazingPrevention.org, and college

526

administrators to eliminate the practice. Help (not Hell) weeks, alcohol bans, and other efforts have been unable to kill what an 1860 Harvard professor called a “weed in the garden of academe.”4 Seventy-three percent of fraternity or sorority members have experienced hazing, according one survey, but only 5% have reported hazing incidents to college administrators or law enforcement. Fraternity members are more likely to drink heavily than their nonfraternity peers and to have more problems with alcohol.

Powerful forces keep the hazing custom alive. Hazing is designed to demonstrate that initiates are worthy by meeting a series of challenges. Hazing rituals serve as a rite of passage and hazing symbols—pledge pins, paddles, shared liquor—bind members together. Fraternities often demonstrate groupthink, what Nuwer calls “Greekthink.” Participants believe they are invincible, put the group before the individual, and deny abuse. Then, too, hazing incorporates several influence triggers. In addition to the desire for commitment and consistency, which increases the investment of fraternity brothers in the practice, hazing invokes (1) reciprocity (pledges need to reciprocate by undergoing the same experience as current members), (2) social proof (hazing must be okay if others go along), (3) liking (pledges are attracted to fraternity brothers and will comply with their requests, no matter how demeaning), (4) authority (members and pledges submit to fraternity brothers and other leaders), and (5) scarcity (membership is limited and hazing is considered a fair price to pay for joining the group).

Professor Nuwer holds out hope for greatly reducing Greek hazing deaths despite all the forces keeping it in place. He describes recent attempts to limit hazing as the “biggest blowback” he’s seen in his 40 years of studying hazing rituals. He notes that one form of hazing has been almost entirely eliminated from U.S. campuses. Prior to the late 1920s, deaths from freshman–sophomore class hazings (where sophomores would initiate the freshman class) were greater than those from fraternity hazing. Students led a successful nationwide movement to end dangerous nonfraternity hazings. Since 1928, there has been only one death from these classwide hazings.

527

Discussion Probes 1. Have you had any experience with hazing as a student, member of

the military, or member of another organization (Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Masons)? Did this experience pose any danger to you and other participants?

2. Why do you think hazing remains widespread despite all the efforts to eliminate it? Can you think of any justification for hazing?

3. Do you think hazing can ever be eliminated from colleges and universities?

4. Has your college or university (if it has Greek societies) done enough to stop hazing on your campus? What additional steps could it take?

5. How could fraternity and sorority leaders combat hazing in their chapters? What might happen if they tried to do so?

6. What could you do to help end hazing on your campus?

528

Notes 1. Rojas, R. (2018, January 8). Fraternity is banned from Pennsylvania after student’s hazing death. The New York Times.

2. Nuwer, H. (2017, September 3). College hazing continuously results in death. Why do we keep the tradition alive? Quartz.

3. Nuwer (2017, September 3).

4. Nuwer, H. (2017, September 17). Hazing, the weed in the Garden of Eden that suffocates us all. The StatehouseFile.com.

529

Sources Anderson, N. (2018, March 20). Hazing deaths: Colleges, others could face civil penalties under bill that clears legislative hurdle. TheAdvocate.com.

Haag, M. (2017, November 13). 10 additional Penn State students charged in hazing death of pledge. The New York Times.

Nuwer, H. (2018, September 18). Hazing deaths. Retrieved from www.hanknuwer.com/hazing-deaths/

Reilly, K. (2017, October 11). College students keep dying because of fraternity hazing. Why is it so hard to stop? Time.

Reilly, K. (2017, December 21). “Those families are changed forever.” A deadly year of fraternity hazing comes to a close. Time.

Saul, S. (2017, October 11). 10 arrested in death of L.S.U. student after fraternity drinking ritual. The New York Times.

Strauss, V. (2017, November 16). Are colleges really doing enough to stop fraternity hazing deaths? The Washington Post.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 7.1 Compliance-Gaining Tactics

http://www.hanknuwer.com/hazing-deaths/

530

Instructions Think of THREE incidents when you attempted to get others to comply to your requests or when you were the target of compliance messages. Describe each incident in a paragraph or two. Select incidents that required one of the parties to provide significant assistance/support or involved important issues.

531

Analysis After you describe the incidents, respond to the following questions:

1. What tactics were used? How effective were they? 2. Did either party resist? Why? 3. What was the emotional response of the target and the

influence agent? 4. How did the status of the parties (peer, follower, leader)

influence the type of strategy used?

532

Evaluation Conclude with an evaluation of these incidents and what they reveal about you as a compliance gainer or compliance target. Evaluate the ethics of each tactic based on its power base, objective, and emotional-ethical threshold. Which tactics, in general, appear to be most effective and ethical? What tactics do you prefer to use or prefer to receive? Which strategies do you resist?

Source: Adapted from Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group & Organization Management, 18, 5–28.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 7.2 The Argumentativeness Scale

Instructions: This questionnaire contains statements about arguing controversial issues. Indicate how often each statement is true for you personally by placing the appropriate number in the blank to the left of the statement. Use the following scale:

1 = almost never true 2 = rarely true 3 = occasionally true 4 = often true 5 = almost always true

_____ 1. While in an argument, I worry that the person I am arguing with will form a negative impression of me. _____ 2. Arguing over controversial issues improves my intelligence. _____ 3. I enjoy avoiding arguments. _____ 4. I am energetic and enthusiastic when I argue. _____ 5. Once I finish an argument, I promise myself that I will not get into another. _____ 6. Arguing with a person creates more problems for me than it solves. _____ 7. I have a pleasant, good feeling when I win a point in an argument. _____ 8. When I finish arguing with someone, I feel nervous and upset. _____ 9. I enjoy a good argument over a controversial issue. _____ 10. I get an unpleasant feeling when I realize I am about to get into an argument. _____ 11. I enjoy defending my point of view on an issue.

533

_____ 12. I am happy when I keep an argument from happening. _____ 13. I do not like to miss the opportunity to argue a controversial issue. _____ 14. I prefer being with people who rarely disagree with me. _____ 15. I consider an argument an exciting intellectual challenge. _____ 16. I find myself unable to think of effective points during an argument. _____ 17. I feel refreshed and satisfied after an argument on a controversial issue. _____ 18. I have the ability do well in an argument. _____ 19. I try to avoid getting into arguments. _____ 20. I feel excitement when I expect that a conversation I am in is leading to an argument.

Scoring:

1. Add your scores on items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20 (A) Total = _______

2. Add your scores on items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19 (B) Total = ______

3. Subtract your (B) total from your (A) total

Score

If the result is any number between +14 and +40, you may have a high motivation to argue.

If the result is any number between -4 and + 13, you may have a moderate motivation to argue.

If the result is any number between -5 and -25, you may have a low motivation to argue.

534

Notes 1. Fairhurst, G. T. (2011). The power of framing: Creating the language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley; Fairhurst, G. T. & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

2. Kreps, T. A., & Monin, B. (2011). “Doing well by doing good”? Ambivalent moral framing in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 99–123.

3. Schubert, S., & Miller, T. C. (2008, December 21). Where bribery was just a line item. The New York Times, p. BU1.

4. McGregor, J., & Dworkin, E. (2017, February 17). The cost of silence: Why more CEOs are speaking out in the Trump era. The Washington Post.

5. Rainer, C., & Motyl, M. (2015). Moral concerns and policy attitudes: Investigating the influence of elite rhetoric. Political Communication, 32, 229–248.

6. Kreps & Monin.

7. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behaviors for managers. Group and Organization Management, 18, 5–28.

8. Hunter, J. E., & Boster F. (1987). A model of compliance- gaining message selection. Communication Monographs, 54, 63– 84; Wilson, S. R. (2002). Seeking and resisting compliance: Why people say what they do when trying to influence others. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

9. See, for example Eden, D., & Shamir, A. B. (1982). Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy, leadership, and trainee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 194–199; Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalion in management. Lexington, MA: Lexington

535

Books/D. C. Heath; Eden, D. (1993). Interpersonal expectations in organizations. In P. D. Blank (Ed.), Interpersonal expectations: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 154–178). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; Rosenthal, R. (1993). Interpersonal expectations: Some antecedents and some consequences. In P. D. Blank (Ed), Interpersonal expectations: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 3–24). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

10. Smith, A. E., & Jussim, L. (1999). Do self-fulfilling prophecies accumulate, dissipate, or remain stable over time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 548–565.

11. White, S. S., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Problems with the Pygmalion effect and some proposed solutions. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 389–415; Divir, T., Eden, D., & Bano, J. L. (1995). Self-fulfilling prophecy and gender: Can women be Pygmalion and Galatea? Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 253–270; McNatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: A meta-analysis of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 314–322.

12. Karakowsky, L., DeGama, N., & McBey, K. (2012). Facilitating the Pygmalion effect: The overlooked role of subordinate perceptions of the leader. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 85, 579–599.

13. Rosenthal, R. (1993).

14. Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1980). Educational psychology: A realistic approach. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

15. White & Locke (2000).

16. Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing Pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 9, 64–73.

17. Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, p. 119.

536

18. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (Eds.). (2013). New developments in goal setting and task performance. New York, NY: Routledge.

19. Schultz, B. (1982). Argumentativeness: Its effect in group decision-making and its role in leadership perception. Communication Quarterly, 3, 368–375; Limon, M. S., & La France, B. H. (2005). Communication traits and leadership emergence: Examining the impact of argumentativeness, communication apprehension, and verbal aggressiveness in work groups. Southern Communication Journal, 70, 123–133; Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745–772.

20. Infante, D., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 319–351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22. Infante & Rancer (1996); Rancer & Avtgis (2006).

23. Infante, D. (1988). Arguing constructively. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

24. Inch, E. S., Warnick, B. H., & Endres, D. (2006). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

25. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lehhardt & S. Weber Nicholsen, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Leeper, R. V. (1996). Moral objectivity, Jürgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, and public relations. Public Relations Review 22, 133–150; Meisenbach, R. J. (2006). Habermas’s discourse ethics and principle of

537

universalization as a moral framework for organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 39– 62; Stansbury, J. (2009). Reasoned moral agreement: Applying discourse ethics within organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 33–56.

26. Habermas (1990), p. 66.

27. Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. New York, NY: The Free Press.

28. Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2004). Three ethical issues in negotiation. In C. Menkel-Meadow & M. Wheeler (Eds.), What’s fair: Ethics for negotiators (pp. 5–14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass; Lewicki, R. J. (1983). Lying and deception. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 68–90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

29. Lax & Sebenius (2004).

30. Cramton, P. C., & Dees, J. G. (2004). Promoting honesty in negotiation: An exercise in practical ethics. In C. Menkel-Meadow & M. Wheeler (Eds.), What’s fair: Ethics for negotiators (pp. 108– 137). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Cramton, P. C., & Dees, J. G. (1993). Promoting honesty in negotiation: An exercise in practical ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3, 359–394.

31. Lewicki, R. J., Saunders D. M. & Barry, B. (2014). Negotiation (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

32. Fishman, C. (2011). The Wal-Mart effect: How the world’s most powerful company really works and how it’s transforming the American economy (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Penguin.

33. Wheeler, M. (2004, March). Fair enough: An ethical fitness test quiz for negotiators. Negotiation, pp. 3–5.

34. See, for example De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories.

538

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889–905; Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Achieving integrative agreements. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 35–50). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.

35. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Penguin.

36. Hargie, O., Dickson, D., & Tourish, D. (2004). Communication skills for effective management. Houndmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 177–178.

37. Sagarin, B. J., Cialdini, R. B., Rice, W. E., & Serna, S. B. (2002). Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: The motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 526–541.

38. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Boston, MA: Pearson; Rhoads, K. V. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). The business of influence: Principles that lead to success in commercial settings. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 513–542). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. See also Pratkanis, A., & Aronson, E. (2001). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York, NY: Holt.

39. Papageorgis, D. (1968). Warning and persuasion. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 271–282; Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analytic syntheses of forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 119–138.

40. Scheiber, N. (2018, March 12). Workers get “excitement,” shareholders get the cash. The New York Times, p. B1.

539

540

8 Normative Leadership Theories

541

Learning Objectives > Contrast transformational, pseudo-transformational, and transactional leadership. > Define authentic leadership. > Explain the importance of service to ethical leadership. > Clarify the relationship between ethics and aesthetic leadership. > Describe the origins of benevolent leadership theory. > Illustrate what it means for a leader to be a moral person and a moral manager. > Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each of the six normative leadership theories. > Analyze the similarities and differences between the six normative leadership theories.

The whole point of studying leadership is to answer the question “What is good leadership?”

—PHILOSOPHER AND ETHICIST JOANNE CIULLA

The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between the two, the leader must become a servant and a debtor.

—CEO AND AUTHOR MAX DEPREE

542

What’s Ahead In this chapter, we will look at leadership theories specifically designed to improve the ethical behavior of leaders and followers. These include transformational leadership, servant leadership, authentic leadership, aesthetic leadership, benevolent leadership, and ethical leadership. I’ll describe each theory and then make some suggestions for applying it as a leader. I’ll also offer some cautions about the limitations of each approach.

Theories are key to the study of any discipline, including leadership. They organize knowledge in a field, explain the relationships between important concepts and variables, and help scholars and practitioners make predictions about what strategies will be effective. Theoretical approaches to leadership generally fall into one of two categories: descriptive and normative. Descriptive theories, as the name implies, describe how leaders act. Early researchers at Michigan and Ohio State, for instance, identified two underlying dimensions to leadership styles: task and relationship.1 They found that some leaders are more focused on the task while others are more focused on building relationships with followers. Normative leadership theories, on the other hand, tell leaders how they ought to act. They are (1) explicitly built on moral principles or norms and (2) provide guidelines for promoting ethical leader behavior. In this chapter, I’ll introduce several normative leadership theories that can help you cast more light than shadow. As you read, note similarities and differences between the theories and consider how each can help you become a more ethical leader. (Application Exercise 1 asks you to summarize your conclusions.)

543

Transformational Leadership: Raising the Ethical Bar Interest in transformational leadership began in 1978 with the publication of the book titled Leadership by James MacGregor Burns, a former presidential advisor, political scientist, and historian.2 Burns contrasted traditional forms of leadership, which he called “transactional,” with a more powerful form of leadership he called “transforming.” Transactional leaders appeal to lower- level needs of followers—that is, the need for food, shelter, and acceptance. They exchange money, benefits, recognition, and other rewards in return for the obedience and labor of followers; the underlying system remains unchanged. In contrast, transformational leaders speak to higher-level needs, such as esteem, competency, self-fulfillment, and self-actualization. In so doing, they change the very nature of the groups, organizations, or societies they guide. Burns pointed to Franklin Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi as examples of leaders who transformed the lives of followers and their cultures as a whole.

Moral commitments are at the heart of Burns’s definition of transforming leadership. “Such leadership,” states Burns, “occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality.”3 Transformational leaders focus on terminal values such as liberty, equality, and justice. These values mobilize and energize followers, create an agenda for action, and appeal to larger audiences.4 Transforming leaders are driven by duty.5 They are guided by universal ethical principles, feel a sense of obligation to the group, and treat followers with respect. They are also altruistic, making sacrifices for followers, empowering others, and focusing on shared goals and objectives. Transformational leaders engage in higher-level moral reasoning, demonstrate greater integrity, are more successful at leading organizational ethical turnarounds, encourage the development of positive ethical climates, institutionalize ethical practices, and foster corporate social responsibility.6

544

In contrast to transformational leaders, transactional leaders emphasize instrumental values, such as responsibility, fairness, and honesty, which make routine interactions go smoothly. They take a utilitarian approach, judging the morality of actions based on their outcomes. They use their power and position to convince followers to comply so that both they and their subordinates will benefit. More focused on the self, transactional leaders are concerned with protecting their interests rather than in promoting the interests of the group. They are more likely to be controlling than empowering.

In a series of studies, leadership experts Bernard Bass and his colleagues identified the factors that characterize transactional and transformational forms of leadership and demonstrated that transformational leaders can be found in organizations.7 They discovered that transactional leadership has both active and passive elements. Active transactional leaders engage in contingent reward and management by exception. They provide rewards and recognition contingent on followers’ carrying out their roles and reaching their objectives. After specifying standards and the elements of acceptable performance, active transactional leaders then discipline followers when they fall short. Passive- avoidant or laissez-faire leaders wait for problems to arise before taking action, or they avoid taking any action at all. These leaders fail to provide goals and standards or to clarify expectations.

According to Bass and Avolio, transformational leadership is characterized by the following:

Idealized influence. Transformational leaders become role models for followers who admire, respect, and trust them. They put followers’ needs above their own, and their behavior is consistent with the values and principles of the group. Inspirational motivation. Transformational leaders motivate by providing meaning and challenge to the tasks of followers. They arouse team spirit, are enthusiastic and optimistic, and help followers develop desirable visions for the future. Intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders stimulate innovation and creativity. They do so by encouraging followers to question assumptions, reframe situations, and

545

approach old problems from new perspectives. Transforming leaders don’t criticize mistakes but instead solicit solutions from followers. Individualized consideration. Transformational leaders act as coaches or mentors who foster personal development. They provide learning opportunities and a supportive climate for growth. Their coaching and mentoring are tailored to the individual needs and desires of each follower.

Burns believed that leaders display either transactional or transformational characteristics, but Bass found otherwise. Transforming leadership uses both transactional and transformational elements. Explains Bass, “Many of the great transformational leaders, including Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, did not shy away from being transactional. They were able to move the nation as well as play petty politics.”8 The transformational leader uses the active elements of the transactional approach (contingent reward and management by exception) along with idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.9

The popularity of the transformational approach probably has more to do with practical considerations than with ethical ones. Transforming leaders are generally more successful than their transactional counterparts.10 Their followers are more committed, form stronger bonds with colleagues, work harder, go beyond their job duties, and persist in the face of obstacles. As a result, teams and organizations led by transforming figures often achieve extraordinary results: higher quality, greater profits, improved service, military victories, and better win–loss records.

Burns originally believed that the transforming leader is a moral leader because the ultimate product of transformational leadership is higher ethical standards and performance. However, his definition didn’t account for the fact that some leaders can use transformational strategies to reach immoral ends. A leader can act as a role model, provide intellectual stimulation, and be passionate about a cause. Yet the end product of her or his efforts

546

can be evil. Hitler had a clear vision for Germany but left a trail of unprecedented death and destruction.

Acknowledging the difference between ethical and unethical transformational leaders, Bass adopted the terms authentic and pseudo-transformational to distinguish between the two categories.11 Authentic transformational leaders are motivated by altruism and marked by integrity. They engage in self-sacrificial behaviors (see Box 8.1). These leaders raise awareness of moral standards and create ethical climates. Followers are viewed as ends in themselves, not as a means to some other end, and are allowed freedom of choice. Cooperation and harmony mark the groups they lead. Pseudo-transformational leaders are self- centered. They encourage dependency and manipulate followers in order to reach their personal goals. They inspire followers but fall short on the other three components of transformational leadership: idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.12 Competitiveness, conflict, envy, greed, anger, and deception mark the groups they lead. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. deserve to be classified as transformational because they promoted universal brotherhood. ISIS leaders are pseudo-transformational because, although they attract highly committed followers to their vision of an Islamic state, they engage in brutality and reject any other belief system but their own. (Turn to Case Study 8.1 and determine if this leader should be classified as authentic transformational or pseudo- transformational.)

547

Applications and Cautions

Applications Start small. Employ the full range of leadership behaviors. Recognize the universal appeal of transformational leadership.

Transformational leadership can seem intimidating at first. Its proponents set a lofty standard—raising the level of morality in an organization or society while transforming its performance. However, you can act as a transformational leader no matter how modest your leadership role. Chances are, you have benefitted from the influence of lower-level transformational leaders. You can probably think of a coach, teacher, shift manager, counsellor, pastor or other figure that had a lasting impact on you and your team. You can exert similar positive influence by engaging in the behaviors that demonstrate idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Keep in mind that transformational leaders also master active transactional tactics. Be prepared to penalize those who fall short of performance standards or break the rules, reward those who reach their objectives, and so on.

The good news is that you can use transformational behaviors in many contexts, ranging from small informal groups and military units to large complex organizations. Furthermore, transforming leadership appears to be effective in a variety of cultures. Researchers at the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Project asked managers in 62 cultures to identify the characteristics of successful leaders. Nine transformational attributes were universally associated with outstanding leadership: motive arouser, foresight, encouraging, communicative, trustworthy, dynamic, positive, confidence builder, and motivational.13 Other researchers report that transformational leadership enhances follower and organizational performance in a variety of cultural

548

settings, including, for example, Pakistan, India, Egypt and China.14

Cautions Equating success with transformation Leader centric Fosters dependency Offers no guarantee against unethical behavior

Unfortunately, many writers and researchers appear more interested in what works than in what is right. To them, transformational leadership equates with successful or effective leadership; leaders are transforming because they achieve extraordinary, tangible results, such as rescuing failing corporations or winning battles. These theorists are less concerned with whether leaders foster higher moral standards or whether transforming tactics serve ethical ends.

It should be noted that transformational theorists have been labeled as “leader-centric” for paying too much attention to leaders while downplaying the contributions of followers. One critic describes the image presented by transformational theorists this way: “The picture is one in which extraordinary leaders exercise a unidirectional influence on more-or-less willing followers, who are presumably little more than empty vessels awaiting a transfusion of insight from their betters.”15 These sceptics have reason for concern. Burns, Bass, and other proponents of transformative leadership argue that leaders play the most important role in determining group morality and performance. Leaders craft the vision, challenge the status quo, and inspire. At times, they may decide to transform the organization despite, not because of, followers, as in the case of the CEO who overrules his staff in order to bring about change. Critics of transformational leadership argue that followers are just as important to the success of a group as leaders, if not more so. After all, followers do most of the work. Worse yet, transforming leaders can silence dissent and encourage subordinates to sacrifice their legitimate self-interests in order to meet the needs

549

of the group. Or they may encourage their followers to engage in unethical behavior that promotes the organization’s success.16

So much focus on the leader can create dependency and undermine such values as shared decision making and consensus. Followers won’t act independently if they continually look to you for guidance. You may also get an inflated sense of your own importance, tempting you to cast shadows. Bass believed that the distinction between pseudo-transformational and authentic transformational leadership addresses these concerns. Transforming leaders are much less prone to ethical abuses, he asserted, because they put the needs of others first, treat followers with respect, and seek worthy objectives. You’ll need to decide for yourself whether transformational theorists have adequately responded to the dangers posed by their perspective. Then, too, recognize that transformational leadership does not make leaders immune to ethical temptations.

Box 8.1 The Power of Self-Sacrifice

Self-sacrifice is a powerful tool for increasing leader effectiveness and the moral performance of followers. Self-sacrificing leaders put aside their personal interests in order to meet the needs of the group. Self-sacrificing leader behaviors typically fall into one of three categories: division of labor, distribution of rewards, and the exercise of power. Self-sacrifice in the division of labor involves volunteering for riskier or difficult, unpleasant tasks, such as when a military officer leads a dangerous mission against the enemy or when a crew leader does the dirtiest clean up job. Assuming blame or responsibility for mistakes or failures also falls into this category. Coaches often take the blame for a team’s poor performance rather than criticizing team members.

Self-sacrifice in the distribution of rewards is willingly postponing or giving up one’s fair share of rewards—salary, raises, vacations, awards, benefits. In one famous example of sacrificing rewards, Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca reduced his annual salary to $1 until the fortunes of the firm rebounded. Self-sacrifice in the exercise of power is voluntarily refraining from using personal power and privileges for personal benefit but employing them for the benefit of others instead. Gandhi, for example, wouldn’t eat until his followers were fed. Arctic explorer Ernest Shackleton made sure his men got the warmest sleeping bags.

550

Followers respond positively to sacrificial leaders. When leaders sacrifice, their subordinates are more likely to (1) cooperate with other group members, (2) engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (see Chapter 5), (3) be engaged in their work and committed to their organizations, (4) take initiative, (5) have a higher sense of self-esteem, and (6) identify with the group. What accounts for these effects? Researchers speculate that self-sacrificial behavior signals that the leader is dedicated to the group and concerned about its welfare. This perception fosters hope and trust, which encourages members to work together and to focus on the group instead of the self. Sacrificial leaders also act as role models and members may feel the pressure to reciprocate, engaging in self- sacrifice to pay back the leader’s sacrifice.

Self-sacrifice plays a key role in a number of normative leadership theories. Servant leaders, for example, often set aside personal concerns to ensure that followers succeed, as in the case of the leader who voluntarily steps aside to let others exercise their leadership skills. Benevolent leaders sacrifice time and money for the benefit of followers. Investigators have been most interested in the relationship between self-sacrifice and transformational/charismatic leadership. Self-sacrificial leaders are rated as more charismatic and inspiring. Their sacrifices demonstrate their commitment to their vision and direct attention to the group’s goals. Self-sacrifice is seen as unconventional (because many leaders use their positions for personal gain). Unconventional behaviors, in turn, are a hallmark of charismatic leaders who have a significant impact on others.

Self-sacrifice opens the way for ordinary individuals, not just historical figures or top-level executives, to function as transformational leaders. Any leader at any level can take practical steps to benefit the collective at cost to the self, by working unpleasant hours, taking criticism, sharing profits, eating with troops in the field and so on.

While self-sacrifice is a powerful strategy for practicing ethical leadership, it can be misused. A leader may only pretend to sacrifice, as in the case of the CEO who temporarily takes a reduced salary but then more than makes up for the loss with a later bonus. Or unethical leaders may use self-sacrifice for selfish purposes. A project leader may work weekends to encourage her team members to do the same. However, the rewards for successfully completing the project—a salary increase and promotion—will go to her and not to the team if the project succeeds. Then, too, there is the danger that pseudo-transformational leaders will use self-sacrifice to encourage commitment to destructive causes like terrorism and racial supremacy.

551

Sources: Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 475–501.

Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1999). The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial leadership: An empirical test. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 397–421.

De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Cooperation as a function of leader self-sacrifice, trust, and identification. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 355–359.

De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. R. (2006). Self-sacrificial leadership and follower self-esteem: When collective identification matters. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 233–245.

Li, R., Zhang, A.-Y., & Tian, X.-M. (2016). Can self-sacrificial leadership promote subordinate taking charge? The mediating role of organizational identification and the moderating role of risk aversion. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37, 758–781.

Matteson, J. A., & Irving, J. A. (2006). Servant versus self-sacrificial leadership: A behavioural comparison of two follower-oriented leadership theories. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 36–51.

Singh, N., & Krishman, V. R. (2007). Self-sacrifice and transformational leadership: Mediating role of altruism. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29, 261–274.

van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self- sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37.

Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 428–436.

Zhou, R., Long, L., & Hao, P. (2016). Positive affect, environmental uncertainty, and self-sacrificial leadership influence follower’s self- sacrificial behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality, 44, 1515– 1524.

552

Servant Leadership: Put the Needs of Followers First Servant leadership has roots in both Western and Eastern thought. Jesus told his disciples that “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (Mark 10:43–44, New International Version). Chinese Taoist philosophers encouraged leaders to be humble valleys. Robert Greenleaf sparked contemporary interest in leaders as servants. Greenleaf, who spent 40 years in research, development, and education at AT&T and 25 years as an organizational consultant, coined the term servant leader in the 1970s to describe a leadership model that puts the concerns of followers first.17 Later he founded a center to promote servant leadership. A number of businesses (The Container Store, Popeye’s Chicken), nonprofit organizations, and community leadership programs have adopted his model.18 Margaret Wheatley, Peter Block, Max DePree, and James Autry have joined Greenleaf in urging leaders to act like servants.

The basic premise of servant leadership is simple yet profound. Leaders should put the needs of followers before their own needs. In fact, what happens in the lives of followers should be the standard by which leaders are judged. When evaluating a leader, says Greenleaf, we ought to ask, “Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?”19 Operating as servant means shifting from a focus on self to a focus on others. According to servant leadership expert Jim Laub, this mindshift involves (1) Viewing and treating followers as adult partners. Value followers for who they are, not for what they can contribute to the organization. Encourage them to share their ideas and critiques. At the same time, followers should take initiative and be accountable for their actions and decisions. (2) Viewing trust as a gift and a choice. Don’t limit followers to implementing plans. Instead, involve them in setting visions and strategies. (3) Viewing others through the lens of freedom and

553

potential. Followers resist control but respond well to opportunities to grow and develop. Provide followers with the freedom to perform at their highest level. (4) Practicing humble inquiry over telling. Ask more than tell. Listen and draw others out. Acknowledge personal limitations and be open to suggestions and concerns.20

By continually reflecting on what would be best for their constituents, servant leaders are less likely to cast shadows by taking advantage of the trust of followers, acting inconsistently, or accumulating money and power. Theorists have identified a number of attributes that characterize servant leaders—see Box 8.2. While the lists of attributes vary, five related concepts appear central to servant leadership:

1. Stewardship. Being a servant leader means acting on behalf of others.21 Leaders function as the agents of followers, who entrust them with special duties and opportunities for a limited time. Servant leaders are charged with protecting and nurturing their groups and organizations while making sure that these collectives serve the common good. Stewardship implies accountability for results. However, stewards reach their objectives through collaboration and persuasion rather than through coercion and control.

2. Obligation. Servant leaders take their obligations or responsibilities seriously. Leaders owe followers financial stability; adequate tools, equipment, and facilities; clear institutional values; a healthy culture, civility; freedom to express themselves and reach their potential; and understanding of organizational programs and relationships. Followers also expect a certain level of maturity from their leaders. Mature leaders have a clear sense of self-worth, belonging, responsibility, accountability, and equality.22

3. Partnership. Servant leaders view followers as partners, not subordinates. As a consequence, they strive for equity or justice in the distribution of power. Strategies for empowering followers include sharing information, delegating authority to carry out important tasks, and encouraging constituents to develop and exercise their talents. Concern for equity extends to the distribution of rewards as well. For example,

554

both employees and executives receive bonuses when the company prospers.

4. Emotional healing. Servant leaders help followers and organizations recover from disappointment, trauma, hardship, and broken relationships.23 They are both empathetic and highly skilled as listeners. They create climates that facilitate the sharing of personal and work-related feelings and issues. Emotional healing restores a “sense of wholeness” to both individuals and organizations.

5. Elevating purpose. In addition to serving followers, servant leaders also serve worthy missions, ideas, and causes. Seeking to fulfill a high moral purpose and understanding the role one plays in the process make work more meaningful to leaders and followers alike. Consider the example of three bricklayers at work in the English countryside. When asked by a traveler to describe what they were doing, the first replied, “I am laying bricks.” The second said, “I am feeding my family by laying bricks.” The third bricklayer, who had a clearer sense of the purpose for his labor, declared, “Through my work of laying bricks, I am constructing a cathedral, and thereby giving honor and praise to God.”

Box 8.2 Servant Leader Attributes

listening vision

empathy honesty

healing integrity

awareness trust

persuasion service

conceptualization modeling

foresight pioneering

stewardship appreciation of others

555

commitment to the empowerment

growth of people communication

building community credibility

(Spears, 2004) competence

visibility systems thinker

interpersonal support influence

building community persuasion

altruism listening

equalitarianism encouragement

moral integrity teaching

(Reed, Vidaver-Cohen, delegation

Colwell, 2011) (Russell & Stone, 2002)

empowerment value people

empathy altruistic calling

integrity/honesty emotional healing

competence wisdom

agreeableness persuasive mapping

(Washington, Sutton,& Feild, 2006)

organizational stewardship (Babuto & Wheeler, 2006)

person of character transforming influence

puts people first voluntary subordination

skilled communicator authentic self

556

compassionate collaborator

transcendental spirituality

foresight covenantal relationship

responsible morality

moral authority (Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008)

(McCarren et al., 2016)

accountability develop people

standing back build community

humility display authenticity

authenticity provide leadership

courage share leadership

interpersonal (Laub, 1999)

acceptance

stewardship

(van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011)

557

Sources: Babuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300–326.

Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership (SOLA) instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University.

McCarron, H. S., Lewis-Smith, J., Belton, L, Yanovsky, B., Robinson, J., & Osatuke, K. (2016). Creation of a multi-rater feedback assessment for the development of servant leaders at the Veterans Health Administration. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice 3, 12– 51.

Reed, L. L., Vidaver-Cohen, & Colwell, S. R. (2011). A new scale to measure executive servant leadership: Development, analysis, and implications for research. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 415–434.

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145–157.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 402–424.

Spears, L. C. (2004). The understanding and practice of servant leadership. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness (pp. 9 –24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 249–267.

Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Individual differences in servant leadership: The roles of values and personality. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 700–716.

Support for servant leadership was anecdotal during the theory’s early history, consisting largely of lists of servant characteristics and examples of servant leaders. Now scholars subject servant leadership to empirical testing. Servant leadership questionnaires have been developed, and researchers are exploring the impact

558

of servant leadership on followers and organizational performance. So far they have discovered that

– servant leaders help satisfy follower needs and boost their job satisfaction and job performance. – followers give servant leaders higher character ratings. – top level servant leaders encourage lower level leaders to act as servants. – servant leadership prompts employees to go beyond their job descriptions to help others. – those led by servant leaders are less likely to quit and are more committed to their supervisors. – servant leadership creates an ethical, trusting organizational climate. – servant leadership can increase sales and profits. – servant leaders help team members believe their group’s ability to accomplish their tasks. – servant leadership is effective in many different organizational fields, including business, – education, nursing, sales and marketing, and sports. – servant leadership is accepted across a variety of cultures, though the importance of the dimensions of servant leadership vary between societies.24

559

Applications and Cautions

Applications Focus on followers. Act as a steward. Cultivate self-awareness. Pursue elevating purposes.

Servant leadership is founded on altruism which, as we saw in Chapter 5, is essential to ethical leadership. You can serve only if you commit yourself to the principle that others should come first. You are far less likely to cast shadows if you approach your leadership roles with one goal in mind: the desire to serve. A great number of ethical abuses stem from leaders acting selfishly. Instead, act out of a sense of stewardship and obligation, promoting the growth of followers and the interests of the larger community. Remember what you “owe” followers. Share, rather than hoard, power, privilege, and information.

To function as a servant leader, you’ll need to cultivate self- awareness. Servant leaders listen to themselves as well as to others, take time for reflection, and recognize the importance of spiritual resources.

They are also acutely aware of the importance of pursuing ethical purposes that bring meaning and fulfilment to work. Serving a transcendent goal means that every act of leadership has a moral dimension.

Cautions Seems unrealistic May not work in every context Poses the danger of serving the wrong cause or offering unwise service The term servant carries a negative connotation

560

Servant leadership has not met with universal approval. Cynicism is often the first response when this model is presented. “Sounds good in principle,” listeners respond, “but it would never work at my company, in my family, at my condominium association meeting, or ______________” (fill in the blank). Like other sceptics, you may have been “walked on” whenever you tried to be nice to poor performers at work, rebellious teenagers, or nasty neighbors. You may agree with others who equate a servant attitude with passivity.

Scepticism about servant leadership may stem in part from a misunderstanding that equates service with weakness. Servant leaders need to be tough. Sometimes the best way to serve someone is to reprimand or fire that person. Nevertheless, there may be situations in which servant leadership is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement, such as in prisons, military boot camps, and emergencies.

Misplaced goals are problems for servant leaders and followers alike. Followers of Indian holy man Gurmeet Ram Rahim continue to treat him as a god even though he has been convicted of rape and ordering a murder. He is also accused of urging the faithful to commit suicide to protest his imprisonment.25 The desire to serve must be combined with careful reasoning and value clarification. You need to carefully examine who and what you serve, asking yourself questions such as the following: Is this group, individual, or organization worthy of my service? What values am I promoting? What is the product of my service: light or darkness?

You are also charged with giving wise service. Lots of well- intentioned efforts to help others are wasted when leaders fail to do their homework. After the earthquake in Central Asia in 2005, for example, outdoor manufacturers donated high-tech mountaineering tents to victims. Unfortunately, these tents are highly flammable and caught fire from candles, kerosene lanterns, and cooking fires, burning and killing adults and children. After a major earthquake in Haiti, a group of Idaho church members was jailed after trying to take orphans out of the country. It turns out that the children weren’t orphans after all. Some humanitarian efforts are wasted. Worse yet, they can make problems worse and

561

foster dependency in recipients.26 (The Leadership Ethics at the Movies case on the student study site describes one group of humanitarians who don’t always provide wise service.)

Finally, members of some minority groups, particularly African Americans, associate the word servant with a history of slavery, oppression, and discrimination. The negative connotations surrounding the word may keep you from embracing the idea of servant leadership. You may want to abandon this term and focus instead on related concepts such as altruism and the virtues of concern and compassion.

562

Authentic Leadership: Know Yourself and to Your Own Self Be True Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers prized authenticity. “Know thyself” was inscribed on the frieze above the oracle of Delphi and appears in the writings of Cicero and Ovid.27 Greek thinkers also exhorted listeners “to thine own self be true.” Modern scholars have rediscovered the importance of this quality. Proponents of Authentic Leadership Theory (ALT) identify authenticity as the “root construct” or principle underlying all forms of positive leadership. The practice of authentic leadership leads to sustainable (long-term) and veritable (ethically sound) organizational performance.28

Authenticity has four components: self-awareness, balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, and relational transparency.29 Self-awareness means being conscious of, and trusting in, our motives, desires, feelings, and self-concept. Self- aware people know their strengths and weaknesses, personal traits, and emotional patterns, and they are able to use this knowledge when interacting with others and their environments. Balanced processing describes remaining objective when receiving information. Inauthentic responses involve denying, distorting, or ignoring feedback we don’t want to acknowledge. We may have to accept the fact that we aren’t very good at certain activities (accounting, writing, playing basketball) or that we have problems managing our anger. Internalized moral perspective refers to regulating our behavior according to our internal standards and values, not according to what others say. We act in harmony with what we believe and do not change our behavior to please others or to earn rewards or avoid punishment. Relational transparency is presenting the authentic self to others, openly expressing true thoughts and feelings appropriate for the situation. (Case Study 8.2 describes a leader who was particularly noteworthy for his internal standards and openness to others.)

563

Disappointed by the stream of business and political scandals, ALT theorists hope to improve the ethical performance of leaders. They define authentic leaders as

those who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character.30

Such leaders acknowledge the ethical responsibilities of their roles, can recognize and evaluate ethical issues, and take moral actions that are thoroughly grounded in their beliefs and values. In order to carry out these tasks, they draw on their courage and resilience—the ability to adapt when confronted with significant risk or adversity.31

Because authenticity is so critical to positive leadership performance, Bruce Avolio, Fred Luthans, and others are interested in how leaders develop this quality. They report that critical incidents called trigger events play an important role in the development of the moral component of authentic leadership.32

These events, like the crucible moments described in Chapter 3, can be positive or negative and promote introspection and reflection. Trigger experiences are often dramatic—facing racial hatred, visiting a third-world village—but can also be more mundane, such as reading a significant book. Sometimes a series of small events, like several minor successes or failures, can have a cumulative effect, triggering significant thought. Leaders develop a clearer sense of who they are, including their standards of right and wrong, through these experiences. They build a store of moral knowledge that they can draw on to make better choices when facing future ethical dilemmas.

Authenticity can also be fostered through training and education. For example, trainers and educators can help leaders develop their moral capacity by (1) encouraging them to think about the

564

possible consequences of their leadership decisions, (2) enhancing their perspective taking through discussion and training, (3) exposing them to common moral dilemmas to help them recognize the ethical issues they will face in their jobs, (4) building their belief in their ability to follow through on choices, (5) helping them develop strategies for adapting and coping with new ethical challenges, and (6) pairing them with moral leaders so they can observe authentic behavior firsthand.33

Authentic leadership produces a number of positive ethical effects in followers.34 Followers are likely to emulate the example of authentic leaders who set a high ethical standard. They feel empowered to make ethical choices on their own without the input of the leader, are more likely to resist temptation, and are more likely to act courageously. They align themselves with the values of the organization and become authentic moral agents themselves. Leader authenticity also fosters feelings of self- efficacy (competence), hope, optimism, and resilience in followers. Authentic followers, for their part, provide feedback that reinforces the authentic behavior of leaders and increases the leaders’ self- knowledge. (The Focus on Follower Ethics box provides more information on the characteristics of authentic followers.) Authentic leadership and followership are more likely to develop in organizational climates that provide the information and other resources that employees need to get their work done, encourage learning, treat members fairly, and set clear goals and performance standards.

Proponents of ALT argue that authenticity pays practical as well as ethical dividends. They cite evidence that authentic leadership is linked to higher follower performance, commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, satisfaction, and effort.35

Authentic leaders, particularly because they act with integrity, engender more trust, and trust, in turn, has been linked to higher organizational productivity and performance (see Chapter 10). The positive emotions fostered by leaders also enhance performance. Followers who believe in their abilities are more likely to take initiative and to achieve more, even in the face of difficult circumstances. Feelings of hope and optimism foster willpower. Resiliency enables followers to recover more quickly

565

from setbacks.36 So far the positive effects of authentic leadership appear to generalize across cultures, reducing follower stress and insecurity while increasing job satisfaction, trust, safety, performance, and willingness to blow the whistle on organizational wrongdoing.37

566

Applications and Cautions

Applications Recognize the significance of authenticity. Develop the four components of authenticity. Foster authenticity in others.

Advocates argue persuasively for the importance of authenticity— incorporating values, moral perspectives, virtues, and character in their definition of authentic leadership. Authentic leadership is effective as well as ethical. Authenticity multiplies the impact of leaders and lays the foundation for long-term organizational success. If this is the case, then seek to be an authentic leader. Cultivate the four components of authenticity: develop self- awareness, maintain objectivity when receiving information, rely on internal standards and values, and openly present yourself to others. Consider the trigger events in your life and what they reveal about who you are (see Application Exercise 8.6). Foster authenticity in others through your example and the training strategies described earlier.

Cautions Overstates the significance of authenticity Assumes one “self” Equates authenticity with morality Authenticity can be defined as a personal characteristic or as a perception Other variables may support or reduce authentic behavior

While authenticity is a critical component of ethical leadership, the theory’s underlying premise that authenticity is the source of all positive forms of leadership is subject to debate. There may be some other as yet undiscovered source instead. Or there may be multiple sources of ethical leadership. Further, authenticity may be overrated. Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer points out that leaders frequently act in ways that contradict their feelings in order to carry out their roles. Leaders have to express confidence

567

to attract investors and customers when they feel insecure, give speeches when sick, comfort others when they (the leaders) are grieving, and so on. (See the discussion of impression management in Chapter 1.) Pfeffer asserts that inauthentic leadership is far more common (and effective) than authentic leadership.38

ALT theorists operate under the premise that each of us has one true or core “self.” A number of theorists take issue with this claim, arguing that we have many different “selves” that are impacted by elements of the situation.39 Further, important elements of our selves—life goals, values, assessment of our strengths and weaknesses—change over time. ALT theories also seem equate self-awareness with morality. The clearer you are about the self- concept, they claim, the more likely you are to act ethically. Yet the core values of some leaders promote self-seeking, destructive behavior. Then, too, expressing your “true” self can produce undesirable consequences. Take the case of the boss who fails to temper his criticism of a subordinate. By accurately reflecting what he feels at that moment, he may do lasting damage to the self- concept of his employee. The critical boss believes he is acting authentically; the unfortunate employee and observers probably will conclude that he is callous instead.

Investigations into the effects of authentic leadership have also identified a fundamental tension in the theory. On the one hand, authenticity has been tied to the personal traits described earlier. On the other hand, for authenticity to have a positive influence on organizational behavior, observers must perceive that your behavior is authentic.40 Authenticity then becomes a product of perception, not of personal beliefs and behaviors. Leaders who hope to be successful must project an authentic image. In other words, being authentic is no longer enough. Leaders must also appear authentic. This could tempt you to be untrue to your own self. You might fail to act on your values and self-understanding for fear that such behavior could be seen as inauthentic. In addition, inauthentic (pseudo-authentic) leaders could mislead followers by projecting an authentic image.41 Further research and analysis are needed to resolve this apparent contradiction between the personal and perceptual dimensions of ALT. Further

568

research will also further clarify how other factors, such as personality and self-identity, encourage leaders to act (or to not act) in an authentic manner.

Focus on Follower Ethics Authentic Followership

Authenticity is the mark of ethical followership just as it is for ethical leadership. Authentic leaders and followers encourage transparency, self-awareness, and moral behavior in each other. Together they build open, healthy relationships and collaborate to achieve worthwhile objectives. Followers have the greatest impact on leaders when they develop psychological ownership, foster trust, and practice transparency.

Psychological ownership. Authentic followers feel like they “own” the organizations where they work and volunteer. This sense of ownership is based on a sense of belonging (“This is my home.”); a sense of identity (“I am a student at ______ University.”); a sense of accountability (“I am responsible for this project.”); and a sense of efficacy (“I can do this task.”). Ownership encourages a variety of ethical behaviors including (1) meeting the needs of customers when they first come in contact with the firm, (2) taking responsibility for making decisions at lower organizational levels, (3) going beyond what the job requires, and (4) doing whatever it takes to solve problems.

Trust. Authentic followers are vulnerable. They admit their mistakes and encourage their leaders to do the same. For example, when pharmacists admit to “near misses” (nearly filling the wrong prescription), they prompt their supervisors to take further steps to reduce potential errors. Authentic followers don’t take advantage of their leaders who admit their mistakes. They also build trust with their leaders by taking on challenges without being asked.

Transparency. Authentic followers say what they mean. By sharing their thoughts, values, and feelings, they help create transparent relationships with their leaders. These relationships are marked by honesty, feedback, and effective communication. Authentic followers also contribute to the creation of transparent organizational climates. In transparent climates, policies and procedures are visible to everyone. Members share important goals and values and put the needs of the group above their own concerns. Because they feel safe, employees reveal problems rather than creating the impression that everything is fine.

569

Source

Avolio, B. J., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The rise of authentic followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 325–337). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

See also

Brinsfield, D. T. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 671–697.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392.

750

Ethical Socialization Processes Socialization describes how individuals make the transition from outsiders to organizational members. During this process, they learn how to perform their individual roles and, at the same time, absorb information about the organization’s culture. There are a number of reasons why an organization’s socialization efforts can help create a positive ethical climate.60 Newcomers are generally anxious about how to perform in a new environment. This makes them more open to influence and instruction about ethical behavior. Their values are being formed and, once in place, these principles will shape their behavior for the rest of their organizational careers. When newcomers become established organizational members, they then communicate and model important values and behaviors to the next generations of members.

Socialization occurs in three phases.61 Anticipatory socialization begins before an individual joins a new organization or organizational unit and is shaped by past work experiences, friends, families, and other factors. You probably had expectations about what college would be like well before you completed high school, for example. You then formed impressions of your particular school based its website, talking with alums, and, probably most importantly, speaking with a representative and visiting campus. Your college experiences, in turn, are shaping your expectations of the profession you’ll enter after graduation.62

Encounter socialization takes place after newcomers begin their membership. This phase includes formal training and orientation sessions (such as freshmen orientation) designed to integrate newcomers into the organization. Rookies also come under the influence of socializing agents. These include veteran coworkers, supervisors, and mentors. In the college setting, resident assistants, peer advisors, student life staff, upperclassmen, and others act as socializing agents. Metamorphosis socialization marks the end of the transition to organizational life. At this point, the individual has mastered basic skills and organizational knowledge and is considered a group member. If you are a

751

sophomore or a second-year graduate student, chances are you have entered this phase. (You can evaluate your ethical socialization process as a student or employee by completing Item #11 under “For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self- Assessment.”)

Ethical leaders make the most of the socialization process by clearly describing the organization’s values and ethical climate in recruitment materials and during face-to-face interviews. They ask applicants about their ethical experiences and standards. Ethics is a top priority in orientation and training sessions (see the discussion of training below). Managers present the group’s core ideology and code of ethics, introduce ethics officers and procedures, and so on. Newcomers are placed with socializing agents who reinforce values and standards and are given channels for expressing their concerns about current practices.

Ethical theorists Blake Ashforth and Vikas Anand argue that, unfortunately, organizational newcomers can be socialized into corrupt activities as well as ethical ones.63 (See our discussion of contextual pressures in Chapter 2.) These individuals accept unethical and illegal behavior as part of becoming a group member. They can be corrupted through three different avenues: co-optation, incrementalism, and compromise. In co-optation, leaders offer rewards that reduce newcomers’ discomfort with unethical behavior. Followers may not realize that these incentives are skewing their judgment, making it easier to rationalize destructive behavior. For example, health maintenance organization (HMO) doctors earning cost-reduction bonuses may convince themselves that they are justified in not ordering needed medical tests for patients.

Incrementalism gradually introduces newcomers to unethical practices, leading them up the “ladder of corruption.” New members are first persuaded to engage in a practice that is only mildly unethical, such as using private customer information to make additional sales. They then turn to rationalizations offered by peers (“Everybody does it.” “Nobody was really hurt.” “They got what they deserved.”) to relieve the cognitive dissonance produced by this act. After the initial practice becomes typical,

752

acceptable behavior, individuals are then encouraged to move to increasingly corrupt activities. Eventually, they find themselves engaging in behaviors (e.g., secretly selling private customer information to other companies) they would have rejected when they first joined the organization.

Compromise backs individuals into corruption as they try to solve difficult problems and resolve conflicts. Politicians, for example, make lots of compromises as they try to keep and expand their power. Cutting deals and forming alliances makes it harder for them to maintain their ethical principles. Police detectives also find themselves making compromises. To gather the information they need to solve crimes, they may compromise with informants. First, they overlook minor crimes committed by their sources. Later, they may excuse their informants when they engage in much more serious crimes. Boston Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent John Connolly fell victim to compromise when he enlisted childhood friend Whitey Bulger as an informant to crack down on the Italian mafia. Bulger, convicted of murdering 11 people, ran his own crime syndicate. Connolly protected Bulger instead of prosecuting him. He gave Bulger information that led to the death of one potential witness and warned the gangster that he was about to be arrested, allowing Bulger to remain free for another 16 years.

The danger of dysfunctional socialization is greatest when followers join social cocoons. A social cocoon is a strong culture that holds values and norms very different from those held by the rest of the organization or society as a whole. New employees who strongly identify with the group tend to compartmentalize their lives, holding one set of values while at work and another outside the job.

Ashforth and Anand believe that recognizing the routes to corruption can equip followers to resist their influence, as can considering the perspective of suppliers, community members, and others outside the group. These investigators encourage organizations to have periodic “introspection days,” when organizational members take a careful look at all of their activities and determine the ethical implications of their actions. External

753

facilitators can help employees determine if they are using rationalizations to excuse corrupt behavior.

754

Ethics Training Formal ethics training can play an important role in creating and maintaining ethical, inclusive climates. As noted above, ethics instruction can help promote ethical behavior in newcomers. Training sessions for experienced employees can heighten sensitivity to moral danger signs and barriers to inclusion, reduce destructive behaviors, foster trust, promote organizational integrity, reinforce shared purpose and values, and clarify ethical standards and expectations. Ethics training plays a critical role in helping large organizations meet compliance guidelines set by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Of course, training efforts do not guarantee that participants will make better moral choices or behave ethically. Nevertheless, effective ethics training can make a positive difference. Effective training does the following:64

1. Focuses on the organization’s unique ethical problems. Every organization faces a unique set of ethical problems and issues. Issues that accountants face (audits, tax advice, financial statements, earning projections, quarterly earnings statements) are different from those faced by sales professionals (product safety, pricing, product placement, advertising claims), for instance. Every organization will have its own blend of diverse groups and face unique challenges to fostering inclusion. Introduce examples drawn directly from the organization, industry, and profession. Then equip trainees with the tools they need to address these topics.

2. Taps into the experiences of participants. Encourage trainees to reflect on their own values and decision-making strategies as well as on important moral moments or episodes in their lives. They can also reflect on what inclusion means to them and what it takes to create an inclusive climate. Solicit their input when selecting issues and cases to discuss. Ask participants to provide dilemmas and insights from their own experiences. They then become instructors, teaching one another. They also receive valuable feedback that enables them to better manage their dilemmas.

3. Actively engages participants. Key concepts can be presented in lectures and handouts but you should spend

755

most class time in dyadic, small-group, and large-group discussion, acting as a facilitator. Introduce case studies that raise significant issues and engage the emotions of participants (See the discussion of dual processing in Chapter 6.) Ask questions and debate issues. Make sure the training space can be adapted to a variety of teaching strategies. Use online tools to augment—not replace— classroom interaction. (Case Study 10.3 describes how one organization engaged participants in its attempts to address bias.) Even though web-based ethics/diversity training is becoming increasingly popular because it is cheap and convenient, online-only programs don’t appear to be as effective as classroom training. That’s because online instruction doesn’t facilitate in-depth consideration of complex ethical cases and issues.

4. Reinforces the organization’s ideology and standards. Training sessions ought to support other components of the group’s ethical climate. Trainers, supervisors, and executives should highlight the group’s commitment to inclusion, purpose and core values, tell stories about the organization’s ethical heroes, discuss the code of ethics, provide information about reporting systems, and so on.

5. Is integrated into the entire curriculum. Ethics instruction shouldn’t be limited only to stand-alone sessions but ought to woven throughout organization’s training program. For example, discussion of bribery and price-fixing can be integrated into sales instruction. Raising awareness of microaggressions and subtle bias can be included into workshops on hiring and performance evaluation. Incorporating ethics in a variety of workshops increases the likelihood that moral concerns will become part of the organization’s fabric, helping it to act with integrity.

Implications and Applications

Organizations have varying ethical orientations or ethical climates that affect their ethical decision making and behavior. Climates marked by self-interest are most likely to encourage unethical behavior.

756

Moral leaders foster diversity and inclusion. They promote diversity initiatives with the end goal of making all members, whatever their differences, feel valued and included. To demonstrate inclusive leadership, you will need to address the individual, relational, and system levels of your organization. Build organizational trust—collective perceptions of competence, openness, concern, reliability, and identification— by acting in a trustworthy manner and encouraging others to do the same. Create perceptions of organizational justice by distributing resources fairly, following equitable processes, and treating others with dignity and respect. Recognize that organizational integrity develops through clearly communicated values and commitments, leaders who are committed to these values, application of the values to routine decisions, systems and structures that support organizational commitments, and members who are equipped to make wise ethical choices. Don’t confuse compliance with integrity. Compliance protects an organization from regulation and public criticism but often has little impact on day-to-day operations. Integrity is at the center of an organization’s activities, influencing every type of decision and activity. Reinforce ethical commitments in your organization through the design of monetary and nonmonetary reward systems, performance and evaluation processes, allocation of decision- making authority, and effective governance. Ethical organizations recognize their responsibilities to their communities. They honor their ethical obligations to stakeholder groups, actively work to better society, seek to operate in an environmentally sustainable fashion, and take stands on important social and political issues. Core ideology is essential to any healthy ethical climate. Encourage your organization to identify and communicate its values and purpose through both formal and informal channels (ritual and stories). Useful codes of ethics can play an important role in shaping ethical climate. Make sure they define and illustrate important terms and address the problems faced by the members of your particular organization. View ethics statements as discussion starters, not as the final word on the topic of organizational morality. Act quickly to eliminate sexual harassment, discrimination, incivility, aggression, and other destructive behaviors. Set forth clear expectations and punish offenders so that isolated misbehaviors don’t result in collective corruption.

757

Socialization processes introduce ethical standards and values to new members and reinforce their importance to organizational veterans. Use the website, brochures, interviews, training, orientation sessions, and socialization agents to promote ethical socialization. Beware of co-optation, incrementalism, and compromise that socialize newcomers into immoral behavior. Effective ethics training can promote a positive ethical, inclusive climate if it is adapted to the ethical problems of the organization, taps into the experiences of participants, and actively engages them. Instruction should reinforce other elements of the organization’s ethics strategy and be integrated into the entire training program.

For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment

1. Analyze the ethical climate of your organization. In your paper, consider the following questions: How would you classify the organization’s ethical orientation based on Self-Assessment 10.1? Overall, would you characterize the climate as positive or negative? Why? What factors shape the moral atmosphere? What role have leaders played in its formation and maintenance? What steps does the organization take to deal with misbehaviors? Does the organization consider both means and ends? How does the group’s structure reinforce (or fail to reinforce) espoused values and ethical behavior? What inconsistencies do you note?

2. Complete Self-Assessment 10.2. What accounts for differences in your scores between system levels and inclusion dimensions? What steps can you, your colleagues, and your leaders take to create a more inclusive climate?

3. Discuss each of the following statements in a group or, as an alternative, argue for and against each proposition in a formal debate. Your instructor will set the rules and time limits. Refer to the discussion of argumentation in Chapter 7 for more information on constructing effective arguments.

Pro or con: Organizations are less ethical now than they were 10 years ago. Pro or con: Subtle forms of discrimination are impossible to eliminate. Pro or con: Formal codes of ethics do more harm than good. Pro or con: Being good is good business.

758

Pro or con: Organizational values can’t be developed; they must be uncovered or discovered instead. Pro or con: An organization’s purpose has to be inspirational. Pro or con: An organization can change everything except its core values and purpose. Pro or con: CEOs should take public stances on social and political issues.

4. Write a research paper on one form of individual or collective destructive behavior in the workplace. Conclude with suggestions to help leaders curb this type of behavior.

5. Compare and contrast an organization that has a climate of integrity with one that pursues ethical compliance.

6. Create a CEO activism case study. Provide background on the issue and describe how CEOs responded. What motivated these leaders to take action? What impact did they have on public policy and opinion? What pushback did the companies face for taking a stance? What conclusions can you draw about the effectiveness and consequences of CEO activism based on your analysis?

7. Develop a shared set of values for your class using strategies presented in this chapter.

8. Conduct an analysis of the purpose or mission statements of 10 different companies or organizations. Which are most effective? Why?

9. Evaluate an ethical code based on the guidelines presented in this chapter. What are its strengths and weaknesses? How useful would it be to members of the organization? How could the code be improved? What can we learn from this statement?

10. Design an ethics or diversity/inclusion training program for your organization using the guidelines presented in this chapter.

11. Describe your socialization into your school or some other organization from an ethical vantage point. Then evaluate the process. What did the organization do well? What could it have done better? What suggestions would you make to improve the ethical socialization process for future newcomers? As an alternative, describe how your college major is preparing you for your profession from an ethical vantage point, answering the questions above.

Student Study Site

Visit the student study site at https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE

https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

759

journal articles for further research and information on key chapter topics.

760

Case Study 10.1 When Donors Call the Shots on Campus College and university officials are often caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place when it comes to funding. Schools turn to private donors to pay for faculty, buildings, and programs as the federal government reduces money for research and state governments cut back on education spending. But those giving millions may want to direct how the money is spent, demanding that they have a voice in decisions typically made by faculty and administrators.

Billionaire energy moguls Charles and David Koch have been able to exert unprecedented control over how their higher-education gifts are distributed. The politically conservative brothers are out to promote libertarian, free market principles, hoping to create a “talent pipeline” filled with students who then will occupy powerful political positions in the future. They use a set of related charities to reach this goal. Between 2005 and 2015 they contributed an estimated $150 million to 300 schools. (recently died after retiring from Koch Industries and related organizations.)

Koch grants often come with detailed stipulations and are dispersed over a period of years, so the money can be cut off if conditions aren’t met. At Florida State (FSU), the Charles Koch Foundation pledged $6.6 million to hire five professors and to establish two new educational programs for undergraduates. In return, the foundation required that FSU create an advisory board made up of members it selected. The board then determined which faculty would be funded, reviewed applicants for faculty positions, and evaluated the work of current faculty to determine if it met the “objectives and purposes” of the foundation. Koch officials were also given control over any university publicity that mentioned the foundation.

The BB&T Charitable Foundation, which shares the conservative values of the Koch brothers, also contributed to FSU. It spelled out, among other things, that the Department of Economics create a new course. Every undergraduate business student would receive a copy of libertarian Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and discuss the book in groups. The gift funded a distinguished speakers’ series focused on the ethical foundations of capitalism with the stipulation that the Ayn Rand Institute be consulted about speakers. The BB&T Foundation also made similar demands when it awarded $1 million for business education at Western Carolina University.

Concern over the growing influence of the Koch brothers on college campuses produced the UnKoch My Campus campaign. UnKoch My

761

Campus is out to “expose and expel undue donor influence in academia.” 1 Students and faculty protested Koch-funded programs and professorships at Wake Forest, Montana State University, the University of Utah, and elsewhere. Protests at Virginia’s George Mason University, which has received the most money from the Koch brothers ($50 million), generated the most publicity. Koch money was used to fund economics positions and to create the Mercatus Center, a think tank that studies markets and government regulations. Transparency GMU (an UnKoch My Campus affiliate) successfully sued the university for the release of documents that revealed the extent of donor influence on campus. At George Mason, as at FSU, conservative givers were involved in selecting professors. The GMU law school was named for conservative Supreme Court justice Antony Scalia after a receiving $10 million donation from the Koch Foundation and $20 million from an anonymous donor.

Those worried about restrictive gifts argue that they undermine the academic freedom, considered a sacred value by many in academe. Outsiders with political agendas are setting curriculum, determining what students read and hear, and limiting discussion and debate. And they are doing so largely in secret. As one George Mason student noted, “You should know, if you’re going into a classroom, that $30 million is going into your school from someone who wants you to think a certain way.”2 Donor influence can result in biased research findings. Tainted research can be particularly damaging in the field of economics because findings can have a significant impact on tax policy and federal regulation. Research funded by Koch contributions has been used to support their political positions. Then, too, the Koch organizations oppose causes favored by many students, including expanded access to health care, workers’ rights, and protecting the environment.

Defenders of the Kochs point out that the brothers also give heavily to less partisan causes like medical research, the Smithsonian, and music scholarships. They argue that donors should have the right to control how their gifts are spent. Conservatives see investment in higher education as one way to counteract the left-leaning bias of colleges and universities. An official at the Koch foundation notes that many of the original restrictive agreements at FSU, George Mason, and elsewhere are no longer in effect. For their part, some university officials aren’t bothered by gift restrictions. An FSU dean was quoted as saying he didn’t see a problem if a donor wanted to give money to get students to read a book.

Intrusive donor influence can be troubling no matter what the political agenda of the funder. Concerns have been raised about massive gifts from liberal billionaire George Soros, who gives heavily to Bard College, and the Susan Thompson Buffett foundation, which supports reproductive health research at the University of Texas. Republican Senator Ted Cruz

762

warned Texas universities that gifts from a Hong Kong foundation might fund communist propaganda. Australian officials believe that Chinese state-backed companies giving money to the country’s universities might pressure them into producing research that will support the communist party.

Public outcry is forcing colleges and universities to rethink their donor policies. The presidents of FSU and George Mason called for a review and tightening of gift agreements. Faculty senates at both institutions have demanded a role in overseeing donor requirements. Representatives of the American Association of University Professors urge faculty to be more involved in grant writing and to encourage more transparency about donor restrictions. However, financial need may give donors the upper hand. Writing about the UnKoch GMU protests, New York Times writers Erica Green and Stephanie Saul note

Following a period of deep cuts in public funding, the [GMU] documents and related emails raised broad questions about whether universities that rely heavily on private donors can remain free from influences of contributors who may be pursuing a commercial, political or philosophical agenda.3

763

Discussion Probes 1. Can you identify the major donors to your college or university?

What impact have they had on your faculty, facilities, and programs? 2. Should colleges and universities reveal the details of donor

agreements even if the donors object? Why or why not? 3. Do you think that donor influence can undermine academic freedom

and bias research findings? Why or why not? 4. What guidelines should colleges and universities follow when

deciding whether to accept donations? What role should faculty and students play in this process?

5. How much voice should donors have in how their money is spent? What limits should be placed on their influence?

764

Notes 1. Levinthal, D. (2015, October 30). Spreading the free-market gospel. The Atlantic.

2. Green, E. L., & Saul, S. (2018, May 7). In deals for donations, conservatives influenced the hiring of professors. The New York Times, p. A10.

3. Green & Saul.

765

Sources Ball, J. (2016, March 31). Universities grapple with donor influence. Citizen-Times.

Barakat, M. (2018, May 1). Documents show ties between university, conservative donors. AP.

Lloyd, J. (2017, October 17). Dons, donors and the murky business of funding universities. FT Life.

Miller, K. S., & Bellamy, R. (n.d.) Fine print, restrictive grants, and academic freedom. Academe, AAUP American Association of University Professors.

Najmabadi, S. (2018, April 24). From the Chinese government to the Koch brothers, outside donors receive scrutiny at Texas universities. Texas Tribune.

UnKoch my campus. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.unkochmycampus.org

http://www.unkochmycampus.org/

766

Case Study 10.2 Nike’s Boys-Club Culture The sudden departure of a group of high-level executives signaled that all was not well at Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company. Those retiring or resigning included Trevor Edwards, president of the Nike brand and the company’s second in command; the vice president and general manager of global brands; and vice presidents and directors of North American operations, diversity, running, and sports marketing.

The executives were forced out after a group of female employees submitted the results of an informal survey to CEO and Board Chair Mark Parker. The women reported being marginalized in meetings and denied advancement in favor of less qualified men. In interviews with The New Times and The Wall Street Journal, female employees described a number of instances of sexual harassment. In one case, a male supervisor called a woman a “stupid bitch” and threw his car keys at her. Another executive cornered a female in a bathroom and tried to kiss her. Another bragged about carrying condoms in his backpack. Still another referred to a female employee’s breasts in his e-mails to her. Off-site meetings were sometimes followed by visits to strip clubs. A top executive signed off on an ad that featured a stripper and male athletes dressed in sports bras. (Company founder Phil Knight nixed the commercial.)

Officials at Nike’s human resources department frequently ignored complaints, communicating that the women were the problem. At other times, they treated their concerns causally, as in the case of a woman who was asked to meet an HR representative at the company’s café, a public open space. Offenders kept their positions and one, who was reported to human resources for berating women in meetings, was promoted. (The head of HR was let go after being accused of creating a hostile work environment.)

The boys-club atmosphere wasn’t the only problem with Nike’s corporate culture. Workers complained that it wasn’t what you knew (your expertise) but whom you knew that was the key to success at the company. Mid- level officials bragged about being “Friends of Trevor” (FOT), the ousted exec who was slated to become the next CEO. Males inside this group saw themselves as rising stars; females and males outside the clique could expect to be passed over for promotion. Older employees complained of ageism, noting that senior workers were most likely to be laid off. Others spoke of being “fired by PowerPoint.” When Nike stopped making golf equipment, employees came to a meeting where their names

767

appeared on a big screen telling them to go to different rooms where many were let go.

The executive purge was part of CEO Parker’s efforts to address Nike’s broken culture. In a memo to staff, he noted that complaints had identified behaviors that “do not reflect our core values of inclusivity, respect and empowerment.”1 He went on to declare that he was committed “to making a Nike a place where everyone can thrive in an environment of respect, empathy, and equal opportunity for all.”2 In a company-wide meeting the CEO apologized to employees for allowing a culture that excluded some workers while failing to take their complaints seriously. He pledged to foster an atmosphere of collaboration, where “every voice is heard, not just the loudest.”3 Two women were named to succeed departing male executives and the diversity and inclusion office was elevated to a C-level position. The company revised its grievance reporting systems and pledged to be more transparent about its diversity results. Ten thousand managers must now undergo diversity and unconscious bias training. An initiative has been launched to improve diversity in hiring. Mentorship programs for women will be developed. (Currently, while nearly half of all staff are women, they make up just 29% of company vice-presidents. Only 16% of those serving as vice-presidents are non-white.)

Eliminating the boys-club culture will be critical for the company’s future. Nike set an ambitious goal of increasing revenue from $36 to $50 billion by 2022. Meeting this objective depends in large part on selling more products to women. Yet, sales to women have faltered. Some employees believe that the company’s male-dominated culture and lack of female leadership have hindered its outreach to female consumers.

768

Discussion Probes 1. How should HR departments respond to complaints like those made

at Nike? 2. What elements of an unhealthy ethical climate do you see at Nike? 3. What additional steps should Nike take to change its culture? 4. How should the company measure its progress in making cultural

change? 5. Do you think Nike’s culture has hindered its ability to market to

women?

769

Notes 1. Abrams, R. (2018, March 8). Second top Nike executive departs amid complaints of workplace behavior. The New York Times.

2. Germano, S. (2018, May 3). Nike CEO apologizes for corporate culture that excluded some staff. The Wall Street Journal.

3. Low, E. (2018, May 9). Here’s what Nike execs were getting away with as bullying culture ran deep. Investor’s Business Daily.

770

Sources Cresswell, J., Draper, K., & Abrams, R. (2018, April 28). At Nike, revolt led by women leads to exodus of male executives. The New York Times.

Creswell, J., & Draper, K. (2018, May 9). Nike exodus of managers grows to 11 after inquiry. The New York Times, p. B1.

Germano, S., & Lublin, J. S. (2018, March 31). Inside Nike, a boys-club culture and flawed HR. The Wall Street Journal.

Howland, D. (2018, April 30). Nike promotes 2 women to replace executives departing amid ‘toxic’ environment. HR Drive.

Lieber, C. (2018, March 16). Did Nike’s ‘frat boy culture’ lead to the departures of two executives? Racked.

Nakamura, B. (2018, April 28). Nike’s ‘bro culture’ collides with #MeToo movement. OregonLive.com

Stanley, J. (n.d.). Nike announces new diversity initiatives following scandal. Hypebeast.

771

Case Study 10.3 Tackling Implicit Bias at Starbucks Starbucks has a reputation for being one of the world’s most socially conscious companies. The coffee retailer’s progressive image makes it particularly vulnerable when employees fail to live up to its standards. When two black men were arrested and detained for trespassing at a Philadelphia Starbucks, the media took note. The store manager called police after Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, who were waiting to start a meeting, failed to order drinks or food. Officers cuffed the two men and took them to jail where they were later released without being charged.

Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson apologized to Nelson and Robinson and reached a financial settlement with the two that includes free college tuition through the Starbucks College Achievement Plan. The firm loosened its requirement that those entering its stores must purchase items. In addition, executives decided to close 8,000 U.S. company- owned stores to conduct a 4-hour racial bias training session for 175,000 employees. Company founder Howard Schultz called the training “a transformational moment in the history of Starbucks.”1

To create the training session, which focused on implicit or unconscious bias, Starbucks officials consulted with former U.S. attorney general Eric Holder and representatives from the NAACP and other social justice organizations. Course materials were pretested in selected stores and then modified based on employee feedback. The training included nearly two dozen videos featuring rapper Common, filmmaker Stanley Nelson, Starbucks officials, and others discussing experiences of blacks in public spaces, bias and brain science, company mission and values, and other topics. Videos were followed by self and group reflection. (Employees received notebooks in which to record their thoughts.) One exercise asked participants to reflect on their experience of racial identity, considering, for example, when they altered a communication style to avoid activating stereotypes or if they felt their race affected their ability to establish rapport with a manager. In another exercise, staffers were asked to rate how easy or hard it would be for them to talk to people of their race and of a different race in a series of situations.

Experts worry that the Starbucks training session, like other diversity training, could backfire. Participants who feel forced to attend diversity workshops can become defensive. Any benefit often fades after a few days. Starbucks may have overlooked key components of effective

772

training, like concrete goals and assessments, in order to respond quickly to the Philadelphia incident. But company officials recognize that overcoming implicit racial bias will take more than one training session. According to the firm’s executive vice president of U.S. retail, “May 29 [the training day] isn’t a solution—it’s a first step.”2 Starbucks plans to hold additional sessions in coming years to further address bias and inclusion.

773

Discussion Probes 1. Did the Philadelphia incident generate more publicity because it

involved Starbucks instead of another, less socially responsible company?

2. What elements of an effective ethics training program do you see in the Starbucks workshop? Are there any elements missing?

3. Do you think the Starbucks training session will reduce implicit bias and prevent future incidents of racial profiling at its stores?

4. What additional steps should Starbucks take to improve its relationships with diverse customers?

5. How should Starbucks assess the effectiveness of this and other anti-bias efforts?

774

Notes 1. Abrams, R., Hsu, T., & Eligon, J. (2018, May 29). Starbucks tall order: Tackle systemic racism in 4 hours. The New York Times.

2. Da Silva, C. (2018, May 29). Starbucks across U.S. closed for racial bias training. Here’s what employees will learn. Newsweek.

775

Sources Abrams, R., Hsu, T., & Eligon, J. (2018, May 30). Closing up shop for an afternoon to address bias. The New York Times, p. B1.

Calfas, J. (2018, May 30). Was Starbucks’ racial bias training effective? Here’s what these employees thought. Time.

Hosie, R. (2018, May 30). What Starbucks employees learned on their racial bias training day. The Independent.

Meyer, Z. (1028, May 2). Starbucks and two black men arrested in Philadelphia incident reach private settlement. USA Today.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 10.1 Ethical Climate Questionnaire

Instructions: Indicate whether you agree with each of the following statements about your company or organization. Use the scale below and write the number that best represents your answer in the space next to the item.

Completely False

Mostly False

Somewhat False

Somewhat True

Mostly True

Completely True

0 1 2 3 4 5

1. In this company (organization), people are mostly out for themselves. ______

2. The major responsibility for people in this company (organization) is to control costs. ______

3. In this company (organization), people are expected to follow their own personal and moral beliefs. ______

4. People are expected to do anything to further the company’s (organization’s) interests, regardless of the consequences. ______

5. In this company (organization), people look out for each other’s good. ______

6. There is no room for one’s personal morals or ethics in this company (organization). ______

7. It is very important to follow strictly the company’s (organization’s) rules and procedures here. ______

8. Work is considered substandard only when it hurts the company’s (organization’s) interests. ______

776

9. Each person in this company (organization) decides for himself or herself what is right and wrong. ______

10. In this company (organization), people protect their own interests above other considerations. ______

11. The most important consideration in this company (organization) is each person’s sense of right and wrong. ______

12. The most important concern is the good of all the people in the company (organization). ______

13. The first consideration is whether a decision violates any law. ______

14. People are expected to comply with the law and professional standards over and above other considerations. ______

15. Everyone is expected to stick to company (organization) rules and procedures. ______

16. In this company (organization), our major concern is always what is best for the other person. ______

17. People are concerned with the company’s (organization’s) interests—to the exclusion of all else. ______

18. Successful people in this company (organization) go by the book. ______

19. The most efficient way is always the right way in this company (organization). ______

20. In this company (organization), people are expected to strictly follow legal or professional standards. ______

21. Our major consideration is what is best for everyone in the company (organization). ______

22. In this company (organization), people are guided by their own personal ethics. ______

23. Successful people in this company (organization) strictly obey the company (organization) policies. ______

24. In this company (organization), the law or ethical code of one’s profession is the major consideration. ______

25. In this company (organization), each person is expected, above all, to work efficiently. ______

26. It is expected that you will always do what is right for the customer and public. ______

Scoring:

Caring Climate Score

Add up scores on items 5, 12, 16, 21, 26 = (Range 0–25) ______

Law and Code Climate Score

777

Add up scores on items 13, 14, 20, 24 = (Range 0–20) ______

Rules Climate Score

Add up scores on items 7, 15, 18, 23 = (Range 0–20) ______

Instrumental Climate Score

Add up scores on items 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 17, 19, 25 = (Range 0–45) ______

Independence Climate Score

Add up scores on items 3, 9, 11, 22 = (Range 0–20) ______

Sources: Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J. W. (1993). The Ethical Climate Questionnaire: An assessment of its development and validity. Psychological Reports, 73, 667–674; used with permission. See also Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101–112.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 10.2 The Climate for Inclusion-Exclusion Scale (MBIE)

778

Instructions Respond to each of the following items on the following scale.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Moderately Disagree 3 = Slightly Disagree 4 = Slightly Agree 5 = Moderately Agree 6 = Strongly Agree

1. I have influence in decisions taken by my work group regarding our tasks.

2. My coworkers openly share work-related information with me. 3. I am typically involved and invited to actively participate in work-

related activities of my work group. 4. I am able to influence decisions that affect my organization. 5. I am usually among the last to know about important changes in

the organization. (R) 6. I am usually invited to important meetings in my organization. 7. My supervisor often asks for my opinion before making

important decisions. 8. My supervisor does not share information with me. (R) 9. I am invited to actively participate in review and evaluation

meetings with my supervisor. 10. I am often invited to contribute my opinion in meetings with

management higher than my immediate supervisor. 11. I frequently receive communication from management higher

than my immediate supervisor (i.e., memos, e-mails) 12. I am often invited to participate in meetings with management

higher than my immediate supervisor. 13. I am often asked to contribute in planning social activities not

directly related to my job function. 14. I am always informed about informal social activities and

company social events. 15. I am rarely invited to join my coworkers when they go to lunch

or drinks after work. (R)

779

Scoring: This scale measures five work-organization system levels (work group, organization, supervisor, higher management, social/informal) intersected by three inclusion dimensions (decision making, information networks, and participation/involvement).

Levels

1. Work group (items 1–3) 2. Organization (items 4–6) 3. Supervisor (items 7–9) 4. Higher management (items 10–12) 5. Social/informal (items 13–15)

Inclusion Dimensions

a. The decision-making process (items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13) b. Information networks (items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14) c. Level of participation/involvement (items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15)

Reverse your scores on items 5, 8, and 15 (indicated by the letter R). Total your scores for each of the five levels land each of the inclusion dimensions to determine where you feel least and most included. Add up your responses to the 15 items to create a total score. The higher score (top score 90), the higher your sense of inclusion.

Source: Mor Barak, M. E. (2017). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (4th ed.), pp. 303–305. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Used by permission.

780

Notes 1. Pacanowsky, M. E., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 5, 126–147.

2. Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J. W. (1993). The Ethical Climate Questionnaire: An assessment of its development and validity. Psychological Reports, 73, 667–674; Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101–125; Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1990). A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations. In W. C. Frederick & L. E. Preston (Eds.), Business ethics: Research issues and empirical studies (pp. 77–97). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

3. See, for example, Cullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P., & Victor, B. (2003). The effects of ethical climates on organizational commitment: A two-study analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 127–141; Fritzsche, D. J. (2000). Ethical climates and the ethical dimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 125 –140; Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 175–194; Parboteeah, K. P., Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2014). An international perspective on ethical climate. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson, (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 600–617). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Peterson, D. K. (2002). The relationship between unethical behavior and the dimensions of the Ethical Climate Questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 313–326; Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 447–476; Wang, Y.-D., & Hseih, J.- H. (2012). Toward a better understanding of the link between ethical climate and job satisfaction: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 535–545.

781

4. Fulp, C. (2018). Success through diversity: Why the most inclusive companies will win. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

5. Sweeney, C., & Bothwick, F. (2016). Inclusive leadership. Harlow, England: Pearson, p. xvi.

6. Fulp.

7. Huo, Y. J., Binning, K. R., & Begeny, C. T. (2015). Respect and the viability of ethnically diverse institutions. In S. Otten, K. van der Zee, & M. B. Brewer (eds.), Towards inclusive organizations: Determinants of successful diversity management at work (pp. 49 –66). London, England: Psychology Press.

8. Inclusive leadership strategies come from Gallegos, P. V. (2014). The work of inclusive leadership: Fostering authentic relationships, modeling courage and humility. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 177–202). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

9. Kramer, F. M. (2010). Collective trust within organizations: Conceptual foundations and empirical insights. Corporate Reputation Review, 13, 82–97; Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Cesaria, R. (2000). Measuring organizational trust: A diagnostic survey and international indicator. San Francisco, CA: International Association of Business Communicators; Shockley- Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Winograd, G. (2000). Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters. Organization Development Journal, 18(4), 35–47.

10. See, for example, Bruhn, J. G. (2001). Trust and the health of organizations. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum; Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455; Shockley-Zalabak, P., Morreale, S. P., & Hackman, M. Z. (2010). Building the high- trust organization: Strategies for supporting five key dimensions of trust. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11. Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. M.

782

Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 302–329). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12. Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2010).

13. Cropanzano, R., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Organizational justice and behavioral ethics: Promises and prospects. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 193–233.

14. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Yee, N. K. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445; Fortin, M. (2008). Perspectives on organizational justice: Concept clarification, social context integration, time and links with morality. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 93–126; Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2001). Organizational justice and ethics program “follow- through”: Influences on employee’s harmful and helpful behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11, 651–671.

15. A number of authors use the term integrity to describe ideal managers and organizations. See Brown, M. T. (2005). Corporate integrity: Rethinking organizational ethics and leadership. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; Pearson, G. (1995). Integrity in organizations: An alternative business ethic. London, England: McGraw-Hill; Petrick, J. A. (1998). Building organizational integrity and quality with the four Ps: Perspectives, paradigms, processes, and principles. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes (pp. 115–131). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Solomon, R. C. (1992). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Srivastva, S. (Ed.). (1988). Executive integrity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

16. Paine, L. S. (1996, March–April). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 106–117.

17. Richards, K. (2018, May 14). Uber promises to do better in a new brand campaign featuring the company’s CEO. Adweek.

783

18. Andreoli, N., & Lefkowitz, J. (2008). Individual and organizational antecedents of misconduct in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 309–332; McKendall, M., DeMarr, B., & Jones-Rikkers, C. (2002). Ethical compliance programs and corporate illegality: Testing the assumptions of the corporate sentencing guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 367–383; Rockness, H., & Rockness, J. (2005). Legislated ethics: From Enron to Sarbanes–Oxley, the impact on corporate America. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 31–54.

19. Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 539–552; Weber, J., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2013). Corporate ethics and compliance programs: A report, analysis and critiques. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 609–626.

20. James, H. S. (2000). Reinforcing ethical decision making through organizational structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 43–58.

21. Dunn, J., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Why good employees make unethical decisions. In E. W. Kidwell & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing organizational deviance (pp. 39–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22. Cohen, D. V. (1993). Creating and maintaining ethical work climates: Anomie in the workplace and implications for managing change. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3, 343–358.

23. Useem, M. (1998). The leadership moment: Nine stories of triumph and disaster and their lessons for us all. New York, NY: Times Books, Ch. 7.

24. Glanz, W. (2003, August 27). NASA ignored dangers to shuttle, panel says. The Washington Times, p. A1; Sawyer, K. (2003, August 24). Shuttle’s “smoking gun” took time to register. The Washington Post, p. A1.

784

25. Business Roundtable. (2012, March 27). 2012 principles of corporate governance. Retrieved from http://businessroundtable.org

26. MacAvoy, P. W., & Millstein, I. M. (2003) The current crisis in corporate governance. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; Monks, R. G., & Minow, N. (2004). Corporate governance (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell; Rezaee, A. (2009). Corporate governance and ethics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

27. Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2005). Toward a conceptual framework for stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 137–148; Sims, R. R. (2003). Ethics and corporate social responsibility: Why giants fall. Westport, CT: Praeger.

28. Buchholz & Rosenthal; Cooper, S. (2004). Corporate social performance: A stakeholder approach. Burlington, VT: Ashgate; Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91; Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1, 53–73; Philips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

29. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

30.Study: 81% of consumers say they will make personal sacrifices to address social, environmental issues. (n.d.). Sustainable Brands.

31. Aquinas, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968.

32. Wheeler, D., Colbert, B., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusing on values: Reconciling corporate social responsibility,

http://businessroundtable.org/

785

sustainability, and a stakeholder approach in a network world. Journal of General Management, 28, 1–28.

33. Klemaier, J. (2018, November 29). New Belgium’s Kim Jordan talks 25th anniversary, a new CEO and staying independent. The Denver Post.

34. Panchak, P. (2002). Time for a triple bottom line. Industry Week, p. 7; Robins, F. (2006). The challenge of TBL: A responsibility to whom? Business and Society Review, 111, 1–14.

35. Davis, J. (2016, September 27). When did Che Guevara become CEO? The roots of the new corporate activism. The Conversation; McGregor, J., & Dwoskin, E. (2017, February 17). The cost of silence: Why more CEOs are speaking out in the Trump era. The Washington Post; Taylor, A. (2018, May 21). Why the new CEO activism is bad for everyone. Quartz at Work.

36. Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2018, January/February). The new CEO activists. Harvard Business Review.

37.The dawn of CEO activism. (2016, June 21). Weber Shandwick. Retrieved from https://www.webershandwick.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/the-dawn-of-ceo-activism-2.pdf

38. Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996, September/October). Building your company’s vision. Harvard Business Review, p. 66. See also Collins, J. C. (2001). Vision framework. Retrieved from https://www.jimcollins.com/TOOLS/VISION-FRAMEWORK.PDF; Jeffrey, S. (n.d.). How to discover your company’s core values and start building a strong culture. CEOsage.

39. See, for example, Bright, D. S., Barros, I., & Kumar Marthy, V. R. (2014). Appreciative inquiry and ethical awareness: Encouraging morally driven organizational goals. In L. E. Sekerka (Ed.), Ethics training in action: An examination of issues, techniques, and development (pp. 293–310). Charlotte, NC: Information Age; Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler; Lewis, D., Medland, J., Malone, S., Murphy, M., Reno, K., & Vaccaro, G. (2006). Appreciative

https://www.webershandwick.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/the-dawn-of-ceo-activism-2.pdf

https://www.jimcollins.com/TOOLS/VISION-FRAMEWORK.PDF

786

leadership: Defining effective leadership methods. Organization Development Journal, 24(1), 87–100; Van Vuuren, L. J., & Crous, F. (2005). Utilising appreciative inquiry (AI) in creating a shared meaning of ethics in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 399–412; Whitney, D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003). The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

40. King, D., Case, C. J., & Premo, K. M. (2011). A mission statement analysis comparing the United States and three other English speaking countries. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 10, Special Issue, 21–45.

41. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9, 653–699.

42. Clark, E. (2004). Around the corporate campfire: How great leaders use stories to inspire success. Sammamish, WA: C&C Publishing.

43. Paine, L. S., Deshpandé, R., Margolis, J. D., & Bettcher, K. E. (2005, December). Up to code: Does your company meet world- class standards? Harvard Business Review, 122–133.

44. For more information on the pros and cons of codes of conduct, see Darley, J. M. (2001). The dynamics of authority influence in organizations and the unintended action consequences. In J. M. Darley, D. M. Messick, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Social influences on ethical behavior in organizations (pp. 37–52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Hatcher, T. (2002). Ethics and HRD: A new approach to leading responsible organizations. Cambridge, MA: Perseus; Mathews, M. C. (1990). Codes of ethics: Organizational behavior and misbehavior. In W. C. Frederick & L. E. Preston (Eds.), Business ethics: Research issues and empirical studies (pp. 99–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; Metzger, M., Dalton, D. R., & Hill, J. W. (1993). The organization of ethics and the ethics of organizations: The case for expanded organizational ethics audits. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3, 27–43; Trevino et al. (1998); Wright, D. K. (1993).

787

Enforcement dilemma: Voluntary nature of public relations codes. Public Relations Review, 19, 13–20.

45. Countryman, A. (2001, December 7). Leadership key ingredient in ethics recipe, experts say. Chicago Tribune, pp. B1, B6.

46. McCabe, D., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522–569.

47. Adams, J. S., Taschian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 199–211; Ki, Eyun-Jung, Choi, H-L, & Lee, J. (2012). Does ethics statement of a of a public relations firm make a difference? Yes it does!! Journal of Business Ethics, 2, 267–276; Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2003). Ethics code awareness, perceived ethical values, and organizational commitment. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23, 359–367.

48. Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in human communication (6th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Ch. 10.

49. Hopen, D. (2002). Guiding corporate behavior: A leadership obligation, not a choice. Journal for Quality & Participation, 25, 15 –19.

50. Woods, K. C., & Buchanan, N. T. (2008). Sexual harassment in the workplace. In M. Paludi (Ed.), The psychology of women at work: Challenges and solutions for our female workforce (Vol. 1, pp. 119–132). Westport, CT: Praeger.

51. Diboye, R. L., & Halverson, S. K. (2004). Subtle (and not so subtle) discrimination in organizations. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 404–425). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

52. Griffin, R. W., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (Eds.). (2004). The dark side of organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Mumford, M. D., Gessner, T. L., Connelly, M. S., O’Conner, J. A.,

788

& Clifton, T. (1993). Leadership and destructive acts: Individual and situational influences. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 115–147.

53. Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2004). On incivility, its impact and directions for future research. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary- Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 131– 158). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7–18; Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1181–1197.

54. Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York, NY: Wiley.

55. Statistics on frequency of dark side behaviors taken from Chatterji, R. (2018, February 21). A new survey finds 81 percent of women have experienced sexual harassment. NPR; White, G. B. (2018, January 8). The Black and Hispanic unemployment rates don’t deserve applause. The Atlantic; McCarthy, N. (2017, September 14). Racial wealth inequality in the U.S. is rampant. Forbes; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Occupational violence. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/violence/

56. Whitlock, C. (2017, September 30). How the military handles sexual assault cases behind closed doors. The Washington Post.

57. Baron, R. A. (2004). Workplace aggression and violence: Insights from basic research. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 23–61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

58. Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 39–53; Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–52; Darley, J. M. (1996). How organizations socialize

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/violence/

789

individuals into evildoing. In D. M. Messick & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (pp. 12–43). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; Luo, Y. (2004). An organizational perspective of corruption. Management and Organization Review, 1, 119–154.

59. Big victory against global bribery. (2008, December 17). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 8; CEO’s moral compass steers Siemens. (2010, February 15). USA Today, p. 3B; Schubert, S., & Miller, T. C. (2008, December 21). Where bribery was just a line item. The New York Times, p. BU1.

60. Albrecht, T. L., & Bach, B. W. (1997). Communication in complex organizations: A relational approach. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

61. Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2006). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

62. Elias, R. Z., (2007). The relationship between auditing students’ anticipatory socialization and their professional commitment. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11, 81 –90.

63. Ashforth & Anand.

64. See, for example, Ferdman, B. M. (2014). The practice of inclusion in diverse organizations: toward a systemic and inclusive framework. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 3–54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Holder, A. M. B. (2019). Microaggressions: Workplace interventions. In G. C. Torino, D. P. Rivera, C. M. Capodilupo, K. L. Nadal, & D. Wing Sur (Eds.), Microaggression theory: Influence and implications (pp. 261–275). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; Knapp, J. C. (2011). Rethinking ethics training: New approaches to enhance effectiveness. In R. R. Sims & W. I. Sauser (Eds.), Experiences in teaching business ethics (pp. 217– 230). Charlotte, NC: Information Age; Petrick, J. A. (2008). Using the business integrity capacity model to advance ethics education. In D. L. Swanson & D. G. Fisher (Eds.), Advancing business

790

ethics education (pp. 103–124). Charlotte, NC: Information Age; Sauser, W. I. (2011). Beyond the classroom: Business ethics training for professionals. In R. R. Sims & W. I. Sauser (Eds.), Experiences in teaching business ethics (pp. 247–261). Charlotte, NC: Information Age; Sekerka, L. E. (Ed.). (2014). Ethics training in action: An examination of issues, techniques, and development. Charlotte, NC: Information Age; Waples, E. P., Antes, A., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 133–151; Weber, J. A. (2007). Business ethics training: Insights from learning theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 61– 85.

791

792

11 Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership in a Global Society

793

Learning Objectives > Summarize the shadows cast by leaders in a global society. > Define culture and its key features. > Analyze the similarities and differences between the four values classification systems. > Link the four cultural values classification systems to differences in ethical decision making and behavior. > Devise a strategy for overcoming attitudinal obstacles to ethical behavior in cross-cultural settings. > Defend the existence of universal ethical standards. > Analyze an ethical dilemma in a culturally diverse setting using one of the three sets of ethical decision-making guidelines.

For all human beings must have some common values or they cease to be human, and also some different values else they cease to differ, as in fact they do.

—RUSSIAN/BRITISH SOCIAL AND POLITICAL THEORIST ISAIAH BERLIN

Human beings draw close to one another by their common nature, but habits and customs keep them apart.

—CONFUCIUS

794

What’s Ahead In this chapter, we examine the moral complexities posed by cultural differences. Ethical global leaders acknowledge the dark side of globalization and recognize the difficulty of making moral choices in cross-cultural settings. To master these challenges, they understand the relationship between cultural values and ethical decisions, address attitudinal obstacles, seek moral common ground, and develop strategies for solving ethical dilemmas across cultures.

795

The Dark Side of Globalization Globalization may be the most important trend of the twenty-first century. We now live in a global economy shaped by multinational corporations, international travel, the Internet, immigration, and satellite communication systems. Greater cultural diversity is one product of globalization. Not only is there more contact between countries, there is greater cultural diversity within nations. For example, nonwhites account for most of the population growth in the United States. Hawaii, California, Texas, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia have majority minority populations. By 2045, whites will be in the minority.1

Supporters of globalization sell the world on its benefits. Free trade produces new wealth by opening up international markets, they argue. At the same time, the costs of goods and services drop. People have greater freedom to travel, move, and communicate across borders. The greater flow of information and people puts pressure on repressive governments to reform. However, the proponents of globalization often ignore its costs. The gap between the rich and the poor, in both wealthy and poor countries, keeps growing. Global capitalism encourages greed rather than concern for others. Ethical and spiritual values have been overshadowed by the profit motive. Local cultural traditions and the environment are being destroyed in the name of economic growth. Repressive governments use technology to further oppress rather than to liberate their citizens. Citizens feel threatened by immigration.2

The high costs of globalization have generated significant pushback, leading, for example, to increased nationalist fervor in the United States (“Make America Great Again”) and Europe, Britain’s exit from the European Union, the international decline of democracy, and strict limits on immigrants and refugees. These developments give added urgency to considering the dark side of the global society. Doing so can help prevent ethical abuse and thus reduce the price of globalization. With that in mind, let’s take

796

a closer look at how leaders cast the shadows outlined in Chapter 1 in a global environment.

797

The Global Shadow of Power In the modern world, a leader’s power is no longer limited by national boundaries. Increasing interdependence brought about by the integration of markets, communication systems, computers, and financial institutions means that the actions of one leader or nation can impact the rest of the world. Take President Trump’s decision to impose stiff tariffs on steel imports from China, for instance. The President wanted to protect the U.S. steel industry but the Chinese government retaliated by imposing a 25% tariff on soybeans and other U.S. products. Agricultural economists predict the soybean tariff will have global impact. Not only will this tax harm American farmers by limiting sales to a major market, it will (1) result in increased soybean production in South America and in China, (2) encourage other nations not under the tariff (such as Spain) to buy from the United States, and (3) lower overall soybean imports around the world.3

Ethical leadership in the multinational context must take into account the potential far-ranging consequences of every choice. Shadows fall when leaders forget this fact. Well-meaning donations of used clothing from developed nations undermine the textile industry in East Africa. Coal-fired plants in Indonesia, India, Turkey, Brazil, Chile, and elsewhere contribute to the global problem of climate change. Apple, Intel, and other electronics manufacturers were accused of funding mass rape, murder, and slave labor in the Congo through their purchase of “conflict minerals” mined in the region. Now they must disclose whether they use Congolese titanium, tantalum, tungsten, and gold in their products.4

Concentration of power is a by-product of globalization that increases the likelihood of abuse. China, for example, stands accused of using its power to exert control over sub-Saharan Africa. (See Case Study 11.1.) Corporations also wield great influence in the global marketplace. Multinational companies have more economic clout than many nations. According to one estimate, 69 of the world’s 100 largest economies are corporations.5

798

The Global Shadow of Privilege As noted earlier, globalization appears to be increasing, not decreasing, the gap between the haves and the have-nots both within and between nations. Oxfam reports that 82% of the wealth generated in 2018 went to the richest 1% of the world’s population; the 61 richest people in the world own as much as the bottom half (3.6 billion people).6 The only good news is that there has been a decline in the number of people in absolute poverty (those earning less than $1.25 a day).7 Income inequality means that 795 million people in the world suffer from chronic hunger and 21,000 people (many of them children) die from starvation and malnutrition every day. Citizens in the world’s poorest nations lack basic health care and have much shorter life spans. (The average global life expectancy is 71 years while residents of Chad, Gabon Guinea-Bissau, Swaziland, and Afghanistan can expect to live approximately 50 years.)8 Privileged nations consume more, which leads to environmental damage in the form of logging, oil drilling, and mineral extraction. This damage has a disproportionate impact on the disadvantaged. Whereas the wealthy can move to cleaner areas, the poor cannot. Instead, poor citizens must deal with the loss of hunting and fishing grounds, clean air, and safe water.

Leaders will continue to cast shadows unless they take steps to make globalization more equitable. To do so, they must

(a) reduce income inequality, (b) improve the social safety net—housing, health care, water, income, education—for citizens in both developing and developed nations, (c) encourage firms to invest in improving the communities (at home and abroad) where they do business, (d) put the common (international) good above private gain or self- or national interest, (e) create a global economy that recognizes the interconnectedness of all peoples and the importance of sustaining the environment,

799

(f) practice restraint and moderation in the consumption of goods, and (g) seek justice and compassion by helping marginalized groups.9

800

The Global Shadow of Mismanaged Information Deceit is all too common on the international stage. Nations routinely spy on each other for economic and military purposes and do their best to deceive their enemies. Russia created thousands of fake Facebook and Twitter accounts to influence the 2016 U.S. elections. The fake Facebook material, designed to sow discord, was seen by an estimated 126 million Americans (one third of the nation’s population).10 Businesses from industrialized countries frequently take advantage of consumers in economically depressed regions. Take the marketing of infant formula, for instance. Save the Children estimates that the lives of 823,000 babies in low- and middle-income countries could be saved every year if they were adequately breastfed rather than bottle fed.11 Breastfed babies are more resistant to disease and are less likely to sicken and die of diarrhea and pneumonia; their mothers are less likely to develop breast cancer. As an added benefit, poor households could then spend their money on other pressing needs. Despite the adoption of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes in 1981, Nestlé, Danone, Abbott, and other formula manufacturers continue to engage in a variety of deceptive sales practices. These practices include (a) claiming that baby formula is equal to or better than breastfeeding, (b) playing on women’s fears that they won’t produce enough milk, (c) sponsoring baby photo contests and promotions on social media, (d) marketing milk substitutes for toddlers, and (e) gaining medical endorsement by providing free samples to hospitals and gifts to doctors.

In addition to casting shadows through deception, global leaders cast shadows by withholding information. They don’t feel as much obligation to share data about safety problems and environmental hazards with foreign nationals as they do with their own citizens. They are guilty of extracting information from poor countries and giving little in return. For example, clinical drug trials in developing countries produce data that go back to company headquarters in Europe or the United States. Weaker countries are given little support in their efforts to develop their own research facilities.12

801

The Global Shadow of Inconsistency Economic and social disparities make it hard for leaders of multinational firms and nonprofits to act consistently. For instance, what are “fair” wages and working conditions in developing nations? Do workers in these countries deserve to be protected by the same safety standards as employees in industrialized countries? Should drugs that are banned in the United States for their undesirable side effects be sold in countries where their potential health benefits outweigh their risks? Should a multinational corporation follow the stringent pollution regulations of its home country or the lower standards of a host nation? Should expatriates working for NGOs in other nations enjoy a standard of living far greater than those they serve? All too often, global leaders answer these questions in ways that cast shadows on disadvantaged world citizens. They pay the bare minimum to workers in developing countries and provide them with inadequate medical care, focus less attention on safety and environmental problems in overseas locations, dump dangerous products they can’t sell in their homelands, live privileged lives among the poor, and so forth. The 2014 Ebola epidemic in West Africa provides a vivid demonstration of the shadow of inconsistency in action. Stricken Western workers were airlifted to first-class medical facilities in their homelands while infected African medical personnel remained on site, receiving treatment in rudimentary hospitals and clinics.13

802

The Global Shadow of Misplaced and Broken Loyalties Traditional loyalties are eroding in an integrated world. In the past, national leaders were expected to meet the needs of their citizens. Now, because their actions affect the lives of residents of other nations, they must consider their duties to people they may never meet. Failure to do so produces shadow in the form of environmental damage, poverty, hunger, and the widening income gap.

Broken loyalties cast shadows in a global society just as they do in individual leader–follower relationships. Citizens in both wealthy and poor nations feel betrayed by the shattered promises of globalization. Life has not improved as they had been led to believe. Special interests continue to receive favored treatment as many are left behind. The global economy often creates more economic losers than winners. Millions of U.S. workers discovered this fact when their manufacturing jobs were shifted overseas. These jobs are moving again as executives on the continual lookout for cheaper labor transfer production from China (where wages have increased) to Malaysia and Vietnam.

803

The Global Shadow of Irresponsibility Globalization increases the breadth of leaders’ responsibilities because they are accountable for the actions of followers in many different geographic locations. Like local leaders, they can’t be blamed for all the misdeeds of their followers. Yet they should be held to the same set of responsibility standards outlined in our discussion of the shadow side of leadership in Chapter 1. In order to cast light instead of shadow, global leaders must do the following:

1. Make reasonable efforts to prevent followers’ misdeeds. Fostering a consistent, ethical organizational climate in every location can prevent many moral abuses. Integrity and a clear set of guiding values should be as characteristic of branch offices as they are of headquarters. Leaders can establish such climates by (a) clearly stating organizational values, (b) communicating these values to all branches through print and electronic media and training programs, (c) letting business partners know about standards, and (d) translating ethical behavior into performance standards and then evaluating followers based on those criteria.14

2. Acknowledge and address ethical problems wherever they occur. Geographic and cultural distance makes it easy for global leaders to deny responsibility for the misbehavior of followers. Subcontractors often get the blame for low wages and poor working conditions at foreign manufacturing facilities. More responsible firms acknowledge their duty to adequately supervise the activities of their contractors. Monster Energy has been criticized for refusing to investigate labor conditions at its sugar suppliers, even though forced labor and slavery are problems in Brazil, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, and other sugarcane producing nations.15

3. Shoulder responsibility for the consequences of their directives. Wise global leaders recognize that in trying to do the right thing, they might end up producing some unintended negative consequences. Take efforts to eliminate child labor, for instance. Poor children are an important source of income for their families. Removing them from the factory floor or

804

brick kilns in Cambodia, Pakistan, and other developing countries can do significant harm. Recognizing this fact, the Punjab regional government in Pakistan pays a monthly stipend to send child workers to school and covers all of their educational expenses. The children will likely be forced back to work if the program is discontinued.16

4. Admit their duties to followers. Multinational leaders have obligations to all their followers, regardless of citizenship or ethnic and cultural background, and to the communities where they operate. Following the collapse of Bangladesh’s Rana Plaza garment factory, which killed over 1,100 workers and injured 1,800 more, Primark and Loblaw clothing brands created a compensation fund for victims and their families. However, several large retailers, including Sears, JC Penney, Benetton, and Carrefour, refused to participate although they may have had subcontractors producing clothing at the building on the day of the collapse.17

5. Hold themselves to the same standards as followers. Leaders are not above the values, rules, and codes of conduct they impose on their global organizations. While they hold diverse followers to consistent standards, ethical leaders also live up to the same guidelines.

805

Cultural Differences and Ethical Values Along with taking stock of the potential moral pitfalls of globalization, leaders need to recognize that cultural diversity makes ethical decision making even harder. Every ethnic group, nation, and religion approaches moral dilemmas from a different perspective. What is perfectly acceptable to members of one group may raise serious ethical concerns for another. Understanding the reasons for these differences is an important first step in increasing our ethical competence in cross-cultural encounters.

806

Defining Culture The same factors that make up an organization’s culture— language, rituals, stories, buildings, beliefs, assumptions, power structures—also form the cultures of communities, ethnic groups, and nations. Cultures are comprehensive, incorporating both the visible (architecture, physical objects, nonverbal behavior) and the invisible (thoughts, attitudes, values). In sum, a culture is “the total way of life of a people, composed of their learned and shared behavior patterns, values, norms, and material objects.”18

Several features of cultures are worth noting in more detail. These elements include the following:

Created. We often assume that ours is the only way to solve problems. In fact, there are countless ways to deal with the environment, manage interpersonal relationships, produce food, and cope with death. Each cultural group devises its own way of responding to circumstances. Learned. Elements of culture are passed on from generation to generation and from person to person. Cultural conditioning is both a formal and an informal process that takes place in every context—homes, schools, playgrounds, camps, games. The most crucial aspects of a culture, such as loyalty to country, are constantly reinforced. Patriotism in the United States is promoted through high school civics classes, the singing of the national anthem at sporting events, flags flying on everything from pickup trucks to skyscrapers and giant construction cranes, and Fourth of July and Memorial Day programs. Shared. The shared nature of culture becomes apparent when we break the rules that are set and enforced by the group. There are negative consequences for violating cultural norms of all types. Punishments vary depending on the severity of the offense. For example, you might receive a cold stare from your professor when your cell phone goes off in class. However, you may face jail time if you break drug laws. Dynamic. Cultures aren’t static but evolve. Over time, the changes can be dramatic, as in the case of gay marriage,

807

which was once banned but now is the law of the land in the United States.

Although each culture has its own set of ethical priorities, researchers have discovered that ethnic groups and nations hold values in common. As a result, cultures can be grouped according to their value orientations. These orientations help explain ethical differences and enable leaders to predict how members of other cultural groups will respond to moral dilemmas. In this section of the chapter, I’ll describe four widely used cultural classification systems. Before we examine the cultural classification systems, however, there are four cautions to keep in mind. First, all categories are gross overgeneralizations. They describe what most people in that culture value. Not all U.S. residents are individualistic, for example, and not all Japanese citizens are collectivists. However, in general, more Americans put the individual first, whereas more Japanese emphasize group relations. Second, scholars may categorize the same nation differently and have not studied some regions of the world (such as Africa) as intensively as others (Europe, Asia, and the United States). Third, political and cultural boundaries aren’t always identical. For instance, the Basque people live in both France and Spain. Fourth, as noted earlier, cultures are dynamic, so values change. A society may alter its ethical priorities over time.

808

World Values Survey The World Values Survey is specifically designed to capture the dynamic nature of cultures, marking changes in societal values and beliefs over decades. Since 1981, researchers headquartered in Sweden have periodically surveyed countries accounting for 90% of the world’s population.19 They track shifts in two sets of values that shape responses to moral issues. The first values set consists of traditional values vs. secular-rational values. Traditional values highlight the importance of religion, family, deference to authority, and national pride. Rules are to be followed and there are clear differences between right and wrong. Secular-rational values place less emphasis on religion, family, authority, and nation. The rules aren’t as important and good and bad behavior isn’t so clearly defined. People holding traditional values typically reject abortion, divorce, euthanasia, and suicide; those holding secular-rational values are more accepting of these behaviors.

The second values set consists of survival values versus self- expression values. Survival values focus on economic and physical security. People with these values tend to be more ethnocentric, reject outsiders, and are less trusting and tolerant. Self-expression values emphasize autonomy, freedom of choice, and political participation. Quality of life and tolerance are priorities. Those who value self-expression are concerned about protecting the environment; are more accepting acceptance of foreigners, gays, and lesbians; support gender equality; and desire to shape how societal decisions are made. The two value sets then combine to form different cultural clusters. Traditional/survival societies include Morocco, Jordan, Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe. Traditional/self-expression societies include the United States, much of Latin America, and Ireland. Secular-rational/survival societies include Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Estonia. Secular-rational/self-expression countries include Sweden, Norway, Japan, Germany, and the Czech Republic.

809

According to Ronald Inglehart and other World Values Survey (WVS) investigators, security is a primary driver of values and behaviors. When humans feel insecure, they focus on tradition and self-preservation, making survival paramount in agrarian economies—where the weather poses a constant threat—and to those facing economic uncertainty. As societies become more prosperous, as many Western nations did after World War II, citizens become less concerned with day-to-day survival and are more open to secular values and freedom of self-expression. Modern knowledge-based societies, which rely on technology and information, put the greatest importance on self-expression. Yet, despite economic progress, some values persist, depending on the cultural history of a society. Survival values are more characteristic of former Communist Eastern European nations, for instance, because of past political repression and economic struggles. Religion also plays a role maintaining or changing values. Islam weakens self-expression, for example, while self- expression is more likely to flourish under Protestantism.

Feelings of insecurity help account for the revolt against globalization. Threatened by declining incomes and an influx of immigrants, residents of both wealthy and poor nations turn to authoritarian leaders to protect them. Inglehart describes the process this way: “When survival is insecure, people tend to close ranks behind a strong leader, forming a united front against outsiders—a strategy that can be called the Authoritarian Reflex.” 20

810

Programmed Value Patterns Geert Hofstede of the Netherlands conducted an extensive investigation of cultural value patterns.21 According to Hofstede, important values are “programmed” into members of every culture. He surveyed more than 100,000 IBM employees in 50 countries and three multicountry regions to uncover these value dimensions. He then checked his findings against those of other researchers who studied the same countries. The following four value orientations emerged.

Power Distance The first category describes the relative importance of power differences. Status differences are universal, but cultures treat them differently. In high power distance cultures (Philippines, Mexico), inequality is accepted as part of the natural order. Leaders enjoy special privileges and make no attempt to reduce power differentials; however, they are expected to care for the less fortunate. Low power distance cultures (Ireland, New Zealand), in contrast, are uneasy with large gaps in wealth, power, privilege, and status. Superiors tend to downplay these differences and strive for a greater degree of equality.

Individualism versus Collectivism Hofstede’s second value category divides cultures according to their preference for either the individual or the group. Individualistic cultures put the needs and goals of the person and her or his immediate family first. Members of these cultures see themselves as independent actors. In contrast, collectivistic cultures give top priority to the desires of the larger group— extended family, tribe, community. Members of these societies stress connection instead of separateness, putting a high value on their place in the collective. Think back to your decision to attend your current college or university. As a resident of Canada or the United States, you probably asked friends, high school counselors, and family members for advice, but in the end, you

811

made the choice. In a collectivistic society such as Peru or Pakistan, your family or village might well have made this decision for you. There’s no guarantee that you would have even gone to college. Families with limited resources can afford to send only one child to school. You might have been expected to go to work to help pay for the education of a brother or sister. (Complete Self- Assessment 11.1 to determine how individualistic or collectivistic you are.)

Masculinity versus Femininity The third dimension reflects attitudes toward the roles of men and women. Highly masculine cultures such as Venezuela and Italy maintain clearly defined sex roles. Men are expected to be decisive, assertive, dominant, ambitious, and materialistic; women are encouraged to serve. Females are to care for the family, interpersonal relationships, and the weaker members of society. In feminine cultures such as Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, the differences between the sexes are blurred. Both men and women can be competitive and caring, assertive, and nurturing. These cultures are more likely to stress interdependence, intuition, and concern for others.

Uncertainty Avoidance This dimension describes the way in which cultures respond to uncertainty. Three indicators measure this orientation: anxiety level, widely held attitudes about rules, and employment stability. Members of high uncertainty avoidance societies (Greece, Portugal) feel anxious about uncertainty and view it as a threat. They believe in written rules and regulations, engage in more rituals, and accept directives from those in authority. In addition, they are less likely to change jobs and view long-term employment as a right. People who live in low uncertainty avoidance cultures (Ireland, Sweden) are more comfortable with uncertainty, viewing ambiguity as a fact of life. They experience lower stress and are more likely to take risks such as starting a new company or accepting a new job in another part of the country. These people are less reliant on written regulations and

812

rituals and are more likely to trust their own judgments instead of obeying authority figures.

Hofstede argues that value patterns have a significant impact on ethical behavior.22 For example, masculine European countries give little to international development programs but invest heavily in weapons. Feminine European nations do just the opposite. High uncertainty avoidance cultures are prone to prejudice because they follow the credo “What is different is dangerous.” Low uncertainty avoidance cultures follow the credo “What is different is curious” and are more tolerant of strangers and new ideas.

Other researchers have joined Hofstede in linking value patterns to ethical attitudes and behavior.23 They have discovered that members of feminine cultures are more sensitive to the presence of moral issues. Masculine/high power distance/high uncertainty avoidance countries are generally more corrupt, and their citizens are more likely to look to formal codes and policies for ethical guidance. Firms operating in these cultures are generally less attune to the concerns of stakeholders. Consumers from low power distance/low uncertainty avoidance societies generally punish socially irresponsible firms. National accounting organizations in high individualism/high uncertainty avoidance societies are less likely to adopt ethical standards set by international accounting groups.

Of the four value dimensions, individualism versus collectivism has attracted the most attention. Scholars have used this dimension to explain a variety of cultural differences, including variations in ethical behavior. Individualistic countries prefer universal ethical standards such as Kant’s categorical imperative and justice.24 Collectivistic societies take a more utilitarian approach, seeking to generate the greatest good for in-group members. Citizens of these nations are more sensitive to elements of the situation and consider the impact on relationships. Here are examples of how these orientations impact ethical choices:

813

False information. Individualists are more likely to lie in order to protect their privacy; collectivists are more likely to lie in order to protect the group or family. Those with a collectivistic orientation may promise what they can’t deliver in order to reduce tensions between their in-group and outsiders. Individualists condemn this practice as deceptive and therefore unethical. Layoffs. In individualist cultures, downsizing is seen as a business decision. In collectivist cultures, layoffs are seen as immoral, threatening the harmony of the firm. Intellectual property rights. Whereas individuals own the rights to their creative ideas in individualistic societies, they are expected to share their knowledge in collectivistic nations. Copyright laws are a Western invention based on the belief that individuals should be rewarded for their efforts. Gender equality. Resistance to gender equality is strongest in collectivistic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Japan. Women are seen as an out-group in these societies. Many men fear that granting women more status—better jobs, leadership positions—would threaten group stability. Individualistic nations are more likely to have laws that promote equal opportunity, although in many of these countries, such as the United States, women hold fewer leadership positions than men and continue to earn less. Bribery. Payoffs tend to be more common in collectivistic nations and may be a way to meet obligations to the community. In some cases, there are laws against the practice, but they take a backseat to history and custom. Individualistic nations view bribery as a form of corruption; payoffs destroy trust and benefit some companies and people at the expense of others.

Both individualism and collectivism create ethical blind spots. Being self- or group focused can make us particularly susceptible to certain types of ethical abuses. Individualism is linked to high crime rates, narcissism, self-serving and self-promotion, violence, materialism, suicide, and drug abuse. Collectivism is tied to suppression of individual thought, blind obedience, harsh treatment of outside groups, human rights violations, and wife beating and killing.25

814

Project GLOBE Project GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) is an international effort involving 170 researchers who have gathered data from more than 17,000 managers in 62 countries. The researchers hope to better equip global managers by identifying the relationship between cultural values and effective leadership behaviors. Like Hofstede, the GLOBE researchers identify power distance, uncertainty avoidance, gender differentiation (masculinity and femininity), and individualism versus collectivism as important cultural dimensions. However, they extend Hofstede’s list by including the following.26

In-Group Collectivism This dimension describes the degree to which societal members take pride in their small groups, families, and organizations. In- group collectivism differs from Hofstede’s collectivism dimension, which describes maintaining harmony and cooperation throughout society as a whole. Being a member of a family, a close group, or an employing organization is very important to members of in- group collectivist societies (Iran, India, China), and they have high expectations of other group members. People living in countries that score low on this dimension, such as Denmark, Sweden, and New Zealand, don’t have similar expectations of friends and family.

Assertiveness Assertiveness is the extent to which a culture encourages individuals to be tough, confrontational, and competitive as opposed to modest and tender. Spain and the United States rate high on this dimension; Sweden and New Zealand rate low. Those in highly assertive societies have a take-charge attitude and value competition. They are not particularly sympathetic to the weak and less fortunate. Members of less assertive cultures place more value on empathy, loyalty, and solidarity.

815

Future Orientation This is the extent to which a society fosters and reinforces such future-oriented activities as planning and investing (Singapore, Switzerland, the Netherlands) rather than immediate gratification (Russia, Argentina, Poland).

Performance Orientation This is the degree to which a society encourages and rewards group members for improving performance and demonstrating excellence. In places such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States, training and development are valued, and people take initiative. Citizens prefer the direct communication style and feel a sense of urgency. In countries such as Russia, Italy, and Argentina, people put loyalty and belonging ahead of performance. They are uncomfortable with feedback and competition and place more weight on someone’s family and background than on performance.

Humane Orientation Humane orientation is the extent to which a culture encourages and honors people for being altruistic, caring, kind, fair, and generous. Support for the weak and vulnerable is particularly high in countries such as Malaysia and Ireland. People are usually friendly and tolerant and may develop patronage and paternalistic relationships with their leaders. Governments are more focused on the overall good of society than on protecting property and profits. In contrast, power and material possessions motivate people in the former West Germany, Spain, and France. Self- enhancement takes precedence. Individuals are to solve their own problems; children are expected to be independent.

It is clear that differences on these values dimensions can cause some serious ethical conflicts. Those scoring high on in-group collectivism see no problem with hiring friends and family members even when more qualified candidates are available, a fact that will trouble those who believe that members of their in-

816

groups should not expect preferential treatment. People oriented toward the future will save and invest. They will condemn those who live in the moment and spend all they earn. Competition, direct communication, power, and personal advancement are applauded in assertive, performance-oriented, less-humane groups. These elements are undesirable to people who put more value on harmony, cooperation, family, and concern for others. Those living in humane societies emphasize concern for society over property rights and profits. They are less likely to protect intellectual property like music and software. In contrast, those living in assertive, performance-oriented cultures are tempted to engage in unethical activities in order to succeed. The businesses they create are more likely to be focused on shareholders, profits, and results instead of on stakeholders and social responsibility.27

Although there is plenty of evidence of ethical diversity in the GLOBE study, there are also signs of common ethical ground. As I noted in Chapter 8, the GLOBE researchers discovered that many of the characteristics associated with transformational leadership —motive arouser, foresight, encouraging, dynamic, motivational, trustworthy, positive, confidence builder, communicative—are admired across cultures to varying degrees.28 Another group of researchers analyzed the GLOBE data to determine whether there are aspects of ethical leadership that are important for effective leadership across cultures. Four attributes emerged, although the extent to which each is endorsed and how each is implemented differs across cultures. Character and integrity (consistency, virtue) were rated as important. So were altruism, collective motivation (putting the interests of the group ahead of personal interests), and encouraging and empowering (helping followers feel competent).29 Taken together, these dimensions describe positive, people-oriented leadership that respects the rights and dignity of others. The fact that observers from many different cultural backgrounds agree on the attributes of ethical leadership suggests that there are common ethical standards shared by all cultures. We’ll take a closer look at those standards later in the chapter. (Turn to the Focus on Follower Ethics box for evidence that there are common components of ethical followership.)

817

Focus on Followership Ethics Ethical Upward Influence Across Cultures

Influencing the boss is critical to success in every organization no matter where it operates in the world, but University of Oklahoma professor David Ralston wondered how culture impacts the ethics and effectiveness of subordinate influence tactics. To answer that question, Professor Ralston and colleagues from other countries asked respondents to rate the acceptability of a variety of upward influence strategies in a series of studies. The investigators discovered similarities across cultures. Respondents from all societies surveyed rated organizationally beneficial influence attempts (volunteering, working overtime) as more ethical than self- indulgent behaviors (blaming others, taking credit for others’ work). Destructive behaviors (spying, offering sexual favors) were considered least ethical. “Soft” tactics—demonstrating competence, presenting a positive image—were preferred over “hard” tactics like coercion and withholding information. (See Chapter 7 for an in-depth look at compliance-gaining strategies.)

The investigators also discovered cultural differences in upward influence preferences. For example,

– American and Dutch managers rate soft strategies as the most important way to exert positive influence and reject hard strategies. German and Indian managers also favor soft strategies, though their preferences are not as strong. – Managers from Hong Kong and Mexico are more accepting of hard tactics. They don’t think that soft strategies are as effective as Americans and the Dutch do. – Canadian-Anglo managers are more likely to favor organizationally sanctioned behavior than Americans and Canadians of French background. – Self-serving behaviors are seen as more acceptable in Asian societies, such as Pakistan, that have traditional survival values and a low level of economic development. – Younger Thai and U.S. managers and professionals are more likely to use destructive influence tactics than their older colleagues.

The findings of Ralston and his fellow researchers suggest that, when it comes to influencing leaders, there is both cultural convergence and divergence. In general, soft tactics that benefit the organization are most ethical and effective regardless of the cultural setting. But, at the same time, expatriate followers need to adapt their tactics to the situation. U.S. managers using soft tactics in Mexico risk being seen as be seen as passive, for instance. Mexican

818

managers using strong tactics in the United States risk being perceived as too aggressive. Canadian leaders may respond differently to influence tactics depending on whether they are of British or French background.

Sources

Egri, C. P., Ralston, D. A., Murray, C. S., & Nicolson, J. D. (2000). Managers in the NAFTA countries: A cross-cultural comparison of attitudes toward upward influence strategies. Journal of International Management, 6, 149–171.

Karam, C. M., Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Butt, A., Srinivasan, N., Fu, P. P. . . . & Chia, H.B. (2013). Perceptions of the ethicality of favors at work in Asia: An 11-society assessment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 373–408.

Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., de la Garza Carranza, M. T., Ramburuth, P., Terpstra-Tong, J., Pekerti, A. A., . . . & Wallace, A. (2009). Ethical preferences for influencing superiors: A 41-society study. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1022–1045.

Ralston, D. A., Gustafson, D. J., Mainiero, L., & Umstot, D. (1993). Strategies of upward influence: A cross-national comparison of Hong Kong and American managers. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 10, 157–175.

Ralston, D. A., Hallinger, Pl, Egri, C. P., & Naothinsuhk, S. (2005). The effects of culture and life stage on workplace strategies of upward influence: A comparison of Thailand and the United States. Journal of World Business, 40, 321–337.

Ralston, D. A., Vollmer, G. R., Srinvasan, N., Nicolson, J. D., Tang, M., & Wan, P. (2001). Strategies of upward influence: A study of six cultures from Europe, Asia and America. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 728–735.

819

Moral Foundations Theory New York University moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt believes that to understand ethical diversity, we first need to understand the psychological systems or foundations of morality. These mental foundations, which are part of our genetic makeup, enable humans to live together successfully in groups. Cultures shape how these systems are used, emphasizing one or more values over the others. Haidt compares these moral intuitions to taste buds. Nearly everyone is born with the same set of taste receptors. But each culture develops its own cuisine, which emphasizes different tastes.

Haidt identifies five foundations for our moral intuitions:30

1. Care/Harm. All species are sensitive to suffering in their own offspring, but humans are also sensitive to suffering beyond the family and can feel sympathy for outsiders. Because groups are attuned to cruelty and harm, they generally approve of those who prevent or alleviate suffering and make virtues out of kindness and compassion. However, the other four moral foundations temper the amount of compassion displayed by individuals in different cultures.

2. Fairness/Cheating. This foundation allows humans to benefit from cooperation without getting exploited by others. Reciprocity—paying back others—is essential for the formation of alliances between individuals who are not related to each other. Cheaters who take advantage of others generate anger and contempt and are less likely to be chosen as partners in the future. All cultures have virtues related to justice and fairness. Yet, while some societies value individual rights and equality, a great many more groups do not.

3. Loyalty/Betrayal. Trusting fellow in-group members and distrusting those who belong to other groups has been essential for human survival. As a result, most cultures create virtues out of patriotism, loyalty, and heroism, and some societies (Japan, for instance) put a high value on in-group cohesion. Even when the society as a whole doesn’t

820

emphasize loyalty, there are usually subgroups that do (e.g., the police and the military).

4. Authority/Subversion. Hierarchy is a fact of life in primate as well as human groups. While primates rely on brute strength to assert their dominance, people use such factors as prestige and deference. In many cultures, followers feel respect, awe, and admiration for leaders and expect good leaders to act like wise parents. Those who reject authority are punished.

5. Purity/Degradation. Only humans appear to feel disgust, which helps to protect the body against the transmission of disease through contact with corpses, feces, vomit, and other possible contaminants. Purity has a social dimension as well. For instance, disgust can be felt for outsiders, those with deformities, or for those of lower social class, such as the untouchables in India. Members of most cultural groups disapprove of those individuals who are contaminated by lust, gluttony, greed, and uncontrolled anger.

Care and fairness are individualizing foundations because they focus on the protection of individuals and their rights. Loyalty, authority, and purity are binding foundations because they focus on protecting the group or community by promoting group solidarity, self-sacrifice, and respect for hierarchy. The United States and many other Western nations favor individualizing values, largely focusing on reducing harm and promoting autonomy. Residents of South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia are more concerned with the binding values of loyalty and sanctity than members of Western societies. Muslim cultures place a high priority on purity, which is reflected in religious blasphemy laws, the segregation of men and women, and separation from infidels. (To determine which values are most important to you, complete the Moral Foundations Questionnaire in Self-Assessment 11.2.)

Moral foundations can also explain the differences between liberals and conservatives in the United States. Contrasts between these political philosophies further illustrate how moral foundations shape ethical attitudes. Individualizing values are more important to liberals, who rate the morality of an action

821

based on whether it hurts or helps others. In contrast, conservatives, who are more concerned about all five dimensions, emphasize binding values. The purity (sanctity) dimension is the best predictor of liberal and conservative positions on abortion, for example. American liberals, who value autonomy, want to preserve the woman’s right to choose while conservatives want to preserve the sanctity of the fetus. Many conservatives oppose illegal immigration based on the conviction that the newcomers are dangerous (purity) and will subvert America (authority), while liberals are pro-immigration based on compassion for the poor (harm) who may be mistreated (fairness). Conservatives demonstrate stronger opposition to flag burning based on in-group (patriotism), authority (subversion), and purity (desecration) values. Young liberals are more likely to change their behavior to mitigate climate change.31

Haidt and his colleagues urge us to keep all five moral systems in mind when dealing with diverse groups. We need to realize that although purity and authority may not be important to us, they are important to a great proportion of the world’s population. We must acknowledge and address these concerns. Unless we are dealing with a highly liberal Western audience, our ethical appeals will be most effective if they speak to loyalty, authority, and purity in addition to care and fairness. Recognizing that strangers have different moral foundations is also an important first step to mutual understanding. The realization that others hold different central moral values reduces feelings of hostility in ethical conflicts. Such hostility is dangerous because it can tempt us to deny others their rights. Instead, we can work with those of different cultures to identify the shared values that make us all human.32

822

Facing the Challenges Understanding the relationship between cultural values and ethical decision making by itself is not enough to meet the ethical challenges posed by globalization and cultural differences. We also need to address attitudinal obstacles to ethical behavior, search for moral common ground with people of other cultures, and identify strategies for making decisions in cross-cultural settings.

823

Overcoming Attitudinal Obstacles Prejudice, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism are important attitudinal obstacles to ethical behavior across cultures. Prejudice is the prejudgment of out-group members based on prior experiences and beliefs. (The Leadership Ethics at the Movies on the website provides one example of prejudice in action.) Prejudice is universal, but the degree of prejudice varies from person to person, ranging from slight bias to extreme prejudice such as that displayed by racist skinheads. Negative prejudgments can be dangerous because they produce discriminatory behavior. For instance, police in many urban areas of the United States believe that African Americans are more likely than members of other groups to commit crimes. As a consequence, officers are more likely to stop and question black citizens, particularly young men, and to use force if they show the slightest sign of resistance. This has resulted in the deaths of unarmed black males at hands of the police in Ferguson, Missouri; Baltimore; Minneapolis; New York City; Portland, Oregon; and other cities around the United States.

Stereotyping is the process of classifying group members according to their perceived similarities while overlooking their individual differences. For example, one persistent stereotype is that Asian Americans have strong technical skills but little managerial aptitude. As a result, some organizations are eager to hire Asian Americans as engineers but are reluctant to put them in managerial roles. Because of perceptual biases, stereotypes are particularly devastating to marginalized groups. The natural tendency is to blame our failures on outside factors and to attribute our success to internal factors. The opposite is true when we evaluate the behavior of low-status groups. When we fall short, we blame other people, bad luck, bad weather, and other external forces. When we succeed, we point to our competence— our knowledge, character, skills, motivation, and training. Conversely, when members of marginalized groups fail, it is their laziness, low intelligence, or poor character that is to blame. In other words, they are incompetent. When they succeed, we give

824

the credit to the help they get from others rather than to their individual skills and effort.33

Ethnocentrism is the tendency to see the world from our cultural group’s point of view. From this vantage point, our customs and values become the standard by which the rest of the world is judged. Our cultural ways seem natural; those of other groups fall short. A certain degree of ethnocentrism is probably inevitable.34

Ethnocentrism can help a group band together and survive in the face of outside threats. However, ethnocentrism is a significant barrier to cross-cultural communication and problem solving. High levels of ethnocentrism can lead to the following problems:

Inaccurate attributions about the behavior of those who differ from us (we interpret their behavior from our point of view, not theirs) Expressions of disparagement or animosity (ethnic slurs, belittling nicknames) Reduced contact with outsiders Indifference and insensitivity to the perspectives of members of marginalized groups Pressure on other groups to conform to our cultural standards Justification for war and violence as a means of expressing cultural dominance

Examples of ethnocentrism abound. For many years, the Bureau of Indian Affairs made assimilation its official policy, forcing Native Americans to send their children to reservation schools, where they were punished for speaking their tribal languages. In other instances, well-meaning people assume that their values and practices are the only right ones. Many early missionaries equated Christianity with Western lifestyles and required converts to dress, live, think, and worship like Europeans or North Americans. In Afghanistan, the Taliban uses harsh punishments to impose its interpretation of the Koran.

Overcoming the barriers described here begins with addressing our attitudes. We can reduce our levels of negative prejudice, stereotyping, and ethnocentrism by committing ourselves to mindfulness and dignity and integrity.

825

In most routine encounters, we tend to operate on autopilot and perform our roles mechanically, without much reflection. When we’re engaged in mindless interaction, we’re not likely to challenge the ethnocentric assumption that ours is the only way to solve problems. Mindfulness is the opposite of mindlessness. When we’re mindful, we pay close attention to our attitudes and behaviors. Three psychological processes take place.35

The first is openness to new categories. Being mindful makes us more sensitive to differences. Instead of lumping people into broad categories based on age, race, gender, or role, we make finer distinctions within these classifications. We discover that not all student government officers, Japanese exchange students, retirees, and engineers are alike.

The second psychological process involves openness to new information. Mindless communication closes us off to new data, and we fail to note the kinds of cultural differences described earlier. We assume that others hold the same ethical values. In mindful communication, we pick up new information as we closely monitor our behavior along with the behavior of others.

The third psychological process is recognizing the existence of more than one perspective. Mindlessness results in tunnel vision that ignores potential solutions. Mindfulness, on the other hand, opens our eyes to other possibilities. For example, there can be more than one way to make and implement ethical choices.

Dignity and integrity also ought to characterize all of our interactions with people of other cultures. We maintain our own dignity and integrity by confronting others who engage in prejudicial comments or actions; we maintain the dignity of others by respecting their views. Respect doesn’t mean that we have to agree with another’s moral stance. But when we disagree, we need to respond in a civil, sensitive manner.

By committing ourselves as leaders to mindful communication, the dignity of others, and personal integrity, we can reduce ethnocentrism and prejudice in the group as a whole. Using morally inclusive language and disputing prejudiced statements,

826

for instance, improves ethical climate because followers will be less likely to attack other groups in our presence. However, if we don’t speak out when followers disparage members of out-groups, the practice will continue. We’ll share some of the responsibility for creating a hostile atmosphere.

827

Finding Common Moral Ground Confronted with a wide range of ethical values and standards, a number of philosophers, business leaders, anthropologists, and others opt for ethical relativism. In ethical relativism, there are no universal moral codes or standards. Each group or society is unique. Therefore, members of one culture can’t pass moral judgment on members of another group.

I’ll admit that, at first glance, ethical relativism is appealing. It avoids the problem of ethnocentrism while simplifying the decision-making process. We can concentrate on fitting in with the prevailing culture and never have to pass judgment. On closer examination, however, the difficulties of ethical relativism become all too apparent.36 Without shared standards, there’s little hope that the peoples of the world can work together to address global problems. There may be no basis on which to condemn the evil of notorious leaders who are popular in their own countries. Furthermore, the standard of cultural relativism obligates us to follow (or at least not to protest against) abhorrent local practices such as the killing of brides by their in-laws in the rural villages of Pakistan. (Case Study 11.2 describes another widely condemned custom.) Without universal rights and wrongs, we have no basis on which to contest such practices.

Evidence of ethical common ground comes from universal standards that have enabled members of the world community to punish crimes against humanity and to create international regulatory bodies. Responsible multinational corporations such as The Body Shop, Levi Strauss, and Peets Coffee adhere to widely held moral principles as they conduct business in a variety of cultural settings. In this section of the chapter, I’ll describe four different approaches to universal ethics: common morality, cosmopolitanism, the global ethic, and the Caux principles. As you read each description, look for commonalities. Then decide for yourself which approach or combination of approaches best captures the foundational values of humankind. (See “For Further Exploration, Challenge,” and Self-Assessment Exercise 11.7.)

828

Common Morality Former Dartmouth philosophy professor Bernard Gert believed that we can identify the moral elements common to all people.37

These components arise out of the human experience, particularly the universal recognition that people are vulnerable and can be harmed by others. This common morality forms a system that rational people intuitively support because it both protects them and the people they care about. Immoral actions have negative consequences, causing suffering in the form of pain, loss of freedom and pleasure, disability, and death. Moral rules are designed to lessen these harms.

Citizens refer to universal principles when defending their choices. They frequently break these guidelines but, when they do, they must provide justification for their actions. However, sharing a common morality doesn’t eliminate disagreement about ethical issues. “Although all rational people will agree on the answers to most moral questions,” said Gert, “they need not agree on the answers to all of them.”38 Disagreements center, first of all, on whom is protected by the moral code. Some ethicists believe that animals deserve the same moral protections as people, for instance. Second, decision makers also disagree about how to rank the relative worth of harms and benefits. For example, legislators differ over whether the benefit of increased national security is worth the loss of privacy and freedom of movement that results from stricter security measures. Third, estimates of the harmful and beneficial consequences of a violation vary between decision makers. Take the case of lying to a friend to protect her or his feelings. Some would argue that the costs of this deception are far outweighed by the benefit to the friend. Others would say that lying in this instance hurts the friend by providing inaccurate feedback and reflects poor character on the part of the liar. Finally, there can be conflict over whether or not an action, such as honoring a patient’s request to be taken off of life support, is immoral and needs justification.

Gert argued that the following 10 rules account for all types of actions that are either forbidden or required. As noted above, every intentional violation of one of these rules demands that the

829

violator provide a reason for his or action. Common justifications include the need to kill in war, to lie to protect the organization, to imprison criminals to protect society, to inflict pain to punish immoral behavior, and to break the law to serve a higher cause. The first five rules described below outlaw basic harms and the last five prohibit actions that could cause these harms.

Rule 1: “Do not kill.” This guideline prevents the most serious of harms—the permanent loss of consciousness. Rule 2: “Do not cause pain.” Everyone wants to avoid pain, whether physical or mental. Rule 3: “Do not disable.” (“Do not deprive of ability.”) It is possible to disable someone physically (amputations, blinding), mentally (fostering addictions, creating phobias), and volitionally (restricting movement). Rule 4: “Do not deprive of freedom.” This rule extends beyond physical imprisonment. It also includes job discrimination, which denies employment opportunities to certain groups, and stealing, which limits the options of victims. In addition, the dictum addresses the “freedom from being acted upon.” Individuals have the right to avoid unwanted sexual touching and invasions of privacy, for instance. Rule 5: “Do not deprive of pleasure.” Pleasure takes a variety of forms, such as sleep, sexual satisfaction, and beauty. Depriving others of their rest, sexual enjoyment (through female circumcision, for example), or beauty (by destroying artworks or architecture) are violations of this standard. Rule 6: “Do not deceive.” Lying is only one way to deceive. Other forms of deception include withholding needed information, spreading false rumors, and fostering faulty assumptions. Rule 7: “Keep your promises.” This rule covers both formal promises like labor contracts as well as informal promises made to other individuals. Often, there are legal consequences for violating formal promises, such as when a company breaks the terms of a contract with a vendor. Rule 8: “Do not cheat.” Cheating involves acting unfairly in a way that gives the cheater an advantage. Common examples of cheating include plagiarizing on academic papers, bribing a

830

foreign official to get a building contract, tinkering with a scale, and cheating on auto emissions tests. Rule 9: “Obey the law.” With some exceptions (i.e., segregation statutes), laws generally keep society functioning smoothly. They stop violations of the first five rules, which prevent harm. Rule 10. “Do your duty.” This rule covers those who play particular roles in society—doctors, lawyers, financial advisors, professors. They must carry out the duties associated with their positions (treating the sick, representing clients, providing objective financial advice, presenting course content) or face condemnation. Rule 10 also applies to duties that arise from particular situations. We expect individuals to help others in need if they are in close proximity and can do so.

Cosmopolitanism Cosmopolitans believe that that since we live in a global society, we should consider ourselves citizens of the world (cosmopolitans) rather than of one particular nation-state. This approach acts as an “ethics of strangers” in a world where we increasingly interact with those outside our cultural group.39

Cosmopolitanism has a long history in Western philosophy, stretching back to the ancient Greco-Roman Stoic philosophers, such as Diogenes, Cicero, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius, who saw the world as one united city made up of individuals who were related to one another. Immanuel Kant proposed the creation of an international legal authority to regulate relations between nations. He encouraged hospitality toward foreigners. Modern moral cosmopolitanism is based on three elements. The first is individualism. According to ethicist Thomas Pogge, “The ultimate units of concern are human beings, or persons—rather than, say, family lines, tribes, ethnic cultural, or religious communities, nations, or states.”40 The second component is universality. We should be equally concerned about every human being, no matter who they are and where they live. The third component is generality, the belief that everyone in the world should make

831

persons their primary concern, extending their obligations to those outside their immediate group.

Driven by these three convictions, cosmopolitans take a humanistic or altruistic approach to globalization, believing that every human being has dignity and value, regardless of their location, status, or background. They have a strong sense of global justice and work to ensure human rights. Their duty to care (see Chapter 5) extends to the “distant needy”—the less privileged who are often found in the world’s developing nations. Cosmopolitans act on that concern by assisting others around the world. They argue that business leaders have a moral duty to act as “agents of world benefit.” They encourage corporate leaders to join government leaders in promoting human rights, alleviating poverty and hunger; and fighting HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.41

832

A Global Ethic As we’ve seen, religion accounts for significant cultural differences and ethical conflicts. Nevertheless, members of different faiths also hold common values, according to the World Parliament of Religions. Led by Swiss theologian Hans Kung, 6,500 representatives from a wide range of religious traditions met and reached agreement on a global ethic.42 Delegates agreed on three universal principles. First, every person must be treated humanely regardless of language, skin color, mental ability, political beliefs, or national or social origin. Every person and group, no matter how powerful, must respect the dignity of others. Second, “what you wish done to yourself, do to others” (or the Golden Rule). Third, seek peace and justice. These foundational principles, in turn, lead to the following ethical directives or imperatives:

Commitment to a culture of nonviolence and respect for all life Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order (do not steal, deal fairly and honestly with others) Commitment to a culture of tolerance and truthfulness Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women (avoid immorality, respect and love members of both genders)

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Following World War II, a conflict fought in large part to protect human freedoms, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to this document, human rights are granted to individuals based solely on their status as persons or, to put it another way, “We are all entitled to human rights simply on the basis that we are human beings.”43 These rights protect the inherent dignity of every person regardless of race, ethnic background, place of residence, age, income, physical ability, or social status. Some of the key rights spelled out in the Universal Declaration include the following:44

833

Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile. Article 13. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence. Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Article 25. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself [or herself] and of his [or her] family. Article 26. Everyone has a right to an education.

More recently, the United Nations launched the Global Compact to encourage multinational corporations to honor human rights, labor rights, and the environment while at the same time fighting corruption. The Compact has more than 16,000 business and nonbusiness members from more than 130 countries. Business participants undergo an annual certification process to measure how well they are adhering to 10 universal principles (e.g., avoiding human rights abuse, eliminating child labor, working against extortion and bribery). They work with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other groups to tackle societal and environmental problems.45

The Caux Principles The Caux Round Table is made up of business executives from the United States, Japan, and Europe who meet periodically in Caux, Switzerland. Round Table members hope to set a world standard by which to judge business behavior. Their principles are based on twin ethical ideals. The first is the Japanese concept of kyosei, which refers to living and working together for the common good. The second is the Western notion of human dignity, the sacredness and value of each person as an end rather than as a means to someone else’s end.46

834

Principle 1. The responsibilities of corporations: Beyond shareholders toward stakeholders. Corporations have a responsibility to improve the lives of everyone they come in contact with, starting with employees, shareholders, and suppliers and then extending out to local, national, regional, and global communities. Principle 2. The economic and social impact of corporations: Toward innovation, justice, and world community. Companies in foreign countries should not only create jobs and wealth but also foster better social conditions—education, welfare, and human rights. Corporations have an obligation to enrich the world community through innovation, the wise use of resources, and fair competition. Principle 3. Corporate behavior: Beyond the letter of law toward a spirit of trust. Businesses ought to promote honesty, transparency, integrity, and keeping promises. These behaviors make it easier to conduct international business and to support a global economy. Principle 4. Respect for rules: Beyond trade friction toward cooperation. Leaders of international firms must respect both international and local laws in order to reduce trade wars and to promote the free flow of goods and services. Principle 5. Support for multilateral trade: Beyond isolation toward world community. Firms should support international trading systems and agreements and eliminate domestic measures that undermine free trade. Principle 6. Respect for the environment: Beyond protection toward enhancement. A corporation ought to protect and, if possible, improve the physical environment through sustainable development and cutting back on the wasteful use of natural resources. Principle 7. Avoidance of illicit operations: Beyond profit toward peace. Global business leaders must ensure that their organizations aren’t involved in such forbidden activities as bribery, money laundering, support of terrorism, drug trafficking, and organized crime.

After spelling out general principles, the Caux accord applies them to important stakeholder groups. Leaders following these standards hope to (a) treat customers and employees with dignity,

835

(b) honor the trust of investors, (c) create relationships with suppliers based on mutual trust, (d) engage in just behavior with competitors, and (e) work for reform and human rights in host communities. The Caux Round Table has also developed principles to guide NGOs and governments. Serving the public good is critical for these organizations. They need to operate transparently, practice open governance and be accountable.47

836

Making Ethical Choices in Culturally Diverse Settings The universal principles described above play an important role when we are faced with making ethical decisions involving more than one culture. According to business ethicists Thomas Donaldson and Thomas Dunfee, we need to hold fast to global principles while we take local values into account.48 Their integrative social contracts theory (ISCT) provides one set of guidelines for balancing respect for ethical diversity with adherence to universal ethical standards.

ISCT is based on the idea of social contracts—agreements that spell out the duties of institutions, communities, and societies. The theory is integrative because it incorporates two kinds of contracts: macrosocial and microsocial. Macrosocial contracts are broader and lay the foundation for how people interact with one another. Examples of ideal contracts include the requirement that the government protect its citizens and the belief that employers should respect the rights of workers. Microsocial contracts govern the relationships between the members of specific groups—local towns, regions, nations, companies, professions. These contracts are revealed by the norms of the group. For example, those who participate in auctions must adhere to the norms of the auction community, which include revealing whether participants have the means to back up their bids and not interfering with others who are making bids. Community contracts are considered authentic or binding if members of the group have a voice in the creation of the norms, if members can exit the group if they disagree with prevailing norms, and if the norms are widely recognized and practiced by group members. Under these standards, prohibitions against free speech in countries ruled by repressive regimes would not be authentic because citizens had no say in creating these rules and can’t leave the community if they want to do so.

Local communities have a great deal of latitude or moral free space to create their own rules, and these norms should be respected whenever possible. An Indonesian manager

837

participating in an Australian real estate auction should obey Australian auction norms, for instance, and nations have the right to publish the tax returns of their citizens (see Chapter 5). However, universal principles such as those described in the previous section (what Donaldson and Dunfee call hypernorms) take priority when global principles clash with community standards. Exploitation of workers through excessive hours, low pay, imprisonment, and sexual abuse might be the norm in some developing countries. But such practices should be rejected because they violate hypernorms that urge us to respect the dignity of other human beings and treat them fairly and humanely.

To make decisions following ISCT guidelines, follow these steps:

1. Identify all relevant stakeholders or communities. 2. Determine whether these communities are legitimate. (Do

they allow voice and exit by members?) 3. Identify authentic norms (those that are widely known and

shared). 4. Determine whether the norms are legitimate (do not conflict

with hypernorms). 5. Resolve any conflicts between legitimate norms. (If both sets

of norms do not conflict with universal standards, go with the option that is dominant—the one accepted by the larger community.)

University of Louisiana professors J. Brooke Hamilton, Stephen Knouse, and Vanessa Hill (HKH) offer another set of guidelines for making choices in ethically diverse contexts. They provide six questions specifically designed to help managers at multinational enterprises (MNEs) make moral choices when corporate values conflict with business practices in the host country.49 The questions described below, which make up the HKH model, are designed to serve as a discussion/decision guide, not as a rigid set of steps. Managers don’t have to come to a definite answer to one question before moving to another. They may return to earlier questions later and answer them differently.

1. What is the Questionable Practice (QP) in this situation?

838

In the initial stage of the HKH decision-making format, managers determine that the norms of the MNE clash with the norms of the local culture. At this point, the disparity is labeled as questionable because it may involve cultural differences rather than ethical issues. The key is to come to a clear understanding of the nature of the conflict.

2. Does the QP violate any laws that are enforced? If the QP violates laws of the home country (the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, for example, or European Union prohibitions against bribery) or the host country, it should be discontinued.

3. Is the QP simply a cultural difference, or is it also a potential ethics problem?

A QP reflects a cultural difference if it “does not cause harm and appears to be that culture’s legitimate way of achieving some worthwhile business or social outcome.” 50 It rises to the level of a potential ethical issue if it creates harm or violates a universal global principle like treating people with respect and practicing the Golden Rule.

4. Does the QP violate the firm’s core values or code of conduct, an industry-wide or international code to which the firm subscribes, or a firmly established hypernorm?

How managers answer this question will be determined by whether they believe that their companies are driven solely by the desire to comply with the law or if they believe their firms are committed to ethical integrity instead (see Chapter 10). Compliance-driven firms are more likely to conform to local rules because they are primarily interested in following the law; survival is the core value. Integrity-driven firms have a higher standard. Managers at these firms judge local practices based on whether they conform to important corporate values (customer service, treating employees fairly) and such international guidelines as the Caux Principles and the Global Compact.

5. Does the firm have leverage (something of value to offer) in the host country that allows the firm to follow its own practices rather than the QP?

839

Only managers at integrity-driven companies will ask this question, as managers at compliance-oriented firms will go along with local practices. If the firm can offer significant benefits like jobs, cash, training, and new technology, it can better resist the pressure to engage in unethical activity and can negotiate a way to adapt to local customs without violating its core values. For instance, a large Western oil firm that values equal treatment of both genders may be able to leverage its power in a traditionalist Middle Eastern country to promote women to positions of organizational authority.

6. Will market practices in the host country improve if the firm follows its own practices rather than the QP in the host country marketplace?

A company without leverage will have to conform to customs of the home country or exit the market. However, if the firm has such leverage, it has an obligation to try to improve conditions in the countries in which it operates. Modeling respect for individuals, honest business practices, and concern for the environment can encourage local firms and other MNEs to do the same and result in better living and working conditions and a healthier economy.

Communication expert Stella Ting-Toomey argues that we need to analyze multiple levels—interpersonal, community, organizational, societal—when faced with cross-cultural ethical dilemmas. This requires adopting a metaethics lens, a way of thinking focused on systematically gathering data and “taking the total person, the total situation, and the total cultural system into account.”51 Using a metaethics lens means developing creative solutions rather than limiting our decision to one of two options. This process deepens our understanding of both our own value system and the cultural perspective of the other party. Ting-Toomey offers the questions in Box 11.1 as guidelines for developing solutions in multicultural settings. You can practice your ability to make cross-cultural ethical choices by applying the steps of the ISCT and HKH models and the metaethics guidelines to the diversity scenarios in Case Study 11.3.

840

Box 11.1 Metaethics Guidelines

1. Who or which group perpetuates this practice within this culture and with what reasons?

2. Who or which group resists this practice and with what reasons? Who is benefiting? Who is suffering—voluntarily or involuntarily?

3. Does the practice cause unjustifiable suffering to an individual or a selected group of individuals at the pleasure of another group?

4. What is my role and what is my “voice” in this ethical dilemma? 5. Should I condemn/reject this practice publicly and withdraw

from the cultural scene? 6. Should I go along and find a solution that reconciles cultural

differences? 7. Can I visualize alterative solutions or creative outcomes that

can serve to honor cultural traditions and at the same time get rid of the intolerable cultural practice?

8. At what level can I implement this particular creative solution? Who are my allies? Who are my enemies?

9. Should I act as a change agent in the local cultural scene via grassroots movement efforts?

10. What systematic changes in the culture are needed for the creative solution to sustain itself and filter through the system?

Source: Ting-Toomey, S. (2011). Intercultural communication ethics: Multiple layered issues. In G. Cheney, S. May, & D. Munshi (Eds.), The handbook of communication ethics (pp. 335–352). New York, NY: Routledge, p. 349. Used by permission.

Implications and Applications

Acknowledging the dark side of globalization reduces the likelihood of ethical abuse on the world stage. As a leader in a global environment, you must take additional care to avoid casting shadows of power, privilege, mismanaged information, inconsistency, misplaced and broken loyalties, and irresponsibility. Cultural differences make ethical decisions more difficult. Nevertheless, resist the temptation to revert to your old ways of thinking or to blindly follow local customs. Try instead to expand your capacity to act ethically in multicultural situations. Understanding the relationship between cultural differences and ethical values can help you predict how members of another group will respond to moral questions.

841

Four popular cultural value classification systems are (1) the World Values Survey (survival vs. self-expression, traditional vs. secular-rational); (2) Hofstede’s programmed values (power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance); (3) the GLOBE cultural dimensions, which include Hofstede’s categories along with in- group collectivism, assertiveness, future orientation, performance orientation, and humane orientation; and (4) moral foundations theory (care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, purity/degradation). Be alert to the ethical blind spots created by your cultural values. Prejudice, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism are barriers to diversity and lead to moral abuses. You can avoid casting shadows if you commit yourself to mindfulness and human dignity and integrity. Four approaches to universal ethics include common morality, cosmopolitanism, a global ethic and the Caux principles. Common morality is founded on the premise that we want to protect both ourselves and those we care about. Cosmopolitanism acts as an ethics of strangers that encourages us to see ourselves as citizens of the world. A global ethic is based on treating people humanely, following the Golden Rule, and seeking peace and justice. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights establishes that all people regardless of location are granted certain rights by virtue of being human. The Caux principles emphasize working together for the common good and human dignity. To make ethical decisions in cross-cultural settings, take both local values and global principles into account. Follow community norms except when they conflict with universal moral standards. As a business leader, make the most of your company’s leverage in another country to improve local conditions. Adopt a metaethics lens which takes a multilayer approach to developing creative solutions.

For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment

1. Take Self-Assessment 11.1. How individualistic or collectivistic are you and why? How does your orientation shape your behavior and ethical decision making?

2. Complete Self-Assessment 11.2. How do your core values influence your perspective on ethical issues? (Supply examples.) How you can use this information to reach a

842

common understanding with others of different political or cultural backgrounds? Write up your reflections.

3. Form groups and debate the following proposition: Globalization has done more harm than good. As an alternative, discuss ways to reduce the costs of globalization.

4. Pair off and brainstorm a list of the advantages and disadvantages of ethical diversity. What conclusions do you draw from your list?

5. Using the Internet, compare press coverage of an international ethical issue from a variety of countries. How does the coverage differ and why? Write up your findings.

6. Rate yourself on one of the cultural classification systems described in this chapter. Create a value profile of your community, organization, or university. How well do you fit in?

7. Write a response to the following: Is there a common morality that peoples of all nations can share? Which of the global approaches described in the chapter best reflects these shared standards and values? If you were to create your own declaration of global ethics, what would you put on it?

8. In a group, apply one of the formats for making a cross-cultural ethical decision to a scenario in Case Study 11.3. Record your responses to each step of the format, as well as your final decision, on a board, post up sheet, or on a PowerPoint slide. Report out to the rest of class. As an alternative, apply one of the universal standards to reach a decision.

Student Study Site

Visit the student study site at https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE journal articles for further research and information on key chapter topics.

https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

843

Case Study 11.1 Africa: The Second Chinese Continent? China is Africa’s new patron. By 2025, the Chinese will have invested a trillion dollars in the continent, much of this money going for bridges, railroads, ports, hydroelectric dams, and other infrastructure projects. China financed Ethiopia’s Addis Ababa–Djibouti railway connecting the nation’s capital to the Indian ocean, for example, as well as a major highway across Algeria and a new bridge in Angola. It has plans to convert a small Tanzanian coastal town into a mega-port and economic zone. Chinese investors are underwriting the development of Egypt’s new capital.

Both sides benefit from China’s partnership with Africa. Poor countries (which find it hard to borrow from Western sources) get an economic boost from highways, rail lines, dams and other projects that hire local workers and make it easier to manufacture and ship products. Unemployment rates go down and the standard of living increases. Chinese investment also generates “spillover effects” through technology transfer and improving the skills and managerial experience of Africans. China benefits by securing access to natural resources (metals, oils) and agricultural commodities. China’s investment creates business for Chinese companies who manage the construction projects as well as employment opportunities for Chinese workers. African nations also support China’s diplomatic efforts.

While the immediate benefits of China’s investment in Africa are clear, there are concerns about the long-term impact of Chinese influence on the continent. Some accuse China of being modern-day colonialists. According to Forbes columnist Panos Mourdoukoutas,

The reason Chinese corporations are in Africa is simple; to exploit the people and take their resources. It’s the same thing European colonists did during mercantile times, except worse. The Chinese corporations are trying to turn Africa into another Chinese continent. They are squeezing Africa for everything it is worth.1

Others worry that poor African nations will be unable to pay back Chinese loans, many of which were secretly negotiated with corrupt governments. If they are unable to repay, countries may be forced to make concessions.

844

Sri Lanka, for example, granted China a 99-year lease to one of its ports after it couldn’t meet its debt obligations.

Fears of Chinese “neo-colonialism” are fanned by racism and discrimination. Kenyans have been particularly vocal about being treated as second-class citizens in their own country. According to one Kenyan overseeing an office park housing several Chinese companies, “They are the ones with the capital, but as much as we want their money, we don’t want them to treat us like we are not human in our own country.”2 Kenyan authorities closed a Chinese restaurant after it banned blacks after 5 p.m. A manager at a Chinese motorcycle company was deported after calling Kenyans, including president Uhuru Kenyatta, “monkeys.” “I don’t like here, like monkey people,” he said on a video posted on Twitter. “I don’t like talk with them, it smells bad, and poor and foolish, and black.”3 (Company officials condemned his comments and forced him to apologize.) Chinese expatriates keep largely to themselves, living separately from their African hosts and traveling together to work sites.

Press reports cite examples of blacks-only office bathrooms in Chinese company headquarters in Kenya and of Kenyans being the targets of demeaning treatment. In one case, a Chinese supervisor slapped her Kenyan colleague. In another, a Chinese manager ordered Kenyan workers to unplug a urinal full of cigarette butts even though only Chinese employees smoked indoors. The most visible Chinese funded project, the Nairobi to Mombasa railroad, has been a lightning rod for complaints. Kenyans point out that only Chinese drivers get to operate the trains and hold most of the skilled positions. Kenyan railroad employees get paid less than their Chinese counterparts and have also been the targets of comments comparing them to monkeys.

Chinese leaders, for their part, deny that they are out to subjugate Africa. According to premier Li Kequiang, “China will not follow the beaten track of colonialism of other countries or allow the re-emergence of colonialism in Africa.”4 China’s Kenyan ambassador declared, “There is no debt trap with Africa.”5 As for charges of racism, an embassy official claimed that Chinese nationals are encouraged to make “positive contributions” to China–Kenya relations.

845

Discussion Probes 1. What global shadows are Chinese leaders casting (or are in danger

of casting) in Africa? 2. Who benefits most from China’s investment in Africa? Or is this an

equal partnership? 3. Do you think China is acting like a new colonial power, turning Africa

into a second Chinese continent? 4. What steps can the Chinese take to reduce discrimination and bias

against Africans? 5. What steps can the Africans take to prevent being treated as

second-class citizens by the Chinese?

846

Notes 1. Mourdoukoutas, P. (2018, August 4). What is China doing in Africa? Forbes.

2. Goldstein, J. (2018, October 15). Chinese bring jobs, and bias, Kenyans find. The New York Times.

3. McConnell, T. (2018, September 6). Chinese man arrested after calling Kenya’s president a “monkey.” Agence France-Presse.

4. Wu, Y., & Bai, Z. (2017, March 21). Plunder or mutual gain? On the ever-growing scale of China’s investment in infrastructure in Africa. International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development.

5. Peralta, E. (2018, October 8). A new Chinese-funded railway in Kenya sparks debt-trap fears. NPR.

847

Sources Burgman, P. R., Jr. (2015, January 29). China: Embracing Africa, but not Africans. The Diplomat.

Okoth, J. (2018, October 12). Kenya: China, Kenya relations and the question of racial discrimination. The Conversation.

Sun, Y. (2014, February 7). China’s aid to Africa: Monster or Messiah? Brookings.

Top ten: Africa Infrastructure projects in 2018. The Business Year.

848

Case Study 11.2 Female Circumcision Comes to America Few cultural traditions generate as much revulsion as female genital mutilation (FGM). Also referred to as female cutting or female circumcision, FGM can range from minor cutting and scraping of the female genitals to their removal. The practice is most common in Africa, the Middle East, and south Asia. An estimated 200 million women have undergone FGM, with the number expected to increase significantly in the next few years due to population growth. Critics call the procedure a barbaric, horrible crime against girls. FGM often causes emotional and physical trauma in its young victims while reducing the sexual pleasure women experience over the course of their lifetimes. More invasive procedures can cause complications during pregnancy and birth. A number of women who underwent the procedure as young girls are describing their experiences in order to help end the practice. Said one, “To me it’s very much like a rape survivor. If you don’t say anything, then how are you going to expose it and bring awareness?”1 The United Nations and World Health Organization describe FGM as a violation of human rights that produces no health benefits.

While much of the world condemns FGM, other segments vehemently defend it. Defenders claim that female circumcision is an integral part of their religious and cultural tradition, highlighting its importance in maintaining sexual purity. They compare the procedure to male circumcision and believe that it improves feminine hygiene. Smaller cuts, supporters assert, don’t harm the long-term health of girls and young women. Attempts to ban the practice can provoke a strong response from advocates. For example, members of a British FGM community speaking out against the procedure in a documentary received death threats on social media.

A Michigan court case alerted Americans to the fact that female circumcision is not just practiced overseas but also takes place in the United States. Prosecutors charged eight members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect in Michigan with violating a 1996 federal statute banning FGM. The Dawoodi Bohras are a Muslim group, numbering 1.2 million, based in western India. Their version of FGM, called “khatna,” involves cutting or scraping of the genital area as an act of religious purity designed to prevent sexual promiscuity. In the Michigan case, two mothers from Minnesota brought their 7-year-old daughters to a clinic in Livonia, Michigan, where a physician performed the procedure. In court, lawyers for the Bohras argued that khatna was a protected religious practice and

849

that it was not mutilation but only a “ritual nick.” They also challenged the constitutionality of the federal law, which is based on Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce. For their part, prosecutors argued that Congress had the authority to ban FGM and to enforce international treaties that outlaw female circumcision.

The judge in the Michigan case sided with the Bohras. He decried FGM as “despicable” but ruled that Congress did not have the power to regulate FGM based on its jurisdiction over interstate commerce. Instead, he declared that FGM is a “local criminal activity” that should be regulated by the states.

FGM opponents were shocked by the ruling. They note that, in the Michigan case, mothers traveled from one of the 27 states that ban the practice to one of the 23 that haven’t. Unless the federal government passes a new law that passes court tests or all states ban FGM, women will continue to take their daughters and granddaughters across state lines to undergo circumcision. Opponents also worry that the decision might encourage further mutilation worldwide, particularly since the United States is looked to as an international leader. According to Mariya Taher, a co-founder of Sahiyo, a Dawoodi Bohra group that wants to ban cutting,

Is this something that proponents will use as a reason to say that “what we do isn’t harmful” almost giving them permission to do this? The U.S. is looked to as a leader, so this could definitely have repercussions globally.2

Some Bohra leaders urge their congregations to obey local laws. However, after three Australian Bohras were convicted of cutting, the group’s highest leader gave a speech declaring that followers should continue their customs despite Western opposition. Bohras living in the West are likely to circumcise girls until he says otherwise. A Canadian child protection lawyer who left the sect described the pressure to practice khatna this way: “It’s so ingrained in culture. They unquestionably do it to be part of the community. If you openly declare you won’t do it, the backlash is considerable and many just won’t do business with you.”3 And Bohras aren’t the only immigrant group to practice female circumcision. Public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believe that over a half million women and girls were at risk for the procedure in the United States in 2012. They expected this number to rise as immigrants from FGM practicing countries come to the United States.

850

Discussion Probes 1. Why do you think the practice of FGM is so hard to eliminate? 2. Can you think of other harmful cultural practices that persist

because of tradition? 3. Do laws banning female circumcision violate religious freedom? 4. What, if any, other human rights are more important than religious

freedom? 5. How do you decide when a different cultural practice is

unacceptable? On what do you base your decision? 6. Does your state have a law against FGM? What would it take to

pass such legislation?

851

Notes 1. Belluck, P. (2017, June 10). Michigan case adds U.S. dimension to debate on genital mutilation. The New York Times.

2. Belluck, P. (2018, November 22). Judge says federal ban on female genital mutilation is unconstitutional. The New York Times, p. A20.

3. Baweja, H. (2016, February 29). India’s dark secret: Female genital mutilation. Hindustan Times.

852

Sources Associated Press. (2018, November 23). Shock after ban on genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional. New York Post.

Baldas, T. (2018, November 20). Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case. Detroit Free Press.

Ceuvas, M. (2017, April 24). Michigan doctors charged in first federal genital mutilation case in US. CNN.

Davis, A. (2013, November 14). “I hope you die painfully”: Vile abuse aimed at anti-FGM women. Evening Standard.

Goldberg, H., Stupp, P., Okoroh, E., Besera, G., Goodman, D., & Danel, I. (2016, March/April).Female genital mutilation/cutting in the United States: Updated estimates of women and girls at risk, 2012. Public Health Reports, 131, 1–8.

Johari, A. (2017, May 19). Why do Dawoodi Bohras practice khatna, or female genital cutting? Sahiyo.

Meizler, E. (2018, November 21). Federal judge rules U.S. ban on female genital mutilation is unconstitutional. Time.

Muneeza, N. (2016, August 3). Dawoodi Bohra Muslim sect in Mumbai allows female circumcision. IndiaWest.

Rautray, S. (2018, July 18). Ban female circumcision, centre tells Apex Court. The Economic Times (India).

853

Case Study 11.3 Ethical Diversity Scenarios

854

Scenario A: Containing the Epidemic You are an international infectious disease expert called in to head a team battling a deadly flu outbreak in a developing country. The disease, named Bat Flu because it originated in fruit bats before being transmitted to humans, produces a high fever and leads to respiratory failure. Death rates range from 25% to 50%. There is currently no cure though you and your team are scrambling to develop one.

Victims spread the Bat Flu virus through droplets formed when they talk, sneeze, or cough. This type of influenza is highly contagious and is best contained by isolating victims from their friends and family and quarantining areas where they live. At this point, the outbreak is largely limited to a cluster of rural villages and one of the poor neighborhoods in the capital city. You recognize that quarantining these areas will mean that the poorest citizens in this, an impoverished region of the world, will be unable to get to their jobs, purchase or sell food at the local market, visit relatives, and so on. Banning all public gatherings is an additional precaution that can halt the spread of the disease. However, forbidding funerals would violate local cultural traditions that call for elaborate public burial ceremonies to ensure that the dead will be united with their ancestors.

In order to contain the Bat Flu outbreak, will you urge the national government to isolate victims, impose quarantines, and ban public gatherings?

855

Scenario B: Trouble at the International Branch Campus You are the president of a well-known public university in the United States. Several years ago, you established a branch campus in a wealthy Middle Eastern country with significant financial support from that nation’s royal family. Young people in this country are anxious to earn a Western- style education (the world’s “gold standard”), which has provided your school with an additional revenue stream. Your domestic students get a true global experience by living and studying abroad and the arrangement raises the profile of the college. However, opening this campus was controversial. Critics and some supporters of the project were troubled by the ethics of associating your institution, which values academic freedom and free speech, with a repressive regime that imprisons and tortures dissidents and enforces Islamic law. (You had concerns as well.) Opponents also objected to the treatment of contract laborers constructing and maintaining the campus buildings. Many come from Asia and often work and live under brutal conditions. Sometimes they pay high recruitment fees to get their jobs, don’t receive their wages, and are beaten and deported when they complain. To deal with these ethical concerns, you received assurance from the nation’s rulers that the branch campus would operate in a “free zone” where strict censorship rules would be suspended and academic freedom protected. The monarchy also agreed to your demand that working conditions meet your university’s labor standards.

Recent events have put the status of these agreements in doubt. The journalism and Middle Eastern studies departments voted to discontinue their programs at the branch campus after faculty were denied entry visas because they criticized the monarchy or were Shia Moslems. (This nation is overwhelmingly Sunni Moslem.) A report found that, although there was progress on labor rights, one third of those who built or currently operate the campus had their passports confiscated and did not receive reimbursement for their recruitment fees. Student activists on campus and human rights groups are protesting these labor violations.

What action will you take in light of these recent developments?

Sources

Kaminer, A., & O’Driscoll, S. (2014, May 18). Workers at NYU’s Abu Dhabi site faced harsh conditions. The New York Times.

Schlanger, Z. (2015, January 19). New York University: A case study in what not to do. NYTimes.com

856

Reichman, H. (2017, November 5). NYU department ends ties with NYU Abu Dhabi. Academe Blog; Forced labor at NYU Abu Dhabi. Retrieved from https://www.forcedlaboratnyuad.org/

Hayhurst, K. (2018, August 25). Risk of forced labor at Abu Dhabi remains, contradicting NYU. Washington Square News.

https://www.forcedlaboratnyuad.org/

857

Scenario C: Petty Theft Policy You are a consultant hired by a large North American company to help it devise a new policy for handling criminal violations in its foreign operations. In the past, the firm reported crimes to local police, believing it was best to let local officials handle theft and other violations rather than to impose a system of justice from the home office. However, the firm is rethinking its procedures after a recent case of petty theft in Asia. The country’s North American managing director told police that she suspected an employee was stealing small amounts of company property of minimal value. Local law enforcement officers arrested the employee and took him to the police station where he was interrogated using local procedures. The worker confessed. The police then took the employee outside and shot him dead. The country manager was devastated by this turn of events.

What changes would you suggest in how the company handles criminal violations in other cultures? Who should be involved in developing and implementing the new policy?

Source: Adapted from Adler. N., & Gundersen, A. (2008). International dimensions of organizational behavior (5th ed.) Mason, OH: Thomson/Southwest, p. 150. Used by permission.

858

Scenario D: Reducing the Workload You manage overseas manufacturing for a European technology firm. Your company wants to increase its share of the smartphone market. To do so, your phone will need to be significantly cheaper than iPhones and other current devices. Reducing manufacturing costs is key to keeping the cost of your phone low. There have been press reports of workers being driven to suicide at plants operated by subcontractors in Viet Nam and the Philippines that assemble your product. You investigate and find that pay and working conditions, while certainly well below European standards, are comparable to other manufacturing facilities in these areas. The major problem is overwork, as employees labor 12 hour days for weeks on end to meet their quotas. Profit margins for your subcontractors are already razor thin. Requiring them to reduce working hours and production quotas might put some of them out of business, leaving current workers unemployed and forcing your firm into more costly contracts with other suppliers. Your company could absorb some of the additional costs of reduced workloads by shrinking its profit margins or by raising the price of its phones. In the meantime, public pressure is building on your company to reduce work requirements at these facilities.

How will you respond to demands that your company reduce the workload in its overseas assembly plants?

859

Scenario E: The Exiled President You are a diplomat in a small Central American country. For years, your home government has pushed for the development of stable democracies in Central America, hoping to end the military coups that once were common in the region. The latest democratically elected president in your host state came to office with a commitment to the poor. Within weeks of assuming the presidency, he threatened to nationalize the local holdings of several of your home nation’s multinational corporations. He condemned your government, and those of several other Western countries, for engaging in “capitalist imperialism.” The president’s leftist policies angered local business interests, and they soon drove him into exile with the help of the army. Military officers installed a new president who promised to be friendlier toward your nation. However, the new president has yet to set a timeline for holding elections. In the meantime, the exiled president, who still enjoys widespread support among the poor and working classes, wants to return to office. He has asked for help from the international community.

Would you recommend that your government support the deposed president’s efforts to return to office? If so, what steps should it take?

SELF-ASSESSMENT 11.1 Individualism/Collectivism Scale

Instructions: This questionnaire will help you assess your individualistic and collectivistic tendencies. Respond by indicating the degree to which the values reflected in each phrase are important to you: 1 = opposed to my values, 2 = not important to me, 3 = somewhat important to me, 4 = important to me, or 5 = very important to me.

______ 1. Obtaining pleasure or sensuous gratification ______ 2. Preserving the welfare of others ______ 3. Being successful by demonstrating my individual competency ______ 4. Restraining my behavior if it is going to harm others ______ 5. Being independent in thought and action ______ 6. Having safety and stability with people with whom I identify ______ 7. Obtaining status and prestige ______ 8. Having harmony in my relations with others ______ 9. Having an exciting and challenging life ______ 10. Accepting cultural and religious traditions ______ 11. Being recognized for my individual work

860

______ 12. Avoiding the violation of social norms ______ 13. Leading a comfortable life ______ 14. Living in a stable society ______ 15. Being logical in my approach to work ______ 16. Being polite to others ______ 17. Being ambitious ______ 18. Being self-controlled ______ 19. Being able to choose what I do ______ 20. Enhancing the welfare of others

Scoring: To find your individualism score, add your responses to the odd-numbered items. To find your collectivism score, add your responses to the even-numbered items. Both scores will range from 10 to 50. The higher your scores, the more individualistic and/or collectivistic you are.

Source: Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Used with permission.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 11.2 Moral Foundations Questionnaire

861

Part I Moral Relevance When you decide whether something is right or wrong, to what extent are the following considerations relevant to your thinking? Please rate each statement using this scale: 0 = not at all relevant, 1 = not very relevant, 2 = slightly relevant, 3 = somewhat relevant, 4 = very relevant, 5 = extremely relevant.

1. Whether or not someone suffered emotionally 2. Whether or not someone cared for someone weak or

vulnerable 3. Whether or not some people were treated differently from

others 4. Whether or not someone acted unfairly 5. Whether or not someone’s action showed love for his or her

country 6. Whether or not someone did something to betray his or her

group 7. Whether or not someone showed a lack of respect for authority 8. Whether or not someone conformed to the traditions of society 9. Whether or not someone violated standards of purity and

decency 10. Whether or not someone did something disgusting

862

Part II Moral Judgments Please read the following sentences and indicate your agreement or disagreement. 0 = strongly disagree, 1 = moderately disagree, 2 = slightly disagree, 3 = slightly agree, 4 = moderately agree, 5 = strongly agree.

11. Compassion for those who are suffering is the most crucial virtue. 12. One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal. 13. When the government makes laws, the number one principle should be ensuring that everyone is treated fairly. 14. Justice is the most important requirement for a society. 15. I am proud of my country’s history. 16. People should be loyal to their family members, even when they have done something wrong. 17. Respect for authority is something all children need to learn. 18. Men and women each have different roles to play in society. 19. People should not do things that are disgusting, even if no one is harmed. 20. I would call some acts wrong on the grounds that they are unnatural.

Scoring: Add up the scores on each moral foundation (range 0–20). The higher the score, the more important that foundation is to you.

Care: Items 1, 2, 11, 12 ______ Fairness: Items 3, 4, 13, 14 ______ In-group/Loyalty: Items 5, 6, 15, 16 ______ Authority: Items 7, 8, 17, 18 ______ Purity: Items 9, 10, 19, 20 ______

Source: Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385. Used with permission.

863

Notes 1. Frey, W. H. (2018, March 14). The US will become “minority white” in 2015, Census projects. Brookings; New projections point to a majority minority nation in 2044. Brookings; Nittle, N. K. (2018, March 12). Which states have the highest majority minority populations? ThoughtCo.

2. Bremmer, I. (2018). Us vs. them: The failure of globalization. New York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin; Muzaffar, C. (2002). Conclusion. In P. F. Knitter & C. Muzaffar (Eds.), Subverting greed: Religious perspectives on the global economy (pp. 154–172). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

3. Gloy, B., & Widmar, D. (2018, April 9). Tariffs impact price and supply & demand, ag economists say. Successful Farming.

4. Kristof, N. D. (2010, June 27). Death by gadget. The New York Times, p. WK11; Wyatt, E. (2012, March 20). Behind the blood money. The New York Times, p. B1.

5. Myers, J. (2016, October 19). How do the world’s biggest companies compare to the biggest economies? World Economic Forum.

6. Meredith, S. (2018, January 22). Inequality gap widens as “world’s richest 1% get 82% of the wealth,” Oxfam says. CNBC; Phillips, P. (2018, September 30). Global wealth concentration: The global power elite drive Amazon share value to a trillion dollars. Global Research; Savola, A. (2017, December 14). Global inequality is on the rise—but at vastly different rates across the world. The Conversation.

7.Understanding poverty. (2018, September 24). The World Bank.

8. Lombardo, C. (2017, April 3). How many people die from malnutrition each year? Vision Launch; Five countries with lowest life expectancy in the world. (2018, April). The Borgen Project.

864

9. Bremmer; Muzaffar.

10. Weise, E. (2017, November 1). Russian fake accounts showed posts to 126 million Facebook users. USA Today.

11.Don’t push it: Why the formula milk industry must clean up its act. (2018). Save the Children Fund.

12. Karim, A. (2000, June 23). Globalization, ethics, and AIDS vaccines. Science, 21–29.

13. Sickles, J. (2014, September 8). Ebola evacuation to US greater than previously known. Yahoo News.

14. Solomon, C. M. (2001). Put your ethics to a global test. In M. H. Albrecht (Ed.), International HRM: Managing diversity in the workplace (pp. 329–335). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

15.Urge Monster to investigate slavery risk in its drinks. (2018). Freedom United.

16. Mirza, J. (2018, November 26). Future imperiled: Govt stops fee payment of child labourers sent to school. The Express Tribune (Pakistan).

17. Greenhouse, S. (2013, November 23). U.S. retailers decline to aid factory victims in Bangladesh. The New York Times, p. B1.

18. Rogers, E. M., & Steinfatt, T. M. (1999). Intercultural communication. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, p. 79.

19. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51; Inglehart, R., & Oyseman, D. (2004). Individualism, autonomy self-expression: The human development syndrome. In H. Vincken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 74–96). Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill; Inglehart, R. (2018). Cultural evolution: People’s motivations are changing, and reshaping the world. Cambridge, England:

865

Cambridge University Press; World Values Survey. Retrieved from www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs

20. Inglehart (2018), p. 1.

21. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, England: McGraw- Hill. For a more recent review of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, see Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 405–439.

22. Hofstede, G. (2001). Difference and danger: Cultural profiles of nations and limits to tolerance. In M. H. Albrecht (Ed.), International HRM: Managing diversity in the workplace (pp. 9– 23). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

23. Chan, A. W. H., & Cheung, H. Y. (2012). Cultural dimensions, ethical sensitivity, and corporate governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 45–59; Clements, C. E., Neill, J. D., & Stovall, O. S. (2009). The impact of cultural differences on the convergence of international accounting codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 383–391; Davis, J. H., & Ruhe, J. A. (2003). Perceptions of country corruption: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 275–288; Franke, G. R., & Nadler, S. S. (2008). Culture, economic development, and national ethical attitudes. Journal of Business Research, 61, 254–264; Husted, B. W. (1999). Wealth, culture and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 339–359; Vitell, S. J., Nwachukwu, S. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1993). The effects of culture on ethical decision- making: An application of Hofstede’s typology. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 753–760; Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. (2008). The effect of culture on consumers’ willingness to punish irresponsible corporate behaviour: Applying Hofstede’s typology to the punishment aspect of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17, 210–226.

24. Carroll, S. J., & Gannon, M. J. (1997). Ethical dimensions of management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Husted, B. W., & Allen,

http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs

866

D. B. (2008). Toward a model of cross-cultural business ethics: The impact of individualism and collectivism on the ethical decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 293– 305.

25. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Ralston, D. A. et al. (2014). Societal level versus individual-level predictions of ethical behavior: A 48-society study of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 283–306.

26. Bertsch, A. M. (2012). Validating GLOBE’s societal values scales: A test in the U.S.A. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3, 10–23; Budde-Sung, A. (2013). The invisible meets the intangible: Culture’s impact on intellectual property protection. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 345-359; Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (Eds.). (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 289–305.

27. Quigley, N. R., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2005). Responsible leadership and governance in a global context: Insights from the GLOBE study. In J. P. Doh & S. A. Sumpf (Eds.), Handbook on responsible leadership and governance in global business (pp. 352–379). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

28. Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. U., Ruiz- Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W. (1999). Culture-specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219–257.

29. Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 345–359.

867

30. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koelva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2002). Moral Foundations Theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130; Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books; Haidt, J. (2013). Moral psychology for the twenty-first century. Journal of Moral Education, 42, 281–297.

31. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116; Federico, C. M., Weber, C. R., Ergun, D., & Hunt, C. (2013). Mapping the connections between politics and morality: The multiple sociopolitical orientations involved in moral intuition. Political Psychology, 34, 589–610; Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2013). How words do the work of politics: Moral foundations theory and the debate over stem cell research. The Journal of Politics 75, 659– 671; Dickinson, J. L., McLeod, P., Bloomfield, R., & Shoma, A. (2016). Which moral foundations predict willingness to make lifestyle changes to avert climate change in the USA? PLOS ONE, 11; Graham, J., Haidt, J., Motyl, M., Meindl, P., Iskiwitch, C., & Mooijman, M. (2018). Moral foundations theory: On the advantages of moral pluralism over moral monism. In K. Gray & J. Graham (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 211–222). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

32. Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How the five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.

33. Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford, England: Blackwell; Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (vol. 2, pp. 357–411). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill; Fiske, S. T. (2018). How can universal stereotypes be immoral? In K. J. Grant & J. Graham (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 201–208). New York: Guilford Press.

868

34. Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1997). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

35. Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley; Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

36. Talbot, M. (1999). Against relativism. In J. M. Halstead & T. H. McLaughlin (Eds.), Education in morality (pp. 206–217). London, England: Routledge.

37. Gert, B. (2004). Common morality: Deciding what to do. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

38. Gert, p. 5.

39. Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York, NY: Norton; Delanty, G. (2012). Introduction: The emerging field of cosmopolitanism studies. In G. Delanty (Ed.), International handbook of cosmopolitan studies (pp. 1–8). Hoboken, NJ: Routledge; Fine, R., & Boon, V. (2007). Introduction: Cosmopolitanism: Between past and future. European Journal of Social Theory, 10, 5–16; Hill, L. (2015). Classical stoicism and the birth of a global ethics: Cosmopolitan duties in a world of local loyalties. Social Alternatives, 34(1), 14– 18; Maak, T. (2009). The cosmopolitical corporation. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 361–372; Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2009). Business leaders as citizens of the world: Advancing humanism on a global scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 537–550; Smith, W. (2007). Cosmopolitan citizenship: Virtue, irony and worldliness. European Journal of Social Theory, 10, 37–52; Van Hoot, S. (2009). Cosmopolitanism: A philosophy for global ethics. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

40. Pogge, T. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics 103(1), 48–75, p. 48.

869

41. Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2009). Responsible leaders as agents of world benefit: Learnings from “Project Ulysses.” Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 59–71; Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329–343.

42. Toward a global ethic: An international declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions. (n.d.). Retrieved from ParliamentOfReligions.org; Kung, H., & Schmidt, H. (1998). A global ethic and global responsibilities: Two declarations. Munich, Germany: SCM Press.

43. James, S. A. (2007). Universal human rights: Origins and development. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publications, p. 2.

44. United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration- human-rights/

45. UN Global Compact. Retrieved from https://www.unglobalcompact.org

46. Principles for business. Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism. Retrieved from https://www.cauxroundtable.org/; Carroll, A. B. (2013). Caux Round Table principles. In S. O. Idowu, N. Capaldi, L. Zu, & A. Das Gupta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. New York, NY: Springer.

47. Caux Round Table. (2006). Principles for non-governmental organizations; Principles for governments. Caux Roundtable for Moral Capitalism. Retrieved from https://www.cauxroundtable.org/

48. Donaldson, T. (2009). Compass and dead reckoning: The dynamic implications of ISCT. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 659 –664; Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252–284; Donaldson, T., & Dunfee T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

https://www.unglobalcompact.org/

https://www.cauxroundtable.org/

870

49. Hamilton, J. B., Knouse, S. B., & Hill, V. (2009). Google in China: A manager-friendly heuristic model for resolving cross- cultural ethical conflicts. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 143–157. See also Hamilton, J. B., & Knouse, S. B. (2001). Multinational enterprise decision principles for dealing with cross cultural ethical conflicts. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 77–94.

50. Hamilton et al., p. 149.

51. Ting-Toomey, S. (2011). Intercultural communication ethics: Multiple layered issues. In G. Cheney, S. May, & D. Munshi (Eds.), The handbook of communication ethics (pp. 135–147). New York, NY: Routledge.

871

872

12 Ethical Crisis Leadership

873

Learning Objectives > Review the characteristics of crises. > Summarize the leader’s responsibilities in each of the three stages of a crisis. > Explain why responsibility is the foundation of ethical crisis leadership. > Define transparency. > List the unique features of heroic leadership. > Defend the importance of engaging both the heart and the head when dealing with crisis. > Describe the role of resilience in recovering from a crisis. > Outline the key components of ethical leadership in extreme contexts.

Crises are moments of moral imperative.

—CRISIS MANAGEMENT EXPERTS TIMOTHY SELLNOW AND MATTHEW SEEGER

Every crisis demands a hero.

—SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGIST ZENO FRANCO

874

What’s Ahead This chapter examines ethical leadership in crisis situations. Crises are major unexpected events that pose significant threats to groups and organizations. They pass through three stages: precrisis, crisis event, and postcrisis. Ethical leaders have a series of tasks to carry out during each phase. Seven ethical principles and strategies are essential to fulfilling these moral duties: assume broad responsibility, practice transparency, demonstrate care and concern, take decisive (heroic) action, engage the head as well as the heart, improvise from a strong moral foundation, and build resilience. The chapter concludes with a look at the ethical demands of extreme leadership.

Managing a crisis is the ultimate test of ethical leadership. Bankruptcies, hurricanes, wildfires, tornados, landslides, political scandals, industrial accidents, mass shootings, food-borne illnesses, oil spills, fraud, computer data theft, terrorist attacks, and other crisis events bring out the worst or the best in leaders. Decisions must be made quickly under the glare of media scrutiny. Manufacturing plants, office buildings, planes, homes, jobs, and lives may have been lost. Entire organizations, groups, societies, and economic and political systems might be at risk. As we’ve seen throughout this text, leaders often fail to meet the ethical challenges posed by crises. At Nike, HBOS, McKinsey Company, and the Environmental Protection Agency, leaders sparked crises through their unethical behavior. At Hollywood, Michigan State, and USA Gymnastics, leaders made crises worse by failing to hold to widely held moral standards and values in response to sexual abuse. On the other hand, we have also seen how other leaders, like Malala Yousafzai, Rachel Carson, the Thai cave rescuers, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the Parkland teens coped effectively with crisis events. Their values became clearer; their moral commitments became greater.

This chapter introduces the ethical challenges posed by leadership in crisis, building on the foundation laid in earlier

875

chapters. To ethically manage crisis events, you will need to draw upon concepts we have discussed previously—values, moral reasoning, normative leadership theories, ethical decision-making formats, ethical communication skills, influence tools, and ethical perspectives, to name a few. However, you will also need to understand the characteristics of crisis as well as the elements of ethical crisis management. The first section of this chapter provides an overview of the nature and stages of crises. It identifies important leadership tasks that must be carried out in each crisis phase. The second section identifies principles and strategies that equip leaders to ethically carry out these responsibilities. The third section highlights the challenges facing ethical leaders in high-risk settings.

876

Crisis: An Overview A crisis is any major unanticipated event that poses a significant threat. Such events are rare (making them difficult to prepare for); they generate a good deal of uncertainty (their causes and effects are unclear) and are hard to resolve (there is no set formula for determining how to act). Further, decisions about how to deal with a particular crisis must be made rapidly, and those outside the immediate group—customers, clients, suppliers, and neighbors— are also affected.1

The stress and anxiety generated by crises make them particularly hard to manage in an ethical manner. Stress interferes with cognitive abilities. Individuals tend to narrow their focus to just a few perspectives and alternatives. They often perceive the world less accurately and ignore important information. At the organizational level, stress prompts groups to delegate decision- making authority to a small team of top officials, limiting access to diverse viewpoints. Time limits also prevent talking to a variety of stakeholders. All of these factors subvert ethical reasoning and creative problem solving while increasing the likelihood that the needs of some stakeholders will be overlooked.2

Investigators divide crises into different types. These types can help leaders better prepare for, and respond to, crisis events. Groups and organizations will be more vulnerable to some types of crises than others. Manufacturers have to be highly concerned about product safety; coastal communities have to be ready for ocean storms. When disaster strikes, the nature of the crisis will also help to determine the course of action. Responding to the disruption of a work stoppage requires one set of strategies, while responding to a computer security breach demands another.

Crisis management experts Matthew Seeger, Timothy Sellnow, and Robert Ulmer identify ten types of crises:3

1. Public perception: negative stories about the organization’s products, personnel, or services; negative rumors, blogs,

877

social media posts, and websites 2. Natural disasters: tornadoes, hurricanes, mudslides, wildfires,

blizzards, earthquakes, volcano eruptions 3. Product or service: product recalls, food-borne illnesses,

concern about products and services generated by the media 4. Terrorist attacks: bombings, hijackings, abductions,

poisonings 5. Economic: cash shortages, bankruptcies, hostile takeovers,

accounting scandals 6. Human resource: workplace violence, strikes, labor unrest,

discrimination, sexual harassment, school and workplace shootings, theft, fraud

7. Industrial: mine collapses, nuclear accidents, fires, explosions 8. Oil and chemical spills: tanker and railway spills, pipeline and

well leaks 9. Transportation: train derailments, plane crashes, truck

accidents, multivehicle pileups 10. Outside environment: collapse of financial systems, rising fuel

prices, deregulation, nationalization of private companies, mortgage crisis

Ian Mitroff, crisis consultant and former director of the Center for Crisis Management at the University of Southern California, offers an alternative typology based on the intentions of those involved in the crisis event.4 He notes that there has been a sharp rise in what he labels abnormal accidents—deliberate acts that are intentionally designed to disrupt or destroy systems. He contrasts abnormal accidents with normal accidents, those unintentional events that cause systems to break down. Mass shootings, kidnappings, and cyberattacks on large corporations and the military would be examples of abnormal accidents. Chemical explosions, cruise ship fires, train derailments, plane crashes, and mining disasters are normal accidents that reflect problems with routine operating procedures. Abnormal accidents are harder to prepare for, but modern organizations have no choice but to plan for them. For instance, since many terrorist acts are aimed at private businesses, not the government, Mitroff argues that businesses have to do their part to respond to terrorist threats. He also points out that even routine crises are becoming harder to deal with in an increasingly complex, interconnected society. Case

878

in point: When drones grounded flights at London’s Gatwick airport, 140,000 British passengers were delayed as well as tens of thousands of holiday travelers around the world.5

879

The Three Stages of a Crisis Whatever the type, every crisis passes through three stages: precrisis, crisis event, and postcrisis.6 In each stage, leaders have a moral obligation to carry out particular tasks or functions. I’ll describe these tasks and offer some steps for carrying them out.

Stage 1. Precrisis Precrisis is the period of normalcy between crisis events. During this, the longest phase, the group or organization typically believes that it understands the risks it faces and can handle any contingency that arises. The temptation to become overconfident grows as the time between crises increases. Funding for backup data storage sites, disaster drills, training, and other types of crisis preparation may be cut, which increases the likelihood of another crisis.

Complacency isn’t the only barrier to crisis prevention. Human biases (decision-making and judgment errors), institutional failures (organizational breakdowns in processing information), and special interest groups (resistance from groups looking out for the interests of their own members) can derail crisis preparedness as well.7 Human biases include, for example, refusing to believe a problem exists and refusing to address a mounting problem for fear of causing immediate harm. Institutions fail when they don’t collect relevant data, integrate that information into the organization as a whole, or act on what they know. Special interest groups impose burdens (higher taxes, water pollution, high drug prices) in order to benefit themselves and oppose reform efforts.

Terry Pauchant and Ian Mitroff argue that, in addition to the factors outlined above, misguided ethical assumptions or myths can undermine crisis management. They identify and debunk five unethical beliefs about crisis management:8

880

Myth 1: “Crises are inevitable.” Some, but not all, crises are inevitable. But even if some crises (storms and earthquakes) can’t be prevented, leaders have an ethical responsibility to do everything they can to prepare for them. Myth 2: “We lack the basic knowledge to prevent or understand crises.” Researchers don’t know everything about crisis management. However, they have identified a number of steps leaders can take to prevent crises and to manage them when they occur. When leaders fail to act, the problem is not a lack of knowledge but a lack of will. Myth 3: “Better technology will prevent future crises.” Resolving crises calls for more than technical solutions. Leaders must also communicate effectively, demonstrate flexibility, and think creatively, for example.

A variation of this third myth is the belief that an organization is too large to experience a major crisis. A business clinging to this misconception is really making an unethical statement. In essence, it is saying, “Whenever an organization is so big and powerful that its size will protect it from a major disaster or crisis, then it has no responsibility toward its employees and the surrounding environment and is justified in expressing no concern toward the environment.”9 These same corporations may use formulas to estimate the likelihood and cost of possible disasters. If the formula shows that the risk is low or that the costs of prevention outweigh the costs of disaster, they decide they shouldn’t take any action at all, which is unethical. Such was the case with the Love Canal environmental crisis of the late 1970s.10

Hooker Chemical determined that the costs of cleaning up Love Canal (where it had dumped 21,000 tons of hazardous waste) outweighed the value of local residents. The company sold the property to the town of Niagara Falls instead of removing the toxic chemicals. Residents who built on the site soon developed blood disorders, kidney and respiratory problems, and other serious health issues before they were evacuated. People were sickened and died because, as one resident pointed out, “they decided that we weren’t worthy of doing anything.”11

881

Myth 4: “Crisis management is inherently detrimental to progress.” Risk can never be totally eliminated. Yet some crisis-prone organizations and leaders shouldn’t be allowed to engage in dangerous activities without some oversight. Following the financial crisis that began in 2008, for instance, many observers argued that greater restrictions should be placed on the financial industry to prevent future recessions. Myth 5: “Emotions have no place in crisis management.” Emotions have a key role to play in crisis management, as they do in other kinds of ethical decision making (see Chapter 6). Leaders need to see ethics as a conversation, connecting with stakeholders before, during, and after the crisis. They also need to acknowledge the pain and suffering generated by the crisis, which may have been caused by their decisions and actions.

Ethical leaders in the precrisis stage help their groups detect possible trouble and develop strategies for managing crises should they strike. Crisis expert Stephen Fink uses the Greek word prodromes (which means “running before”) to describe the warning signs that precede a crisis. Ignoring or downplaying these signs (and those who bring the warnings) generally results in disaster.12 A near nuclear meltdown occurred after Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) ignored warnings that a tsunami would overrun the seawalls at its Fukushima nuclear power plant. A Congressional report found that a massive data breach at Equifax, one of the largest in U.S. history, was “entirely preventable.” The company failed to fix systems when vulnerabilities were discovered or to update its computer technology. The FBI was monitoring the communication of the Uzbek terrorist who used a pickup truck to kill eight people and injure others on a Manhattan bike path.13

Crisis management experts offer a variety of strategies for recognizing danger signs. To pick up on prodromes, organizations must continually scan the environment, looking outward and inward.14 In external scanning, organizational leaders survey the broadcast media, websites, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, trade journals, and other sources to identify potential dangers. Internal scanning means identifying danger signs coming from those who

882

have an ongoing relationship with the organization, like customers, suppliers, and donors. Surges in product returns and complaints, as well as public criticism and protests, can signal something is amiss.

In addition to environmental scanning, organizations can go looking for trouble.15 Looking for trouble means actively seeking weaknesses that could prove harmful or fatal to the organization. One commonly used troubleshooting tactic is to brainstorm a list of possible crises. There are host of possible crises that could strike your college or university, for instance, ranging from floods to campus shootings to student protests to faculty strikes. (You can create your own list of these dangers by completing For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment 12.5.) To get started, you can ask “What if?” and fill in the blank. For instance, “What if a large number of students suffered food poisoning after eating at the cafeteria?” “What if a fire broke out in a dormitory?” “What if harmful chemicals were found in the university’s water supply?” You can determine your crisis readiness and that of your work organization by completing Self- Assessment 12.1.

Not all danger signs are immediately visible. Some emerge from long-term political, social, and ethical trends. These changes sometimes take the form of issues that can threaten an organization. For instance, changing societal attitudes toward animals forced the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus to retire its elephants, which led to the end of its traveling shows. SeaWorld stopped its orca programs after the death of a trainer and public protests against how it treated captive killer whales. Growing recognition of the dangers of concussions threatens many youth football programs and poses a danger to college and professional football.

Left unattended, issues can lead to full-blown crises, as in the case of mad cow disease. British officials failed to acknowledge growing evidence that the fatal Creutzfeldt-Jakob (CJD) brain disease could pass from cows to humans who ate contaminated beef.16 They also underestimated the panic, based on concern about food safety, that resulted when the public found out. The

883

European Union banned beef exports from Britain and 2 million cattle had to be slaughtered to prevent the spread of the disease. An estimated 100 people died from CJD. In other instances, not recognizing the significance of trends can multiply the damage caused by a crisis. An ice storm in North and South Carolina caused widespread power outages that lasted for days. During the outages, hundreds of carbon monoxide poisoning cases were reported despite repeated warnings about taking gas and charcoal grills indoors for cooking and heating. Many of these cases were among Latino immigrants who were part of the rapidly growing Spanish-speaking labor force moving into the area. Local utilities didn’t recognize the implications of this demographic shift. As a result, the English-only warnings they broadcast failed to reach many of their customers.17

Effectively addressing long-term trends requires issues management.18 Issues management begins with identifying emerging issues through the environmental scanning described earlier. Next, determine the significance of each issue and its potential impact, evaluating it on its probability and magnitude. Some issues are not likely to affect your group or organization and, if they do, their effects will be small. Finally, develop strategies for the high-priority issues—those with the highest probability and magnitude. Be proactive whenever possible, taking steps to shape the issue before it becomes a threat or crisis. Proactive steps can turn threats into opportunities, as in the case of bans on single use plastic straws. A number of U.S. cities and states now outlaw plastic straws as plastic pollution becomes a more important issue. (The EU has plans to institute its own straw ban.) While this trend threatens plastic straw manufacturers, it opens up new markets for companies offering alternatives made of hay, bamboo, metal and other materials.

Once weaknesses and potential dangers have been identified, develop a crisis management plan (CMP) to cope with each type of emergency. The CMP should include such details as a list of key members of the public and organizations and how to notify them, members of the crisis management team, contact information for media outlets, strategies for communicating via social media, and background information on the organization.19

884

Crisis preparation pays off. Alaska adopted stringent seismic building codes after a massive 1964 earthquake. These regulations prevented major damage and any loss of life when another earthquake struck near Anchorage in 2018. Tragically, fire officials and residents of Paradise California, were not adequately prepared for the massive wildfire that swept through the town, burning it to the ground and killing 48.20 Crisis-ready organizations are less likely to experience unexpected threats, suffer significantly less damage if such events do strike, and recover much more quickly.21

Proper crisis preparation can also keep us from abandoning our moral principles. University of Oregon philosopher Naomi Zack notes that, in ordinary times, widely shared moral principles include (1) human life is intrinsically valuable and (2) everyone’s life has equal value.22 Driven by these convictions, we try to preserve and save the lives of everyone we can. No one life is considered more worthy than another. Thus, emergency room doctors treat both the wealthy and the poor. Physicians make every effort to extend life, even of the elderly and the very ill. However, when disaster strikes, responders often don’t have enough resources to meet the needs of all victims. They then have to decide who lives and who dies. In medical emergencies, this process is called triage. Health workers in these situations only provide treatment to those most likely to benefit from treatment or to survive. The lives of all victims are no longer intrinsically worthy or equally valuable. Instead, emergency personnel take a utilitarian approach (see Chapter 5), saving as many as possible while excluding others, such as the elderly and those with chronic medical conditions.

Emergency personnel do not have to make triage decisions when careful preparation has taken place in advance. Instead, they can rely on the same moral values that guide their decisions during normal times. To adequately prepare for a flu epidemic, for instance, leaders would need to ensure that there are sufficient supplies of vaccine as well as enough hospital beds and ventilators to keep patients alive who contract the disease. Such preparation can be costly. However, according to Zack, crisis preparation is not a luxury to be cut when budgets are tight—it is

885

our ethical duty. “We are morally obligated to plan for disaster,” Zack asserts, “because it affects human life and well-being.”23

Stage 2: Crisis Event The second stage commences with a “trigger event,” like an explosion, a shooting, or bankruptcy, and the recognition that a crisis has occurred. It ends when the crisis is resolved. Realization that a crisis has erupted sparks strong emotions, including surprise, anger, fear, and disbelief. Confusion reigns as group members try to understand what is happening and worry about what will happen to the group and to themselves. At the same time, significant harm is done to people, property, and the larger environment, and the incident garners significant press coverage.

Ethical leaders play a critical role during this stage. They first recognize that a crisis has occurred and persuade others that the group is in grave danger. This is not always an easy task. When tsunamis struck Thailand’s beaches in 2004, some 30,000 Swedes were vacationing in the area. A low-ranking official on duty in the Swedish Foreign Ministry recognized the danger to Swedish citizens and alerted her bosses. They, however, did not find the situation alarming. When she persisted in her efforts to warn them, she was reprimanded and called hysterical.24

(Following the crisis, she was commended for her courage in speaking up.) Health officials underestimated the extent of the Ebola epidemic in 2014, prematurely declaring it over before it went on to kill over 11,000 people.

Once the crisis is recognized, leaders then implement the CMP, mobilize crisis management teams made up of attorneys, public relations professionals, operational managers, institutional technology managers and others, and focus on damage control.25

Immediate threats to individuals, property, and the environment take priority. Leaders may need to redeploy staff and such resources as equipment, phone lines, and office space while cooperating with emergency personnel, government officials, neighborhood associations, the media, and other outside groups.

886

One person—typically the CEO—should take primary responsibility as spokesperson in the case of an emergency. This prevents conflicting messages and the spread of misinformation. Contradictory and inaccurate messages were a major problem following the mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 over the Indian Ocean. Malaysian government and airline officials sometimes contradicted each other, as did civilian and military officials. The information they released was often incomplete and inaccurate.26 Those directly affected by the crisis have particularly important information needs and should take top priority. They not only need to know what happened but also need to learn how to protect themselves. Potential victims of a flu epidemic need to be vaccinated, for example. City residents in the path of a tornado need to be warned to take shelter. Consumers need to learn of contaminated food products.

Ethical leaders also get to the scene of the crisis as soon as possible. They recognize the importance of “being there” for followers. Driven by a sense of duty and compassion, they travel to the disaster location to meet with survivors. U.S. presidents frequently go to the scene of traumatic events. President Bill Clinton provided comfort to grieving residents following the Oklahoma City bombing, for example, and President Barack Obama flew to southern Oregon to show his solidarity with survivors of a community college shooting. Followers expect leaders to be physically present during the crisis. They condemn leaders who stay home during the emergency. Vladimir Putin was harshly criticized for staying at his vacation dacha instead of traveling to the Barents Sea after the sinking of the nuclear submarine Kurst. Japanese prime minister Yoshiro Mori faced similar rebuke when he continued to play golf after a Japanese fishing boat was sunk by a U.S. sub.27

Stage 3: Postcrisis Investigation and analysis take place during the third and final stage. Group members try to determine what went wrong, who was to blame, how to prevent a recurrence of the problem, and so on. This is also a period of recovery during which ethical leaders try to salvage the legitimacy of the group or organization, help

887

group members learn from the crisis experience, and promote healing. The image of an organization generally suffers during a crisis as outsiders blame it for failing to prevent the disaster, causing harm, and not moving quickly enough to help victims. As a consequence, an effective leader must convince the public that the organization has a legitimate reason to exist and can be trusted. The best way to rebuild an organization’s image depends a great deal on the particular crisis and the past history of the group. If the organization is not at fault and has a good reputation, simple denial (“We are not at fault”) may be sufficient. However, if the organization is to blame (particularly if it has a troubled history), it should admit responsibility, offer compensation to victims, and take corrective action by improving safety procedures, recalling products, and so forth. Not only is this the moral course of action, but attempts to deny truthful accusations typically backfire, further damaging the group’s reputation.28

The second leadership task in the postcrisis stage is to encourage the group to learn from the experience lest it be repeated again. Organizational crisis learning takes three forms.29 Retrospective sense making looks for causation, determining what members overlooked and identifying faulty assumptions and rationalizations that contributed to the disaster. Such processing broadens the group’s base of knowledge and gives it more options for responding in the future. Reconsidering structure refers to making major changes in leadership, mission, organizational structure, and policies as a result of the disruption caused by the crisis event. Disaster commissions are sometimes formed to capture learning from crises and to suggest reforms. For example, following Hurricane Harvey, which dumped 35 inches of rain on the Houston area, Texas governor Greg Abbott appointed a commission that outlined strategies for better preparing the state for future hurricanes and other natural disasters.30

Vicarious learning draws from the experiences of other groups and organizations, both good and bad. Some organizations illustrate what not to do, while others serve as exemplary role models. Government response to Hurricane Katrina has emerged as a classic example of crisis mismanagement. Local and state officials were slow to order a mandatory evacuation and stranded

888

poorer residents who didn’t have cars. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (led by an unqualified manager) waited too long to implement emergency plans, and the president didn’t get involved until days had passed. A House congressional committee investigating the disaster concluded that the government’s response to Katrina was a “litany of mistakes, misjudgments, lapses, and absurdities.”31

Vicarious learning has led to significant changes in how law enforcement officials respond to active school shooters. Prior to the Columbine High School attack in 1999, standard procedure was to seal off the perimeter, containing suspects and victims in the building. While this strategy is effective with criminals who are willing to negotiate and to release prisoners, it doesn’t work with suicidal attackers out to inflict as many casualties as they can. At Columbine, police cordoned off the school and waited to enter the building. In the meantime, the two shooters continued to kill fellow students and faculty even as live television showed groups of police standing outside apparently doing nothing. Now the first officers on the scene immediately enter the building to engage the active shooter while the next officers cordon off the area and assist victims.32 Tragically, not all industries and organizations learn from the experiences of others, as Case Study 12.1 illustrates.

The third leadership task in the postcrisis stage is to promote healing, which helps members move beyond the crisis. Healing begins with explaining what happened. A cause needs to be identified and corrective action taken. Corrective steps might include, for instance, strengthening levees after a hurricane and tightening computer security measures after data have been stolen. Forgetting—replacing feelings of stress, anxiety, and loss with positive emotions like optimism and confidence—is easier when such preventive measures have been put in place. Ethical leaders also shape the memories of what happened by honoring crisis heroes and by marking important anniversaries.

Fostering a sense of renewal that sets aside blame and looks ahead is part of the healing process. The discourse of renewal is spontaneous, not carefully planned, and comes directly out of the

889

character and reputation of the leader.33 Renewal focuses on the future rather than on the past. The discourse of renewal also highlights the opportunities created by the crisis. City officials in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for example, had a downtown redevelopment plan in place four months after a devastating flood. Five years after the flood, the town sported a new convention center and hotel, a restored historic theater, and an outdoor amphitheater built on top of a levee.34 (Box 12.1 offers a framework for evaluating the performance of crisis leaders.)

Box 12.1 Crisis Leadership Scorecard

Dutch researchers Arjen Boin, Sanneke Kuipers, and Werner Overdijk argue that we should judge the performance of crisis leaders, not on initial impressions or on media coverage, but on the answer to the following question: “Did those charged with crisis management responsibilities do everything they could to facilitate an effective response to the crisis at hand?” To help answer this question, they break crisis management into a set of executive tasks. These tasks can serve as a checklist for evaluating the performance of public and organizational crisis leaders.

Task #1: Early Recognition

Identification of a crisis is the first step in crisis management. Foresight can be fostered through experience, which increases recognition of deviations from the norm, and constant organizational vigilance.

What to look for: Did leaders create conditions that facilitate early recognition?

Task #2: Sense Making

Coming to a collective understanding of the threat and its consequences is critical for making wise choices in stressful, uncertain conditions. Effective sense making includes having a method for processing information, communicating information to the right people and getting their feedback, creating a shared picture of events, identifying what information is still needed, and analyzing possible outcomes and their impact.

What to look for: Did leaders create, facilitate, and rehearse a sensemaking method?

890

Task #3: Making Critical Decisions

Effective crisis leaders focus on strategic decisions during the crisis, not on day to day operations. Good decisions are the product of sound procedure, they reinforce organizational and societal values, and they conform to rules and regulations.

What to look for: Did leaders carefully deliberate which decisions they should make, and did they make the decision after some form of due process?

Task #4: Orchestrating Vertical and Horizontal Coordination

Crises force “intense” cooperation among organizations that may have never collaborated before. Successful leaders know when to let groups and organizations develop their own strategies for collaboration and when to intervene and remove barriers to cooperation.

What to look for: Did crisis leaders monitor and assess forms of vertical and horizontal cooperation? Did they facilitate cooperation and intervene where cooperation was lacking or dysfunctional?

Task #5: Coupling and Decoupling

Crisis leaders must isolate or decouple the problem while allowing the rest of the system to function, by, for example, shutting down flooded power plants while keeping the rest of the grid operating or switching to backup computer systems during a cyberattack.

What to look for: Did crisis leaders actively monitor the state of critical (life-sustaining) systems and the connections between them? Did they access expertise with regard to these critical systems?

Task #6: Meaning Making

In a crisis, followers look to leaders to interpret the situation and their plans for restoring order. They also look for messages of hope and optimism. Ethical leaders present a convincing “frame” for the crisis. (Turn to Chapter 7 for more information on frames.) An ethical frame or story is tied to core values and explains how crisis management actions reinforce those values.

What to look for: Did crisis leaders offer a clear interpretation of the crisis and explain how they intended to lead their community (organization) out of it?

Task #7: Communication

891

Failed communication can put the safety of citizens in danger. Effective communication explains the nature of the and its impact while outlining what is being done to address the emergency. Ethical leaders also provide “actionable advice,” telling residents what they should do in light of unfolding events.

What to look for: Did crisis leaders actively cooperate with their communications professionals to ensure they had timely and correct information for dissemination to the public?

Task #8: Rendering Accountability

Effective crisis managers take responsibility for explaining what happened during the crisis and outlining what worked well and what went wrong.

What to look for: Did leaders try to present a transparent and constructive account of their (in)actions before and during the crisis?

Task #9: Learning

Improvisation, discovery, and experimentation are critical during a crisis. Leaders also demonstrate learning after the crisis event by correcting the causes of the crisis and implementing new solutions. Effective crisis managers also signal that they are willing to learn from failure.

What to look for: Did leaders allow for reflection on the effects of chosen courses of action, did they encourage and tolerate negative feedback, and did they record crisis management proceedings to facilitate learning by outsiders?

Task #10: Enhancing Resilience

High-performing crisis leaders foster the ability bounce back from crises by focusing on preparation (drills, scenarios, risk analysis). These activities increase awareness of vulnerabilities and builds confidence in the ability to cope with threats. (I’ll have more to say about resilience later in the chapter.)

What to look for: Did leaders actively involve themselves in crisis preparations?

Source: Boin, A., Kuipers, S., & Overdijk, W. (2013). Leadership in times of crisis: A framework for assessment. International Review of Public Administration, 18, 79–91.

892

Components of Ethical Crisis Management As we saw in the previous section, ethical leaders have important tasks to carry out in each stage of crisis development. Theorists and researchers have identified seven principles and/or strategies that equip them to fulfill these duties. Moral leaders (1) assume broad responsibility, (2) practice transparency, (3) take decisive (heroic) action, (4) demonstrate care and concern, (5) use their heads as well as their hearts, (6) improvise from a strong moral foundation, and (7) build resilience.

893

Assume Broad Responsibility

Responsibility is the foundation of ethical crisis leadership.35

Preventing, managing, and recovering from crises all depend on the willingness of leaders and followers to accept their moral responsibilities. Society grants individuals and organizations significant freedom to make and carry out decisions. Such freedom means that people and groups are accountable for their actions. They have an ethical duty to prevent crises because such events do significant harm. The first step in preventing crises is to behave as a moral person. Since a great many crises—fraud, accounting scandals, embezzlement, sexual harassment—are the direct result of the immoral actions of leaders, eliminating these behaviors greatly reduces the group’s exposure to scandal. Moral leaders also create healthy ethical organizational climates that have a low risk of moral failure and crisis (see Chapter 10).

In addition to engaging in and fostering ethical behavior, the responsible crisis leader fights against complacency, human biases, institutional weaknesses, special interest groups, and other obstacles to crisis prevention. He or she commits the money and resources needed to identify, prevent, and manage trouble spots. This includes assigning groups to brainstorm potential weaknesses, investing in computer security, holding disaster drills, and creating CMPs. Leaders aren’t the only ones who are responsible for crisis prevention, however. This duty extends to everyone who has a role, no matter how small, in anticipating such events. According to crisis prevention expert Robert Allinson, “Anyone who is in any way connected with a potential or actual disaster is responsible for its occurrence.”36

If a crisis does erupt, leaders are obligated to mitigate the harm they and/or their followers cause to others through, for instance, deceptive advertising, fraud, or industrial accidents. A rapid response is key to fulfilling this ethical duty. Exxon continues to be used as an example of poor crisis management in large part because of its slow response to the grounding of the Exxon Valdez, which caused the largest oil spill up to that point in U.S. history. Then-CEO Lawrence Rawl didn’t get to the scene of the

894

accident until 10 days after the spill, initial containment efforts were ineffective, and the firm denied at first that it had any responsibility for what happened.37 More recently, executives at Facebook waited 3 years before responding to reports that the data firm Cambridge Analytica was secretly harvesting the data of its users for political purposes. Panera Bread waited several months before addressing a data breach involving 37 million customers.38

When the immediate danger is past, leaders have an obligation to ensure that a similar crisis doesn’t happen again and to assure the public of that fact. Their ethical duties include carrying out the postcrisis tasks noted earlier: rebuilding the group’s image, helping members learn from the crisis, and promoting healing.

Crises broaden both the scope and the depth of a leader’s ethical obligations. In a crisis, the breadth of a leader’s responsibility greatly expands. New stakeholder groups are formed, including those who had no previous interest in the organization but are currently threatened as well as members of the general public who learn about the crisis event. Leaders may also need to go to extraordinary lengths (depth) to meet the needs of victims. Take the case of Cantor Fitzgerald, for example. When the terrorist planes hit the World Trade Center in 2001, all of its employees working in the North Tower were killed. CEO Howard Lutnick and his colleagues continue to care for the financial, physical, and emotional needs of surviving family members years later.

895

Practice Transparency Like responsibility, transparency is another requirement placed on groups and organizations operating freely in a democratic society. We want governments to reveal the ways they spend our tax dollars, for instance, and require audited financial statements and annual reports from publicly held corporations. Citizens have a right to informed choice. Neighbors ought to learn about the presence of hazardous chemicals at a nearby plant; federal law mandates that colleges provide data on crimes committed on or around their campuses. Failure to disclose information spawns abuses of power and privilege and makes it impossible for individuals to act as informed members of the community.39

Transparency is key to exercising personal freedom and establishing healthy relationships between individuals, between people and organizations, and between organizations.40

Transparency begins with openness. When faced with the challenge of mismanaged information, the transparent leader tells the truth and avoids hiding or distorting information. A transparent group is open about its policies, compensation packages, safety measures, values, spending, positions on political issues, and so on. Leaders regularly share this information through websites, presentations, publications, press releases, and other means. Openness, in turn, is marked by candor and integrity. Ethical leaders are willing to share bad as well as good news, such as when earnings are down and construction plans have to be shelved. Johnson & Johnson’s response to the Tylenol poisoning has become a textbook case of crisis management in part because of the firm’s honesty. During the product tampering crisis, corporate officials initially denied that there was any potassium cyanide used in the manufacture of Tylenol.41 Later, when leaders discovered that minute amounts of the chemical were used during testing at some facilities, it immediately released this information to the public. Such candor helped the company recover quickly from this abnormal accident.

896

Transparency also involves symmetry.42 Symmetry refers to maintaining balanced relationships with outside groups based on two-way communication. Instead of imposing their will on others, organizations engaged in symmetrical relationships seek to understand and respond to the concerns of stakeholders. They regularly interact with and gather information from customers, vendors, neighbors, activist groups, and others. Even more important, they act on this data, changing their plans as needed. For example, if neighbors strenuously object to the construction of a new product distribution facility, executives may find another location or modify the design of the building to meet the concerns of those living nearby. A study of excellent public relations programs found that the best public relations efforts—those that increase organizational effectiveness and benefit society—are based on symmetrical relationships with stakeholder groups.43

Crisis preparedness and trust are two positive by-products of transparency. Openness makes it less likely that leaders will engage in unethical behavior. As ethicist Jeremy Bentham noted, “The more strictly we are watched, the better we behave.” Symmetry also serves as an early warning system. Partnerships foster two-way communication that will reveal if customers are having problems with products or services, if activist groups are offended by the organization’s environmental practices, and so forth.

Stakeholders and the general public are more prone to trust organizations they perceive as open and give them the benefit of the doubt in crisis situations. As a consequence, these groups suffer less damage to their image and regain their legitimacy more rapidly. For example, Pepsi recovered quickly after reports of syringes and other items in their cans. Pepsi not only had a reputation as a good corporate citizen prior to the tampering scare but officials also invited the media into their bottling plants. There they saw that it would be impossible to insert an object into a can during the high-speed canning process. The FBI later arrested twenty people for planting objects in their drinks and others recanted their stories.

897

Maintaining transparency is particularly difficult when a crisis is triggered. First, there are privacy concerns. Victims’ families may need to be notified before information can be released to the press. Second, admitting fault can put the organization at a disadvantage in case of a lawsuit. Third, there may be proprietary information about, say, manufacturing processes and recipes, which should not be released to competitors. (Even the leading proponents of corporate transparency agree that businesses have a right to privacy, to security, and to control of certain types of information.)44 Fourth, uncertainty makes it difficult for an organization to determine what its course of action should be and, as a result, to communicate concrete details to the public. Fifth, being specific may offend some stakeholders who feel that they have been treated unfairly. Sixth, making a commitment to a single course of action too soon may limit the group’s ability to deal with the crisis.45

Some observers suggest that leaders in a crisis situation use strategic ambiguity as an alternative to transparency. In strategic ambiguity, communicators are deliberately vague, which allows them to appeal to multiple audiences.46 For example, the promise to “respond forcefully” to a crisis is an abstract statement, which can be interpreted many different ways by stakeholders. It also leaves the door open for the group to choose a variety of possible strategies for managing the crisis event. If challenged, the leader can claim that she or he never made a specific commitment to particular stakeholder groups. Then, too, ambiguous messages are appropriate in early stages of a crisis, when information is scarce and conditions are rapidly changing.47

More often than not, however, strategic ambiguity is unethical, used to shift the blame and to confuse stakeholders while providing them with biased and/or incomplete information. This appears to be the case with Jack in the Box.48 Children in Washington state were sickened with E. coli poisoning after eating hamburgers at the firm’s restaurants. Throughout the crisis, Jack in the Box president Robert Nugent made use of ambiguous communication. He emphasized that there was a “potential” link between the illnesses and company food. He pointed to other possible contributors—including a food supplier—to the outbreak

898

and claimed that the firm intended to follow state and federal regulations. (Later, it was revealed that Jack in the Box had failed to adopt Washington’s stricter cooking times, which likely would have prevented the outbreak.) The restaurant chain’s response was unethical because it (a) favored the needs of internal stakeholders (employees, managers, shareholders) over those of external stakeholders (consumers, regulators) and (b) provided outsiders with incomplete and inaccurate information.

While the amount and type of information to be shared will vary with each crisis, the goal should always be to be as open as possible. Cooperate with the media and government officials, respond quickly to inquiries, provide detailed background information on the crisis, be honest about what happened, release information as soon as it is available, and be more concerned about meeting the needs of victims than about protecting organizational assets (see the discussion of care and concern in the next section). Avoid stonewalling, which is uncooperative communication designed to hinder or redirect the flow of information. BP chairman Tony Hayward used stonewalling when testifying before Congress after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He repeatedly responded to questions by declaring “The investigations are ongoing.” “I can’t answer that question because I’m not a cement engineer.” “I wasn’t involved in any of that decision making.”49

Rhetorician Keith Hearit illustrates how an organization can practice transparency when communicating to stakeholders during a crisis. Hearit believes that, in order to be ethical, the group’s explanation of events and response to public criticism must have the right manner and content.50 Manner refers to the form of the communication, which needs to (1) be truthful (disclose relevant information that matches up with the reality of what happened), (2) be sincere (express true regret, reflect the seriousness of the event and its impact, demonstrate commitment to taking corrective action and reconciling with stakeholders), (3) be timely (immediately after the event, in time to help victims deal with the damage), (4) be voluntary (not coerced but driven by moral considerations, seek reconciliation, humble), (5) address all

899

stakeholders (speak to all who were wronged, not just a few groups), and (6) be in the proper context (available to all victims).

The content of the message is just as important as the form it takes. The ethical story of events

clearly acknowledges wrongdoing; accepts full responsibility for what happened; expresses regret for the offense, the harm done, and failure to carry out responsibilities; identifies with the injured parties (both with their suffering and with the damage done to relationships); asks for forgiveness; seeks reconciliation with injured parties; fully discloses information related to the offense; offers to carry out appropriate corrective action; and offers appropriate compensation.

900

Take Decisive (Heroic) Action Heroism researcher Zeno Franco believes that crisis events call for heroic leadership.51 Heroes are people who act for the good of other people at significant risk to themselves. They have no expectation that they will be rewarded for their efforts. Heroic crisis leaders are those who take decisive action when most people either can’t or won’t respond when disaster strikes. (Case Study 12.2 introduces a leader who was able to act decisively when others could not.) These leaders realize that their actions will likely generate criticism and controversy. Blame for failure will rest on them. Nevertheless, heroic leaders move forward, driven by the conviction that doing something is generally better than doing nothing, even if the chances of success are slim.

Franco identifies the following as strategies commonly used by heroic leaders:

1. The Stand-Off. Heroic leaders may deliberately provoke conflict in order to address an underlying or hidden crisis. They refuse to give in to outside pressure. Flint, Michigan, pediatrician Mona Hanna-Attisha engaged in a stand-off with Michigan government authorities in order to draw attention lead in the city’s water supply. (Turn to Case study 4.1 for more information on the Flint water crisis.) She and her research team reported high levels of lead in the city’s children. She refused to retract her findings even when state authorities attacked her as an “unfortunate researcher” who was “causing near hysteria.”

2. The Gamble. Crisis leaders often face no win situations. They must be the deciding vote when deciding between “two evils.” That was the case with explorer Ernst Shackleton during his 1914 arctic expedition. He decided the only hope of rescue for his stranded crew was sailing 835 miles to a whaling camp. Doing so meant leaving most of his men behind on an uninhabited island as he set out with five men in a small dory on one of the roughest oceans in the world. His gamble paid off. Not a single man was lost. Acting in the face of a no-win situation is called the “Stockdale Paradox” after U.S. navy

901

officer James Stockdale who was repeatedly tortured by his North Vietnamese captors. He survived 8 years of imprisonment by combining optimism and realism. According to Stockdale, “You must retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties. And at the same time, you must confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”

3. Systematic Use of Luck. Using luck means prolonging the crisis event in hopes that the situation will change due to events outside the leaders’ control. In 2010, rescuers extended their search for 33 Chilean miners trapped more than 2,000 feet underground. Chilean president Sebastian Pinera remained committed to the rescue effort even as the days passed and the chances of anyone surviving had shrunk to less than 2%. The miners were located after 17 days of drilling and brought to the surface 69 days after their ordeal began.

4. The Gambit. A gambit involves trading off one resource to gain something else, as in sacrificing a pawn in chess to set up the capture of an opponent’s knight or queen. A military commander may sacrifice territory (and even troops) in order to buy time to regroup. A corporate CEO may file for bankruptcy in order to give the company protection from creditors as it reorganizes.

5. Order of Magnitude. Leaders using this tactic try to “get ahead of” the crisis by ramping up the magnitude of the response. They reassign resources to overwhelm the threat. Fire commanders shift crews from other wild fires to shut down a blaze that poses the most threat to homes, for instance, and insurance firms dispatch teams of adjustors to hurricane ravaged communities to handle claims.

Franco and his colleague Philip Zimbardo believe that we are more likely to act heroically if we stimulate our heroic imagination.52 Heroic imagination is the capacity to imagine risky situations and how we might respond. Such advance preparation makes it more likely that we will act heroically if the need arises. There are five steps to fostering heroic imagination. First, carefully evaluate situations in order to recognize if there is an emergency requiring action. Second, don’t fear interpersonal conflict but stand

902

by personal principles. Third, think long term, imagining future scenarios and remembering past values that can offer current guidance. Fourth, resist the temptation to rationalize inaction or evil deeds. Fifth, try to look past the current costs of acting heroically—rejection by friends and family, threats, attacks on social media—to a time when others eventually offer their support.

903

Demonstrate Care and Concern Demonstrating concern has practical as well as ethical benefits. Nothing draws more public condemnation than a group that refuses to take responsibility for harming others, as in the case of the Exxon Valdez, or appears callous. MGM Resorts sparked public outrage when it sued the victims of the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, the largest in U.S. history. The killer fired down at concert goers from his hotel room at the Mandalay Bay. By suing concert goers, the MGM hoped to protect itself from liability for allowing the shooter to bring high powered rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition into the building.53

When harm occurs, people hold organizations and their leaders responsible even if they didn’t mean to hurt others, which is called the intention effect. 54 Apparently, the mere existence of harm triggers the impression that the individual or group involved was deliberately out to damage others. Observers also expect corporations to anticipate potential harm—the foresight effect. This effect is illustrated by the stiff punishments administered to corporate defendants in civil court cases. Jurors believe that corporations have greater responsibility for harm because they should have greater ability to foresee the consequences of their actions. Jurors also expect a higher level of care from companies based on their greater power, the sense that they have more obligations because they have more resources, and the fact that corporate misdeeds have greater consequences than do those of individuals operating on their own.

Members of the public also judge companies on the way that they respond to natural disasters.55 Citizens determine the firm’s level of benevolent concern by the size and effectiveness of its response. When companies make significant contributions that meet the needs of victims, stakeholders rate them more favorably and consider them to be more ethical. Like the Good Samaritan of the Bible who provided bandages, food, clothing, and shelter for the robbery victim laying alongside the road (described in Chapter 5), business Samaritans must not only stop to help but also provide practical assistance.

904

While it is in the interest of leaders and organizations to act in a compassionate manner for image and financial reasons as well as to meet the expectations of observers, it is even more important that they do so for ethical reasons. Altruism is particularly relevant to crisis situations. Love of neighbor urges us to meet the needs of those threatened by crisis, no matter who they are. Victims deserve our help because of their status as human beings. Showing concern during a crisis goes well beyond addressing the physical and financial needs of victims. Those harmed by a crisis have significant emotional and spiritual needs, too.56 They may be overwhelmed with feelings of loss and grief as well as guilt for surviving when others did not. Their sense of security, meaning, and purpose is threatened. Post-traumatic stress disorder, where individuals periodically relive the terror, is common. Of course, victims aren’t the only ones to experience many of these reactions. The triggering event, as noted earlier, generates surprise, anger, fear, and disbelief for crisis managers, other group members, and outside observers as well. For instance, mass shootings are traumatic events not only for local residents but also for the country as a whole.

The emotional and spiritual demands of crises mean that ethical leaders need to address the whole person during the crisis and postcrisis stages. They stay in constant communication with group members, calming their fears. They help followers regain their focus and emphasize the importance of community. They arrange for emotional and spiritual counseling and recognize that the whole organization may need to pass through a grieving process. Ethical leaders also recognize that if the group is to heal, they must foster hope while honoring the past.

The ethic of care has been specifically applied to crisis management. The care ethic fosters crisis preparation because those concerned about others are more likely to take their complaints seriously and are therefore more alert to possible signs of trouble. Once they have identified prodromes, they are more likely to give voice to their concerns instead of exiting the organization.57

905

Concern for others can also prompt a group or an organization to go well beyond what the law or fairness requires when responding to a crisis. Consider the case of the San Ysidro, California, McDonald’s shooting, for example.58 On July 18, 1984, a lone gunman out to “hunt humans” shot 40 people at the restaurant (21 died). McDonald’s was not at fault and was, in fact, a victim of the attack. But rather than declaring its innocence or decrying the unfairness of headlines blaming it for the carnage, McDonald’s followed the “Horwitz Rule.” Executive vice president and General Counsel Don Horwitz told management: “I don’t want you people to worry or care about the legal implications of what you might say. We are going to do what’s right for the survivors and families of the victims, and we’ll worry about lawsuits later.” (It could have been argued that providing help was evidence that McDonald’s was in some way responsible for what happened.) The company then suspended its national advertising campaign out of respect for victims and their families, sent personnel to help with funeral arrangements, paid hospital bills, and flew in relatives to be with their families. Corporate executives sought the counsel of an important local religious leader, attended funerals, demolished the restaurant, and then donated the land to the city.

The steps taken by McDonald’s in this instance weren’t “fair” and devalued the rights of the firm. After all, the restaurant chain wasn’t to blame, and yet its leaders spent millions suspending advertising, creating a fund for families of victims, demolishing the restaurant, donating the land, and so on. Driven by care, corporate officials kept their focus on responsibility to victims and the importance of acknowledging their pain. They listened to the community and worked hard at maintaining connections with local political, community, and religious groups.

906

Engage the Head as Well as the Heart Rational thought, problem solving, and other cognitive skills and strategies are important complements to care and compassion in ethical crisis management. Moral leaders respond with their heads as well as their hearts.59 In particular, they are highly mindful and engage in strategic and ethical rational thinking.

Ethical crisis leaders develop their capacity to take note of warning signs; they become “first-class noticers.”60 First class noticers pay close attention to the world around them. They are good at detecting flaws and deception, are open to data that contradicts what they currently believe, and can think multiple steps ahead to determine when and how to make necessary changes. Ethical leaders take personal responsibility for not anticipating crises. Instead of blaming outside forces (“It wasn’t my job.” “I couldn’t have possibly have anticipated what occurred.”), they learn from what happened. They consider what they could do differently in the future. In particular, they note what doesn’t make sense. For example, does it make sense to rebuild homes and businesses in flood plains or next to fire zones? They determine if there is an overlooked alternative (moving neighborhoods out of flood or fire danger, restoring wetlands) that could prevent disaster.

In addition to paying heedful attention themselves, ethical crisis managers create mindful cultures. University of Michigan business professors Karl Weick and Kathleen Sutcliffe argue that collective mindfulness is the key to creating high-reliability organizations (HROs).61 HROs (emergency rooms, air traffic control systems, power plants) rarely fail even though they face lots of unexpected events. Attention to minor problems sets HROs apart from their less reliable counterparts. Unlike crisis-prone organizations that ignore minor deviations until they magnify into a crisis, HROs respond forcefully to the weakest signal that something is wrong.

Weick and Sutcliffe use the deck of an aircraft carrier to illustrate the characteristics of mindful cultures that prevent harmful crises

907

from occurring. One naval crewmember described an aircraft carrier this way:

Imagine that it’s a busy day, and you shrink San Francisco Airport to only one short runway and one ramp and one gate. Make planes take off and land at the same time, at half the present time interval, rock the runway from side to side, and require that everyone who leaves in the morning returns that same day. Make sure the equipment is so close to the edge of the envelope that it’s fragile. Then turn off the radar to avoid detection, impose strict controls on radios, fuel the aircraft in place with their engines running, put an enemy in the air, and scatter live bombs and rockets around. Now, wet the whole thing down with salt water and oil, and man it with 20-year-olds, half of whom have never seen an airplane close up. Oh, and by the way, try not to kill anyone.62

Despite the dangers, very few carrier accidents occur because navy leaders encourage five mindful practices. First, carrier crews are preoccupied with failure. Every landing is graded, and small problems like a plane in the wrong position are treated as signs that there may be larger issues like poor communication or training. Second, those who work on carriers are reluctant to simplify. Each plane is inspected multiple times, and pilots and deck crew communicate responsibilities through hand and voice signals and different-colored uniforms. Third, carrier crews sustain continuous sensitivity to operations. Everyone on board is focused on launching and landing aircraft. Officers observe all activities and communicate with each other constantly. Fourth, people on carriers share a commitment to resilience. Their knowledge equips them to come up with creative solutions when unexpected events like equipment failures or severe weather occur. Fifth, carrier personnel demonstrate deference to expertise. Lower- ranking individuals can overrule their superiors if they have more expertise in, for example, landing damaged planes.

908

Leaders responding to crises also need to employ ethical rationality. Ethical rationality ties together research on business ethics, strategy, and crisis management. Rationality is defined as “a firm’s ability to make decisions based on comprehensive information and analysis.”63 Rational firms and leaders (which are generally more successful) do a thorough job of scanning the environment and analyzing the information they gather. They are also able to quickly generate lots of alternative solutions and ideas.64 At the same time, ethics is at the core of their corporate strategy.65 Such organizations keep the needs of stakeholders in mind and are concerned about building a good society. They make routine choices based on moral principles like utilitarianism and the categorical imperative.

Ethical rationality serves firms well in crisis management. They are less likely to experience crisis events because they continually scan the environment and analyze the data they collect. Leaders are not prone to act selfishly (e.g., lie, ignore stakeholder groups, hurt the environment) because they recognize that all stakeholders have intrinsic value and they are committed to the greater good. When a crisis is triggered, they have more information on hand and can rapidly generate and evaluate alternative courses of action under time pressures. Such firms have a clearer understanding of their stakeholder groups and how they might be affected by crisis events. Further, ethically rational companies (and nonprofits) are more likely to make sound moral choices during a crisis because leaders are in the practice of incorporating ethical principles into routine decision making.

909

Improvise From a Strong Moral Foundation Dartmouth professor Paul Argenti interviewed corporate executives whose firms successfully weathered the World Trade Center terrorist attacks. One of the lessons of 9/11, according to Argenti, is that, during a disaster, managers must make quick decisions without guidance.66 They are more likely to make wise choices if they are prepared. Preparation includes not only training and planning but also instilling corporate values. Employees of several undamaged Starbucks stores near Ground Zero kept their locations open even as the rest of the company’s outlets in the United States were closed for the day. They provided free coffee and pastries to hospital staff and rescue workers. Several people were saved when Starbucks workers pulled them inside, rescuing them from collapsing buildings. Leaders and followers at these stores were acting in accordance with one of the eight principles of the Starbucks mission statement, which is “Contribute positively to our communities and our environment.” Employees at The New York Times and Oppenheimer Funds also drew from their organizations’ core ideology to continue to serve readers and clients.

The ability to ethically improvise is critical in a crisis because no amount of planning and practice can totally equip individuals for the specific challenges they will face during the crisis event. Unethical decisions, such as refusing to take action or responsibility, can cause significant harm and undermine the future of the group or organization. In addition, the crisis forces change in priorities. Concern for profit must be set aside in favor of damage control and helping victims. The stakeholders who are normally most important (e.g., corporate stockholders and owners) take a backseat to those most directly affected by events.

Successful improvisation requires that employees be empowered to act on their own initiative. They must not only know the moral course of action but also be able to act on their choices. During Hurricane Katrina, top Walmart executives told front line managers “do everything you can to save people using your judgment about what is best.”67 They only asked that these local

910

leaders keep the command center and fellow managers informed. As a result, New Orleans locations opened up pharmacies to provide access to medications and were first to get emergency equipment in their stores to fire and police. They also shipped water into town two days ahead of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

911

Build Resilience Resilience refers to the collective ability to bounce back from a crisis. While some scholars believe this means returning to the status quo, others argue that resilient groups come out of the crisis stronger than ever before. Those who take a more proactive approach to collective resilience treat it as a capacity that groups can develop.68 To expand this capacity, leaders first develop resilience in themselves. Key attributes of self-resilience include the following:69

rebounding/reintegration: ability to move on in a positive direction after adversity (Complete Self-Assessment 11.2 to determine your ability to rebound from adversity.) high expectancy/self-determination: a sense of purpose; conviction that barriers can be overcome; not feeling overwhelmed by hopelessness or extreme challenges positive relationships/social support: healthy connections that provide communication and assistance sense of humor: ability to make light of adversity and the self, which encourages coping and moderates intense emotional reactions self-esteem/self-efficacy: high self-worth; confidence in the ability respond to challenging circumstances

Resilient leaders then foster resilience in followers. The transformational leadership behaviors described in Chapter 8 are particularly effective at building subordinate resilience.70 Idealized influence encourages followers to focus on shared values and purpose instead of falling victim to their fears. Inspirational motivation communicates a vision and optimism about the future, which energizes group members. Intellectual stimulation encourages followers to engage in problem solving, critical thinking, and generating alternative perspectives, all of which are critical to responding to emergencies. Individualized consideration builds followers’ sense of self-efficacy, which equips them to respond more effectively in a crisis and makes them feel valued. Subordinates who feel valued by their leaders invest more in finding solutions to the threat. (Turn to the Focus on Follower

912

ethics box for more information on how followers can develop moral resilience in the face of ethical adversity.)

In addition to fostering resilience in themselves and their constituents, ethical leaders promote resilient cultures. Resilient organizational cultures are marked by the following:71

1. Psychological safety. To feel safe, people must be free to ask questions, experiment, and admit mistakes without fear of being seen as ignorant or incompetent. They need to offer critical feedback to others and seek honest feedback. When members feel safe, they take interpersonal risks, which is critical in emergency situations.

2. Deep social capital. Deep social capital is built over time on respectful, face-to-face interactions based on honesty and trust. Social capital fosters the sharing of information and resources in a crisis and builds collaboration. These interactions also set the stage for long-term partnerships after the immediate danger has passed.

3. Diffused power and accountability. Resilient organizations disperse influence and accountability instead of being managed top down. Each part of the organization is designed to learn and change. Every member has discretion to make decisions along with the responsibility to reach organizational goals. These elements help organizations respond quickly to changing crisis conditions.

4. Access to broad resource networks. Resilient firms develop relationships with suppliers, neighboring businesses, and other groups that they can draw upon when faced with a traumatic event.

Communities, like organizations, can develop their resilience. To that end, the nonprofit Rockefeller Foundation hopes to equip communities to better prepare and recover from crises by providing 100 cities with funding to hire chief resilience officers (CROs).72 CROs are charged with developing resilience strategies, improving internal communication between government agencies, coordinating stakeholders, and focusing the attention of the public and the government on resilience issues. Each CRO (the first was hired in New Orleans) focuses on

913

the specific challenge facing her or his city. In earthquake-prone Christchurch, New Zealand, for example, the CRO has identified areas called green zones that are safe to build in. In New York City, the emphasis is on strengthening infrastructure (sewer, water, energy) to better withstand flooding. In Boulder, Colorado, the CRO brings together teams to address drought and fire mitigation. Grant recipients are provided with technical and logistical support, helped with funding strategies, and network with other resilience officers.

Focus on Follower Ethics Building Moral Resilience Through Moral Distress

Followers face moral distress/moral stress whenever they can’t act in accordance with their personal values. They know the right thing to do but their lower power and status prevents them from acting on their moral convictions. Moral distress, like other stressors, can harm physical and emotional well-being. One study found that employee moral stress led to higher fatigue, lower job satisfaction, and greater likelihood of turnover. In fact, moral distress was more damaging to employees than role conflict, feelings of powerlessness, being in a dead-end job, family conflicts, angry and unfriendly customers, and poor supervisor support.

Nurses are particularly vulnerable to moral stress. They work in demanding, morally intense environments where the health (and even the lives) of patients are at stake. They have lower standing than physicians and are often subject to the rules and regulations of large health care organizations. Examples of nurses experiencing moral distress include wanting to act as patient advocates but being stretched too thin due to understaffing, having to administer intravenous drugs to patients who have refused to take them orally, conducting unneeded tests ordered by doctors, and invading the privacy of mental health patients who don’t want medical staff to enter their homes.

Nursing ethicists and educators suggest that moral distress can be a pathway to moral resilience. They encourage nurses to recognize that they are not powerless victims but that they can act to better live out their ethical beliefs. Moral distress is a sign of moral sensitivity, not of moral failure. Taking ethics training and coursework can build nurses’ confidence to deal with distressing situations; adopting a positive mindset can build their self-awareness and foster greater

914

sensitivity to patients’ needs. Writing and reflecting on instances of moral stress promotes recovery from these events.

Talking about ethical issues is another way for nursing staff to address moral distress and develop resilience. In addition to interacting with fellow nurses, they should participate in discussions and debriefing sessions with doctors and serve as members of interdisciplinary ethics committees. Nursing ethicists also note that a hospital’s ethical culture plays a role in fostering moral resilience. A strong organizational ethical climate reduces the frequency of moral distress and empowers nurses to better live out their moral values.

The same strategies that build moral resilience in nurses should help other followers do the same. As subordinates, we need to recognize that moral distress is not a sign of weakness but of ethical strength. We are not victims but can take steps to build our moral resilience through education, ethical dialogue, and seeking out organizations that make ethical considerations a priority.

Sources

Bell DeTienne, K., Agle, B. R., Phillips, J. C., & Ingerson, M.-C. (2012). The impact of moral stress compared to other stressors on employee fatigue, job satisfaction, and turnover: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 377–393.

Hylton Rushton, C., Caldwell, M., & Kurtz, M. (2016). Moral distress: A catalyst in building moral resilience. American Journal of Nursing, 116, 40–49.

Lachman, V. D. (2016). Moral resilience: Managing and preventing moral distress and moral residue. MEDSURG Nursing, 25, 121–124.

915

The Ethical Demands of Extreme Leadership While crisis strikes every type of organization, there are some groups that continually operate in crisis environments. First responders, mountain climbers, combat units, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams, astronauts, skydivers, search and rescue teams, and others voluntarily place themselves in dangerous settings. A significant number of people work in these extreme contexts. There are an estimated 89 million people in the military worldwide, four million police officers in the largest 10 nations, and 298,000 firefighters in the United States and Canada alone.73 Leaders in these contexts put both their physical and mental health at risk to serve their organizations, communities and clients.

Extreme settings call for extreme leadership.74 To care for the needs of their followers, extreme leaders must possess high levels of competence and character. Competence involves not only knowledge of the domain (i.e., combat, firefighting, mountain climbing) but also the ability to make quick ethical choices in constantly changing, ambiguous circumstances. Extreme leaders demonstrate resilience in the face of adversity, modeling coping strategies for group members. Physical stamina helps them overcome obstacles and equips them to make better ethical decisions.

Character is also critical in life-and-death situations. Extreme settings call for ethos, which is extreme character or character beyond normal expectations.75 Ethos drives extreme leaders to risk injury and death with little hope of reward and to sacrifice on behalf of others. These leaders run to, not from, danger. That was the case in the seconds following the Boston Marathon bombings. As panicked runners and spectators fled to safety beyond the finish line, emergency personnel and volunteers ran towards the site of the blast, putting them at risk if there were additional explosions. Critical components of ethos include

916

Courage: Extreme leaders choose to put themselves in danger and take on more than their fair share of risks. Said one SWAT team leader, “If you put the plan together and you’re not comfortable being up there with a foot through the door, then what the hell is up?”76 They also possesses moral courage, making sure that the team conducts itself in an ethical manner (by not killing unarmed civilians in combat, for example) and questioning orders that put the unit at needless risk. Optimism: Both optimism and fear are contagious. Successful leaders offer hope that keeps the group going. Ineffective leaders allow their groups to wallow in despair, which saps the will to survive. Integrity/Authenticity: Followers in high-risk situations want consistent leaders who are transparent about the challenges facing the group. They also demand authenticity (see Chapter 8). When lives are on the line, followers quickly recognize and reject inauthentic leaders who don’t live up to their values. (Case Study 12.3 describes an extreme setting where authenticity is particularly important.) Loyalty: Extreme leaders are intensely loyal to their followers, constantly looking out for their welfare. They may deny themselves rations so that subordinates may eat, for example. At other times, they share in the discomfort of followers. During the war in Afghanistan, the commander of the U.S. 25th Infantry Division military unit demonstrated his willingness to share the discomfort of his troops when he left headquarters on Christmas day and flew to a remote military base. When he arrived, he sent two junior officers back to headquarters to enjoy the holiday. He stayed, spending the day in the back of a truck with soldiers on patrol. Caring: In order to perform under dangerous conditions, followers must be convinced that their leaders genuinely care for them. This concern extends to making sure that the needs of followers’ families are also met. Humility: Many extreme leaders—guides, soldiers, police officers—live modestly and don’t earn that much more than their followers. They are motivated by their commitment to the group’s mission, not wealth.

917

Because of the dangers inherent in extreme settings, extreme leaders need to be prepared to deal with death. Ethical leaders recognize that the death of an individual is a “social event,” one that strikes the group as a whole.77 They use funerals, moments of silence, memorial services and other rituals as “shock absorbers” to help the group, as well as individual members, maintain their collective and self-identities. (When someone dies, others close to her or him often feel they have lost a part of themselves.) Moral leaders know that denying or downplaying death keeps group members from processing the loss, which can undermine group cohesion and morale while contributing to posttraumatic stress. They treat the fallen, no matter how lowly their status or rank, with respect. This signals to survivors that everyone is important, even in death. According to extreme leadership expert Col. Thomas Kolditz,

People watch leaders in the presence of the dead very carefully, because the dead are the most vulnerable members of any organization: They can’t defend themselves, and they project the innocence of the human soul. They no longer have the ability to contribute, so there is no transactional purpose associated with their treatment. You reach every member of your organization by the way you treat your dead.78

Humility and compassion come to the fore when dealing with death. Moral leaders recognize that when someone is killed or seriously injured, they need to make themselves “small” so the focus can stay on the victim. Ethical response to death also provides an opportunity for renewal. Coming face to face with death prompts us to look beyond the self to connect with others. Survivors create new social bonds; the group becomes more cohesive.

To date, there is no universal code of ethics for leaders in all types of extreme situations. However, respect for human rights (people’s “moral worth”) should underlie all decisions of crisis professionals. For military and police forces, this means only using lethal force or

918

creating risk for others when there is no other option (the principle of necessity). Soldiers and law enforcement personnel should only use as much force as needed to accomplish the mission while preserving the rights of those affected by the mission (the principle of proportionality). They shouldn’t intentionally harm those who don’t pose a threat (the principle of immunity).79

Though we may never set out to become crisis professionals, we can learn from their example. When crisis strikes, competence and character make the difference between organizational survival and failure. As leaders, we need to demonstrate our expertise, make rapid moral choices, model resilience, and possess physical stamina. Our character—courage, loyalty, authenticity, compassion, humility—takes on added significance in emergency situations. Acknowledge death when it occurs in our organizations, treating the fallen with utmost respect and looking to strengthen connections with survivors. Concern for the moral worth of others should guide our choices.

Implications and Applications

A crisis, which is any major unanticipated event that poses a significant threat, will be the ultimate test of your ability to provide ethical leadership. Crises can be divided into 10 types: public perception, natural disasters, product or service, terrorist attacks, economic, human resources, industrial, oil and chemical spills, transportation, and outside environment. Deliberate attempts to disrupt or destroy systems (abnormal accidents) are on the rise, and you must help your group or organization prepare for them. All crises follow a three-stage pattern of development: precrisis, crisis event, and postcrisis. Precrisis is the period of normalcy between crisis events. Use this time to identify potential trouble spots, to examine long- term trends that might threaten the group, and to prepare crisis management plans (CMPs). The crisis event starts with a trigger event and the recognition that a crisis has occurred. This stage ends when the immediate crisis is resolved. During this phase, your task is to identify the crisis, activate CMPs and teams, appoint a spokesperson, and try to limit the damage. Get to the scene of the disaster as soon as possible; be physically present for victims.

919

Postcrisis is a period of investigation and recovery. Moral leaders try to determine what went wrong and institute corrective measures. They also help the group (1) salvage its reputation, (2) engage in crisis learning, (3) begin the healing process by honoring victims and looking to future opportunities, and (4) foster resilience (the ability to bounce back from future crises). Responsibility is the foundation for ethical crisis leadership. As a leader, you have a duty to try to prevent the harm caused by a crisis, to mitigate the damage caused by your group, to address the needs of all affected stakeholder groups, to take steps to prevent a similar event from happening again, to help the organization learn from the experience, and to foster renewal. In an emergency, make transparency your goal. As much as possible, be open with stakeholders and strive to maintain symmetrical relationships with these groups based on two-way communication. Crisis events call for heroic leadership. Heroes take decisive action when most people can’t or won’t. They act for the good of others at significant risk to themselves with no hope of reward. Prepare for heroic action by stimulating your heroic imagination, which is the capacity to imagine risky situations, and how you might respond. Altruism (care) should be the driving ethical principle during crisis events. Address the emotional and spiritual concerns of those affected, not just their financial and physical needs. Go beyond what the law and justice require. As a leader, you will need to engage the head as well as the heart when responding to crises. Create a mindful culture that closely monitors and corrects even minor problems and deviations. Base decisions on information and analysis as well as on moral values in order to better anticipate and manage crisis events. No amount of preparation can prepare you and the rest of your group for every contingency, so you will need to ethically improvise. Successful improvisation draws on the core mission and values of your group or organization. Develop your ability to recover from setbacks. Then build the collective resilience of your group through transformational leadership behaviors and by fostering a culture marked by psychological safety, diffused power and accountability, deep social capital, and access to broad resource networks. Extreme leaders continually operate in high-threat situations. To succeed, they demonstrate competence and extraordinary character. They honor the dead while putting a high value on

920

human life. You can draw from their example when facing crises.

For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment

1. React to one the following statements from the opening of the chapter: “Crises are moments of moral imperative.” or “Every crisis requires a hero.” Record your reflections and share them with a partner or in a group.

2. Use Self-Assessment 12.1 to determine your crisis readiness level and that of your organization. If possible, distribute the assessment to others in your organization and compare scores.

3. Determine your level of resilience by completing Self- Assessment 12.2. How can you improve your ability to recover from setbacks?

4. Should all cities have CROs? What tasks should be included in the job description for this position? What skills would it take to fill this position? Write up your conclusions.

5. In a group, brainstorm a list of possible crises that could strike your college or university or work organization. Then select one of these events and outline a crisis management strategy for dealing with this situation. If time permits, assume the role of organizational leaders and conduct a mock press conference, using other members of the class as media representatives.

6. With others, generate a list of long-term trends that could pose a threat to your organization. Develop strategies to proactively address each of the issues raised by these trends.

7. In a research paper, evaluate the crisis response of an organization or city using the ethical standards and strategies described in this chapter as well as the crisis leadership scorecard in Box 12.1. Describe the event and provide an analysis. Include suggestions that would help the organization do a better job of ethical crisis management in the future.

8. Create a case study that demonstrates how an organization was able to ethically improvise during a crisis event. Or, as an alternative, create a case study that demonstrates how an organization was able to learn from a crisis event.

9. In a group, come up with a list of guidelines for determining what to reveal and what to keep secret in a crisis.

10. Have you ever been a leader in a life-or-death situation? What ethical challenges did you face and how did you meet these demands? Share your experiences with the rest of the class.

921

Student Study Site

Visit the student study site at https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE journal articles for further research and information on key chapter topics.

https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e

922

Case Study 12.1 Failure to Learn From Crisis: Duck Boats as “Death Traps” Duck boat tours are a popular tourist attraction in Miami, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., London, San Juan, and other cities in the United States and abroad. Duck boats are amphibious vehicles designed to travel on land and water. They were developed during World War II to move troops and supplies from ship to shore during the Normandy invasion and other landings. After the war, they were converted to recreational use. The typical duck tour boat, painted in bright colors, is roughly shaped like a shoe with a canvas canopy. Some tour operators promote a festive atmosphere by providing passengers with kazoos to make quacking sounds or by piping in music.

The bright colors and festive spirit of the typical duck boat tour hides the ugly reality that these vehicles can be “death traps” for those who ride them. On land, they have blind spots that make them more vulnerable to accidents. Five died when a Seattle duck boat filled with students collided with a bus and a pedestrian was killed by a duck boat in Boston. On water, they are even more dangerous. They travel slowly and sit low in the water, which makes them easy to swamp in rough seas. Canopies can trap passengers (even those in life jackets) inside the vessel in the event the boat submerges.

The sinking of a Ride the Ducks boat on Missouri’s Table Rock Lake in 2018 was a stark reminder of duck boat danger. Seventeen passengers and one crew member drowned when the vehicle capsized and sank in 80 feet of water during a sudden thunderstorm. Nine of the victims were members of the extended Coleman family, ranging in age from 1 to 76, who had traveled from Indiana to Branson, Missouri, on vacation. Onlookers reported hearing screams and seeing heads briefly bobbing and then disappearing in the waves. Seventy-mile-an-hour winds made rescue attempts nearly impossible.

Survivor Tia Coleman reports that the captain told boarding passengers, “Above you are the life jackets, there are three sizes, but you won’t need them.”1 (When found, none of the victims had life jackets on.) The vessel’s captain decided to go out on the lake even though he had received a report from the local weather service that a strong storm was approaching. He has been charged with 17 counts of negligence (one count for each victim), misconduct, and inattention to duty by a ship’s officer. He could serve 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each

923

count if convicted. The president of the company that owns the duck boats said the vessel shouldn’t have been on the water that morning.

The Branson water accident, though it involved the greatest loss of life, wasn’t the first. Five died when a Philadelphia duck boat crashed into a barge on the Delaware River. In 1999, 13 people perished when a poorly maintained boat sank in calm water shortly after leaving shore near Hot Springs, Arkansas. Following that accident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) made a series of recommendations to improve passenger safety. These included removing the canopies to improve the likelihood of underwater escape and adding additional buoyancy so that the vehicles could stay afloat even if they take on water. The NTSB issued an urgent warning to duck boat operators: “Without delay, alter your amphibious passenger vessels to provide reserve buoyance . . . through passive means, such as watertight compartmentalization, so that they will remain afloat and upright in the event of flooding, even when carrying a full complement of passengers and crew.”2 However, in the 20 years between the Arkansas and Missouri accidents, few if any of the recommendations were implemented. (The NTSB has no authority to force tour operators to comply.) Lax safety enforcement is likely due to the fact that oversight is split between a number of agencies, including the Coast Guard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and local and state governments where the boats operate.

A number of critics are calling for closer regulation of the duck boat industry. Boston, for example, is considering legislation requiring sensors and cameras on every duck boat, and the tour operator now requires two tour guides on each vehicle. Some, including an attorney who represented victims in two previous fatal duck boat accidents, want to ban the boats altogether. Jim Hall, chair of the NTSB at the time of the Hot Springs tragedy, agrees that the boats are inherently dangerous: “I don’t think those vehicles were designed for the recreational use they’re being used for. They’re not safe.”3

924

Discussion Probes 1. Have you ever been on a duck boat tour? Did you have any

concerns about your safety? Would you go another tour knowing the dangers?

2. How is the Table Rock sinking the result of failing to learn from the earlier Arkansas accident? What other factors apparently contributed to the tragedy?

3. Who, if anyone, should be held accountable for the Table Rock deaths besides the captain?

4. What agency or agencies should be responsible for ensuring the safety of duck boat tours?

5. Should all duck boat tours be banned? Why or why not? 6. If duck boat tours continue, what steps should be taken to make

them safer? Would this include requiring all passengers to wear life jackets when the boats are on the water?

925

Notes 1. Chuck, E. (2018, July 20). For nearly 20 years, duck boat safety recommendations have gone largely ignored. NBC News.

2. Eligon, J., Williams, T., Smith, M., & Zraick, K. (2018, July 20). Missouri duck boat accident kills 17, including 9 from same family. The New York Times.

3. Chuck.

926

Sources “Deathtraps”: Fatal Branson duck boat accident shines light on past incidents. CBS News.

Flint, K. (2017, March 21). Boston duck tours return under new rules following fatal collision. NBC Boston.

Hayes, C. (2018, July 21). Would wearing life jackets have made the deadly Branson duck boat accident even worse? USA Today.

Park, M., & Levenson, E. (2018, July 23). Coast Guard raises capsized boat to the surface of Table Rock Lake. CNN.

Romo, V. (2018, November 8). Duck boat captain indicted in Missouri lake accident that killed 17. NPR.

Szmania, C. (2018, July 27). This one design flaw led to a deadly Missouri duck boat accident. Yahoo!News.

927

Case Study 12.2 One Chef, a Fist Full of Credit Cards, and the World’s Largest Restaurant The 2017 hurricane season was the most expensive on record, causing over $200 billion in damage in the United States. Three major storms caused most of the devastation. Hurricanes Harvey and Irma blasted Texas and Florida and Hurricane Maria wiped out homes and crops as well as most of the infrastructure of Puerto Rico. The disaster response in Texas and Florida was faster and more effective than in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. That was not the case in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican officials complained that emergency supplies and personnel were delayed. Once food, water, fuel, and medicine arrived, they often sat at shipping terminals because there weren’t enough trucks and drivers to deliver them. Roads to remote towns were cut off. Six weeks after Maria, 80% of the population was without electricity and one quarter lacked access to clean drinking water. The United Nations criticized U.S. leaders for “absence of adequate emergency response” which resulted in an “alarming situation” for residents.1

Washington, D.C., celebrity chef Jose Andres, founder of the World Central Kitchen nonprofit, landed in Puerto Rico in the midst of the chaos. After realizing that conditions were worse than expected, Andres went to work doing what he knows best—cooking. He recruited local chefs who had still had food and went to buy up all the aluminum pans he could find. The next morning, the chefs started cooking massive pots of sancocho, the island’s signature stew, and began sending food to medical personnel and those stuck in long gas lines. Within a week, the group was serving 25,000 meals a day, including sandwiches and fresh fruit. More volunteers, nonprofits, and food companies joined the effort and the central kitchen moved to the island’s largest arena. Food trucks were dispatched to isolated neighborhoods and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cars patrolling the island were loaded up with food deliveries. At first, Andres financed operations using his credit cards and cash he carried in his Orvis fishing vest. Later, the $400,000 a day cost was funded by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) contracts and donations. With communication channels largely wiped out, his group of volunteers relied on satellite phones, WhatsApp, and a paper map of feeding stations to coordinate their efforts.

Chef Andres clashed with FEMA and other government agencies. He bristled at FEMA’s claims that his group lacked the experience to mount a

928

massive feeding effort. He criticized relief authorities for providing premade military food rations or MREs, which are expensive, instead of hot food. He was frustrated with having to take time to make bids and negotiate contracts during the crisis. “Emergency in food means one thing,” said Andres. “People are hungry. And when you’re hungry, it’s today.”2

Andres and his World Central Kitchen staff are not the only restaurateurs to respond to natural disasters. Chefs served food after the earthquake and tsunami in Sumatra, a massive tornado in Joplin, Missouri, and fire in Northern California. Other groups and organizations are following the lead of the chefs by providing targeted disaster response that addresses specific problems. UPS, for example, deploys logistic emergency teams to help with warehousing and transportation. IBM helps organizations quickly restore their IT systems.

At one point, World Central Kitchen served 130,000 meals a day in “the largest restaurant in the world.” When conditions began to improve, Andres cut back on his operation, not wanting to compete with local restaurants and other businesses. He then left the island for home. He stayed longer than he intended but felt he couldn’t do otherwise. “At the end, I couldn’t forgive myself if I didn’t try to do what I thought was right. We need to think less sometimes and dream less and just make it happen.”3

929

Discussion Probes 1. Why do you think disaster recovery efforts in Puerto Rico lagged

behind those on the U.S. mainland? 2. What resources did Chef Andres have that enabled him to organize

his feeding program? 3. Why are warm meals important following a disaster? 4. Is there any danger in operating outside normal channels, as Chef

Andres did, when responding to disaster? 5. Can you think of other examples of individuals, companies, and

organizations that have applied their specific skills and knowledge to particular disaster recovery problems?

6. Which of the components of ethical crisis management do you see in this case?

930

Notes 1. Barron, L. (2017, October 31). U.S. emergency response efforts in Puerto Rico aren’t good enough, U.N. experts say. Time.

2. Augenstein, N. (2017, November 27). DC chef Jose Andres feeds millions in hurricane-stricken Puerto Rico. Retrieved from https://wtop.com/author/neal-augesntein/

3. Severson, K. (2017, October 30). Jose Andres fed Puerto Rico, and may change how aid is given. The New York Times, p. D1.

https://wtop.com/author/neal-augesntein/

931

Sources Andres, J., & Wolffe, R. (2018). We fed an island. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Carman, T. (2017, October 1). Jose Andres, a naturalized U.S. citizen, has become the face of American disaster relief. The Washington Post.

Carman, T. (2017, October 18). After Maria, Jose Andres and his team have prepared more hot meals in Puerto Rico than the Red Cross. The Washington Post.

Fausset, R. (2017, September 12). Amid chaos of storms, U.S. shows it has improved its response [Web log post]. The New York Times.

Pomranz, M. (2017, November 13). Jose Andres says his work in Puerto Rico is far from done. Food & Wine.

Sullivan, B. K. (2017, November 28). The most expensive U.S. hurricane season ever: By the numbers. Bloomberg.

932

Case Study 12.3 Extreme Leadership at the Bottom of the World Antarctica is the most hostile—coldest, windiest, driest—environment on earth. Temperatures can drop to 129 degrees below and blizzard wind speeds can reach 200 miles per hour. Complete darkness envelops this, the southernmost continent, for months on end. “Antarctica is the last wilderness on the planet,” notes one expedition leader. “There are no native humans living on Antarctica, and there’s a good reason for that.”1

Under the terms of a 1959 treaty, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, and Britain operate Antarctic scientific research stations housing biologists, climatologists, hydrologists, and other scientists supported by technical, medical, and maintenance staff. Approximately 1,000 personnel (called sojourners) spend their winters on the ice after summer visitors have departed. The extreme environment poses a constant threat (frostbite is routine) and deaths occur. Scientists and support personnel have perished in accidents, drownings, shipwrecks, fires, and helicopter and plane crashes. Medical evacuations are highly dangerous because darkness and extreme cold keep planes from flying. As a result, station staff are largely on their own when medical emergencies strike. In one notable medical crisis, Jerri Nielsen, a physician at the Amundsen–Scott Pole Research Station, was airlifted out for aggressive breast cancer but not before she first performed a biopsy on herself. (Nonmedical personnel assisted after first practicing for the operation using needles on a raw chicken.)

Antarctic sojourners face social and psychological challenges along with physical dangers. Those who overwinter are separated from family and friends for months while being forced to live with strangers in tight quarters. “Winter-over syndrome” describes such symptoms as insomnia, depression, irritability, withdrawal, and slowed physical and cognitive function. The polar workplace serves as a prototype for other “capsule environments.” How sojourners cope with life at the South Pole can provide insights into how humans might function on extended space flights and when living on other planets.

Polar leadership calls for the right mix of character traits. Researcher Ian Lovegrove studied 26 British station managers and their followers and found that successful station managers were able to build trust by accepting (trusting) station personnel and engaging in open and honest communication. Honesty is particularly important when debriefing “near

933

misses,” errors that could have caused the loss of life. Sojourners want leaders who are warm and empathetic, but not overly so, since the field leader may have to discipline team members. Effective leaders are optimistic, with a moderate sense of humor. Most importantly, station managers are authentic leaders. They demonstrate integrity, drawing upon their self-awareness and values to promote well-being of their followers. Because station leaders are under constant scrutiny in confined spaces, followers quickly note any inauthentic behaviors, which destroy trust.

Authentic polar leaders play a critical role in creating positive experiences for sojourners. Polar veterans report many more positive than negative events and a high percentage (25% of Australian winterers, for instance) return again. Those who overcome the hardships of polar station environments have higher levels of mental and physical health, success, and insight after their missions. (The same is true of submariners.) The grandeur of the Antarctic appears to stimulate reflection about the beauty, spiritual importance, and might of nature. Many modern sojourners echo the words of Cherry-Garrard, a member of Robert Scott’s 1912 Antarctic expedition. He described the expedition as “the worst way to have the best time of your life.”2

934

Discussion Probes 1. What factors make polar research similar to other extreme contexts?

Different? 2. How do the character traits of successful polar station leaders

compare to those of leaders in other extreme settings? 3. Would polar station leaders be as effective if they acted as

transformational leaders? Servant leaders? Why or why not? 4. What role does resilience play in meeting the challenges of leading

and following at the South Pole? 5. Why would Antarctica exploration or research be the “best time” of

life for those who travel there? What impact could such an experience have on the character of participants?

6. What leadership ethics lessons can we draw from extreme leadership in the Antarctic?

935

Notes 1. Ghose, T. (2016, January 26). Explorer’s death highlights danger of Antarctica. Live Science.

2. Roberts, R. (2011, January). Psychology at the end of the world. The Psychologist, 24, p. 25.

936

Sources Doctor rescued from Antarctica in 1999 dies at 57. (2009, June 23). CNN.

Fire techs killed at US research station. (2018, December 12). Firehouse.

Grady, D. (2001, April 14). Rescue planes are dispatched for sick doctor in Antarctica. The New York Times.

Kaplan, S. (2016, October 24). Climate scientist Gordon Hamilton, 50, dies in accident in Antarctica. The Washington Post.

Lovegrove, I. (2013). Leaders in Antarctica: Characteristics of an Antarctic station manager. In C. M. Giannantonio & A. E. Hurley-Hanson (Eds.), Extreme leadership: Leaders, teams and situations outside the norm (pp. 47–61). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Suedfeld, P., & Steel, G. D. (2000). The environmental psychology of capsule habitats. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 227–253.

Wood, J., Hysong, S. J., Lugg, D. J. & Harm, D. L. (2000). Is it really so bad? A comparison of positive and negative experiences in Antarctic winter stations. Environment and Behavior, 32, 84–110.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 12.1 Crisis and/or Disaster Preparedness Scale

This instrument measures how prepared you think you and your organization are for a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, an industrial accident, or another form of crisis. The higher your score (possible scores range from 21 to 84), the higher your level of perceived preparedness.

Instructions: Score each of the following as 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. Reverse scores where indicated.

1. I am very familiar with our building’s evacuation plan. 1 2 3 4

2. It would be easy for a potentially threatening nonemployee to gain access to my workplace. (Reverse)

1 2 3 4

937

3. If my organization suffered a serious crisis, I might lose my job. (Reverse)

1 2 3 4

4. If my organization suffered a serious crisis, I would still get paid until we could reopen. 1 2 3 4

5. My organization has provided each employee with a basic emergency preparedness kit (e.g., flashlight, smoke mask).

1 2 3 4

6. The security at my workplace is adequate. 1 2 3 4

7. If a crisis occurred at my organization, I am familiar with the plan for how family members can get information on the status (e.g., safety) of their relatives.

1 2 3 4

8. In the event of an emergency or a disaster, I am familiar with my organization’s plan to continue operations from another location.

1 2 3 4

9. All organization members are required to rehearse portions of our crisis plan (e.g., evacuation).

1 2 3 4

10. If my organization suffered a serious crisis, I would still have my job. 1 2 3 4

11. If my organization suffered a crisis, I would still be covered by my organization’s employee benefits (e.g., health insurance).

1 2 3 4

12. Security at my workplace has been significantly increased since September 11, 2001.

1 2 3 4

13. I know where the nearest fire extinguisher is to my desk/workstation. 1 2 3 4

14. If a crisis and evacuation occurred at my organization, I am familiar with our plan on how to communicate with my fellow employees from scattered or emergency locations (e.g., cell phone numbers, websites, e-mail lists).

1 2 3 4

938

15. Most of our employees are familiar with my organization’s crisis/disaster plan.

1 2 3 4

16. As part of our emergency plan, customers and suppliers would be able to contact us for information.

1 2 3 4

17. If my organization suffered a crisis/disaster, I would have the data I need to do my job backed up at a remote site.

1 2 3 4

18. My organization offers to pay to have volunteer employees trained in basic life support techniques (e.g., CPR, first aid).

1 2 3 4

19. My organization has contingency plans in place so our customers would be covered if we suffered a disaster.

1 2 3 4

20. I know where the nearest emergency exits are to my desk/workstation. 1 2 3 4

21. My organization’s emergency plan has been coordinated with local agencies (e.g., the fire department, hospitals).

1 2 3 4

Source: Fowler, K. L., Kling, N. D., & Larson, M. D. (2007). Organizational preparedness for coping with a major crisis or disaster. Business & Society, 46, 100–101.

SELF-ASSESSMENT 12.2 The Brief Resilience Scale

939

Instructions Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements by using the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

1. I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times. 2. I have a hard time making it through stressful events. 3. It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event. 4. It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens. 5. I usually come through difficult times with little trouble. 6. I tend to take a long time to get over setbacks in my life.

Scoring: Reverse your scores on items 2, 4, and 6. Then add your scores for the six items to come up with a total. Then divide your total score by 6 to determine your mean score. The higher your mean score (range 1–5), the more resilient you believe you are.

Source: Smith, B. W. M., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K. Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, p. 196. Used by permission.

940

Notes 1. Fearn-Banks, K. (2017). Crisis communications: A casebook approach (5th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Pearson, C. M., & Judith, A. C. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management Review, 23, 59–71.

2. Christensen, S. L., & Kohls, J. (2003). Ethical decision making in times of organizational crises: A framework for analysis. Business & Society, 42, 328–358.

3. Coombs, W. T. (2012). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis. Westport, CT: Praeger.

4. Mitroff, I. I. (2005). Why some companies emerge stronger and better from a crisis. New York, NY: AMACOM.

5. For more information on the relationship between complexity and crises, see Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

6. Seeger et al.

7. Bazerman, M. H., & Watkins, M. D. (2004). Predictable surprises: The disasters you should have seen coming and how to prevent them. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

8. Pauchant, T. C., & Mitroff, I. I. (1992). Transforming the crisis- prone organization: Preventing individual, organizational, and environmental tragedies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

9. Pauchant & Mitroff, p. 186.

10. Simola, S. (2010). Anti-corporate anger as a form of care- based moral agency. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 255–269.

941

11. Livesey, S. M. (2003). Organizing and leading the grassroots: An interview with Lois Gibbs, Love Canal Homeowners Association activist. Organization, 16, 448–503.

12. Fink, S. (2002). Crisis management: Planning for the inevitable. Lincoln, NE: Backinprint.com.

13.Equifax data breach was “entirely preventable,” congressional report says. (2018, December 11). CBS News; Weiser, B. (2018, December 19). Bike path attack suspect was on the F.B.I.’s radar. The New York Times.

14. See, for example, Mitroff, I. I., & Anagnos, G. (2001). Managing crises before they happen: What every executive and manager needs to know about crisis management. New York, NY: American Management Association; Mitroff, I. I., Pearson, C. M., & Harrington, L. K. (1996). The essential guide to managing corporate crises: A step-by-step handbook for surviving major catastrophes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

15. Mitroff, I. I., & Alpsaian, M. C. (2003, April). Preparing for evil. Harvard Business Review, 109–115.

16. Regester, M., & Larkin, J. (2005). Risk issues and crisis management: A casebook of best practice (3rd ed.). London, England: Kogan Page.

17. Dougall, E. (2008, December 12). Issues management. Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org

18. Heath, R. L. (2002). Issues management: Its past, present and future. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4), 209–214.

19. Fearn-Banks; Veil, S. R., Buehner, T., & Palenchar, M. J. (2011). A work-in-process literature review: Incorporating social media in risk and crisis communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19, 110–122.

20. Hunter, D. (2018, December 4). 2018 Anchorage earthquake: Preparedness works! Scientific American; Sacks, B. (2018,

http://www.instituteforpr.org/

942

November 14). The California town destroyed by the Camp fire wasn’t prepared for the worst. And then something even worse came. BuzzFeedNews.

21. Lee, J., Woeste, J. H., & Heath, R. L. (2007). Getting ready for crises: Strategic excellence. Public Relations Review, 33, 334– 336.

22. Zack, N. (2009). Ethics for disaster. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.

23. Zack, p. 29.

24. Daleus, P., & Hansen, D. (2011). Inherent ethical challenges in bureaucratic crisis management: The Swedish experience with the 2004 tsunami disaster. In L. Svedin (Ed.), Ethics and crisis management (pp. 21–36). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

25. Barton, L. (2001). Crisis in organizations II. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

26. Denyer, S. (2014, March 12). Contradictory statements from Malaysia over missing airliner perplex, infuriate. WashingtonPost.com

27. Ciulla, J. B. (2013). Being there: Why leaders should not “fiddle” while Rome burns. In J. B. Ciulla, M. Uhl-Bien & P. H. Werhane (Eds.) Leadership ethics (Vol. 1, pp. 419–439). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28. Benoit, W. L. (2004). Image restoration discourse and crisis communication. In D. P. Millar & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 263– 280). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2004). Reasoned action in crisis communication: An attribution theory-based approach to crisis management. In D. P. Millar & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 95–115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

29. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity.

943

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

30. Wallace, J. (2018, December 13). Report on Hurricane Harvey response finds plenty of room for improvement. Houston Chronicle.

31. Harris, S., Smallen, J., & Mitchell, C. (2006, February 18). Katrina report spreads blame. National Journal, p. 38; Marek, A. C. (2006, February 27). A post-Katrina public flaying. U.S. News & World Report, 62–64.

32. Lackey, R. (2012, July 21). What is the change in tactics from “cordon and contain” to “active shooter response?” Truthfinder.

33. Ulmer, R. R., Seeger, M. W., & Sellnow, T. L. (2007). Post- crisis communication and renewal: Expanding the parameters of post-crisis discourse. Public Relations Review, 33, 130–134; Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2008). Post-crisis communication and renewal: Understanding the potential for positive outcomes in crisis communication. In R. L. Heath & D. H. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of risk and crisis communication (pp. 302 –322). Hoboken, NJ: Routledge.

34. Eligon, J. (2013, July 11). City in Iowa rebuilds from flooding but remains vulnerable. The New York Times.

35. Seeger et al.

36. Allinson, R. E. (1993). Global disasters: Inquiries into management ethics. New York, NY: Prentice Hall, p. 16.

37. Fearn-Banks.

38. Turner, S. (n.d.). 2018 data breaches—the worst so far. IdentityForce; Hays, T., & Krisher, T. (2015, September 18). GM agrees to pay $1.5 billion in settlements. The Oregonian, pp. G1, G3.

39. Birkinshaw, P. (2006). Transparency as a human right. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 47–57). Oxford, England: Oxford University

944

Press; Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2013). Theorizing crisis communication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

40. Lazarus, H., & McManus, T. (2006). Transparency guru: An interview with Tom McManus. Journal of Management Development, 25, 923–936.

41. Fearn-Banks.

42. Christensen, L. T., & Langer, R. (2009). Public relations and the strategic use of transparency: Consistency, hypocrisy, and corporate change. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 129– 153). New York, NY: Routledge.

43. Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

44. Fearn-Banks.

45. Lazarus & McManus.

46. Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242; Paul, J., & Strbiak, C. A. (1997). The ethics of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 149–159.

47. Kline, S. L., Simunich, B., & Weber, H. (2009). The use of equivocal messages in responding to corporate challenges. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 40–58; Dulek, R. E., & Sydow Campbell, K. (2015). On the dark side of strategic communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 122–142.

48. Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2000). Consistent questions of ambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the Box as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 143–155.

945

49. Smithson, J., & Venette, S. (2013). Stonewalling as an image- defense strategy: A critical examination of BP’s response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Communication Studies, 64 (4), 395–410.

50. Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, Ch. 4.

51. Franco, Z. (2017). Heroism in times of crisis: Understanding leadership during extreme events. In S. T. Allison, G. R. Goethals, & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of heroism and heroic leadership (pp. 185–202). New York, NY: Routledge.

52. Franco, Z., & Zimbardo, P. (2006, September 1). The banality of heroism. Greater Good.

53. Oppel, R. A. (2018, July 17). MGM Resorts sues 1,000 victims of Las Vegas Shooting, seeking to avoid liability. The New York Times.

54. Bauman, D. C. (2011). Evaluating ethical approaches to crisis leadership: Insights from unintentional harm research. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 281–295; Knobe, J. (2006). The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies, 130, 203–231; Knobe, J., & Burra, A. (2006). The folk concepts of intention and intentional action: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6, 113–132.

55. Jordan, J., Diermeier, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The strategic Samaritan: How effectiveness and proximity affect corporate responses to external crises. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4), 621–648.

56. See, for example, Hodgkinson, P. E., & Stewart, M. (1991). Coping with catastrophe: A handbook of disaster management. London, England: Routledge; Mitroff.

57. Simola, S. (2005). Concepts of care in organizational crisis prevention. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 341–353; Simola, S.

946

(2003). Ethics of justice and care in corporate crisis management. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 351–361.

58. Starmann, R. G. (1993). Tragedy at McDonald’s. In J. A. Gottschalk (Ed.), Crisis response: Inside stories on managing image under siege (pp. 309–322). Detroit, MI: Gale Group.

59. Witt, J. L., & Morgan, J. (2002). Stronger in the broken places: Nine lessons for turning crisis into triumph. New York, NY: Times Books/Henry Holt.

60. Bazerman, M. H. (2014). The power of noticing: What the best leaders see. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

61. Weick & Sutcliffe. See also Roberts, K. H. (2006). Some characteristics of one type of high reliability organization. In D. Smith & D. Elliott (Eds.), Key readings in crisis management: Systems and structures for prevention and recovery (pp. 159– 179). London, England: Routledge; Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (2006). Collective minds in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. In D. Smith & D. Elliott (Eds.), Key readings in crisis management: Systems and structures for prevention and recovery (pp. 343–368). London, England: Routledge.

62. Rochlin, G. I., LaPorte, T. R., & Roberts, K. H. (1987). The self-designing high-reliability organization: Aircraft carrier flight operations at sea. Naval War College Review, 40(4), 76–90.

63. Snyder, P., Hall, M., Robertson, J., Jasinski, T., & Miller, J. S. (2006). Ethical rationality: A strategic approach to organizational crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 371–383.

64. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543–576.

65. Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Strategic planning as if ethics mattered. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 17–34.

66. Argenti, P. (2002, December). Crisis communication: Lessons from 9/11. Harvard Business Review, 103–109.

947

67. Andres, J., & Wolfee, R. (2018). We fed an island. New York, NY: HarperCollins, p. 240.

68. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 243–255.

69. Earvolino-Ramirez, M. (2007). Resilience: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 42, 73–82.

70. Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 1–14; Nguyen, Q., Kuntz, J. R. C., Naswall, K., & S. Malinen (2016, August). Employee resilience and leadership styles: The moderating role of proactive personality and optimism. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 45, 13–21; Rajah, R., & Arvey, R. D. (2013). Helping group members develop resilience. In A. J. DuBrin, (Ed.), Handbook of research on crisis leadership in organizations (pp. 149–173). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

71. Lengnick-Hall, Beck, & Lengnick-Hall.

72. McKay, J. (2014, September 12). Chief resilience officers: Coming to your city? Emergency Management; Toppo, G. (2013, June 11). At-risk cities ramp up disaster-response planning. USA Today; Berkowiz, M. (2015). What a chief resilience officer does. 100 Resilient Cities, Rockefeller Foundation; Institutionalizing urban resilience: A midterm monitoring and evaluation report of 100 resilient cities (2018, December 6). 100 Resilient Cities, Rockefeller Foundation.

73. Hannah, S. T., & Parry, K. W. (2014). Leadership in extreme contexts. In M. J. Rumsey (Ed.), Oxford handbook of leadership (pp. 613–637). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

74. Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 897–919; Kolditz, T. A., & Brazil, D. M. (2005). Authentic leadership in in extremis settings: A

948

concept for extraordinary leaders in exceptional situations. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development (pp. 345–356). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

75. Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2011). Leader character, ethos, and virtue: Individual and collective considerations. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 989–994; Jennings, P. L., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). The moralities of obligation and aspiration: Towards a concept of exemplary military ethics and leadership. Military Psychology, 23, 550–571.

76. Kolditz, T. A. (2005, Fall). The in extremis leader. Leader to Leader, 6–18, p. 11.

77. Cohen, R. A. (2006). Levinas: Thinking about death—contra Heidegger. International Journal of the Philosophy of Religion, 60, 21–39; Kernic, F. (2017). Facing death: The dynamics of leadership and group behavior in extreme situations when death strikes without warning. In M. Holenweger, M. Jager, & F. Kernic (Eds.), Leadership in extreme situations: Advanced sciences and technologies for security applications (pp. 21–40). New York, NY: Springer.

78. Kolditz, T. A. (2007). In extremis leadership: Leading as if your life depended on it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. p. 143.

79. Pfaff, C. A., Reich, T., Redman, W., & Hurley, M. (2011). Ethics in dangerous situations. In P. Sweeney, M. D. Matthews, & P. B. Lester (Eds.), Leadership in dangerous situations: A handbook for the armed forces, emergency, services, and first responders (pp. 121–138). Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

949

950

Epilogue

It’s only fair to tell you fellows now that we’re not likely to come out of this.

—CAPTAIN JOSHUA JAMES, SPEAKING TO HIS CREW DURING THE HURRICANE OF 1888

Captain Joshua James (1826–1902) is the “patron saint” of the search and rescue unit of the U.S. Coast Guard. James led rescue efforts to save sailors who crashed off the shores of Massachusetts. When word came of a shipwreck, James and his volunteer crew would launch a large rowboat into heavy seas. James would keep an eye out for the stricken vessel as his men rowed, steering with a large wooden rudder. During his career, he never lost a crewman or a shipwrecked person who had been alive when picked up. The captain’s finest hour came during a tremendous storm in late November 1888. Over a 24-hour period, James (62 years old at the time) and his men rescued 29 sailors from five ships.

Philip Hallie, who writes about James in his book Tales of Good and Evil, Help and Harm, argues that we can understand James’s courageous leadership only as an extension of his larger community. James lived in Hull, a tiny, impoverished town on the Massachusetts coast. Most coastal villages of the time profited from shipwrecks. Beachcombers would scavenge everything from the cargo to the sunken ships’ timbers and anchors. Unscrupulous people called “mooncussers” would lure boats aground. On dark, moonless nights, they would hang a lantern from a donkey and trick sea captains into sailing onto the rocks.

Unlike their neighbors up and down the coast, the people of Hull tried to stop the carnage. They built shelters for those who washed ashore, cared for the sick and injured, protested against shipping companies and insurers who sent inexperienced captains and crews into danger, and had their lifeboat always at the ready. During the storm of 1888, citizens burned their fences

951

to light the way for Captain James, his crew, and victims alike. According to Hallie:

Many of the other people of Hull tore up some picket fences near the crest of the hill and built a big fire that lit up the wreck and helped the lifesavers to avoid the flopping, slashing debris around the boat. The loose and broken spars of a ruined ship were one of the main dangers lifesavers had to face. But the sailors on the wrecked ship needed the firelight too. It showed them what the lifesavers were doing, and what they could do to help them. And it gave them hope: It showed them that they were not alone.1

The story of Captain James and his fellow villagers is a fitting end to this text. In their actions, they embodied many of the themes introduced earlier: character; values; good versus evil; moral action; altruism; cooperation; transformational, authentic, aesthetic, benevolent, ethical and servant leadership; social responsibility; ethical crisis leadership; and purpose. The captain, who lost his mother and baby sister in a shipwreck, had one mission in life: saving lives at sea. Following his lead, residents took on nearly insurmountable challenges at great personal cost. They recognized that helpers often need help. By burning their fences, these followers—living in extremely modest conditions— cast a light that literally made the difference between life and death. But like other groups of leaders and followers, they were far from perfect. In the winter hurricane season, the villagers did their best to save lives. In the summer, pickpockets (helped by a corrupt police force) preyed on those who visited the town’s resorts. The dark side of Hull shouldn’t diminish the astonishing feats of Captain James and his neighbors, however. Hallie calls what James did during the storm of 1888 an example of “moral beauty.”

And moral beauty happens when someone carves out a place for compassion in a largely ruthless universe. It happened in the French village of Le Chambon during the war [World War II], and it

952

happened in and near the American village of Hull during the long lifetime of Joshua James.

It happens, and it fails to happen, in almost every event of people’s lives together—in streets, in kitchens, in bedrooms, in workplaces, in wars. But sometimes it happens in a way that engrosses the mind and captivates memory. Sometimes it happens in such a way that the people who make it happen seem to unify the universe around themselves like powerful magnets. Somehow they seem to redeem us all from deathlike indifference. They carve a place for caring in the very middle of the quiet and loud storms of uncaring that surround—and eventually kill—us all.2

953

Notes 1. Hallie, P. (1997). Tales of good and evil, help and harm. New York, NY: HarperCollins, p. 146.

2. Hallie, p. 173.

954

955

References

Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielson, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of destructive leadership behavior. British Journal of Management, 21, 438–452.

Abodor, H. (2012). Ethical issues in outsourcing: The case of contract medical research and the global pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 239–255.

Abowitz, K. K. (2007). Moral perception though aesthetics: Engaging imaginations in educational ethics. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 287–298.

Abrahams, J. (2007). 101 mission statements from top companies. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Abrams, R. (2018, March 8). Second top Nike executive departs amid complaints of workplace behavior. The New York Times, p. B2.

Abrams, R., Hsu, T., & Eligon, J. (2018, May 29). Starbucks tall order: Tackle systemic racism in 4 hours. The New York Times, p. B1.

Abrams, R., Hsu, T., & Eligon, J. (2018, May 30). Closing up shop for an afternoon to address bias. The New York Times, p. B1.

Ackerill, J. L. (1981). Aristotle the philosopher. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

956

Adam, K. (2018, July 3). Meet the British “A-Team” divers at the center of Thailand cave rescue. The Washington Post.

Adams, G. B. (2011). The problem of administrative evil in a culture of technical rationality. Public Integrity, 13, 275–285.

Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2005). Public-service ethics and administrative evil: Prospects and problems. In H. G. Frederickson & R. K. Ghere (Eds.), Ethics in public management (pp. 114–138). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2009). Ethical failings, incompetence, and administrative evil: Lessons from Katrina and Iraq. In R. W. Cox III (Ed.), Ethics and integrity in public administration: Concepts and cases (pp. 40–64). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2012). The dynamics of administrative evil in organizations. In C. L. Jurkiewicz (Ed.), The foundations of organizational evil (pp. 16–30). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2015). Unmasking administrative evil (4th ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Adams, J. S., Taschian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 199–211.

Adler, N., & Gundersen, A. (2008). International dimensions of organizational behavior (5th ed.) Mason, OH: Thompson/Southwest.

957

Alba, M. (2016, February 7). Hillary Clinton: “What happened in Flint is immoral.” NBC News.

Albrecht, T. L., & Bach, B. W. (1997). Communication in complex organizations: A relational approach. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Alderman, H. (1997). By virtue of a virtue. In D. Statman (Ed.), Virtue ethics (pp. 145–164). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Alexander, T. M. (1993). John Dewey and the moral imagination: Beyond Putnam and Rorty toward a postmodern ethics. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 29, 369–400.

Alford, C. F. (1997). What evil means to us. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Algoe, S. B. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The “other- praising” emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 105–127.

Allinson, R. E. (1993). Global disasters: Inquiries into management ethics. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Almasy, S. (2018, March 25). March for Our Lives: Top moments that made up a movement. CNN.

Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., Jr., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 203–230.

958

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642.

Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minority influence: Evidence for leniency in source evaluation and counterargumentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 949–964.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.

Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Harrison, A. W. (1995). Conflict: An important dimension in successful management teams. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 20–35.

Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2003). Understanding social loafing. In A. Sagie, S. Stashevsky, & M. Koslowsky (Eds.), Misbehaviour and dysfunctional attitudes in organizations (pp. 79–102). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 39–53.

Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377.

Anderson, E. (2017, September 21). Doctor: Change in Flint’s water most likely explanation for Legionnaires’ disease outbreak. Detroit Free Press.

959

Andreoli, N., & Lefkowitz, J. (2008). Individual and organizational antecedents of misconduct in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 309–332.

Andres, J. (with Wolffe, R.). (2018). We fed an island. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Annas, J. (2006). Virtue ethics. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of ethical theory (pp. 515–536). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Appel, M. (2008). Fictional narratives cultivate just-world beliefs. Journal of Communication, 58, 62–83.

Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York, NY: Norton.

Apted, M. (Director), Glimcher, A., & Clegg, T. A. (Producer). (1988). Gorillas in the mist [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Pictures.

Aquinas, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968.

Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2009). Moral identity in business situations: A social-cognitive framework for understanding moral functioning. In D. Narvaez & D. S. Lapsley (Eds.), Personality, identity and character: Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 375–395) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423 –1440.

960

Arendt, H. (1964). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York, NY: Viking.

Argenti, P. (2002, December). Crisis communication: Lessons from 9/11. Harvard Business Review, 103–109.

Aristotle. (1962). Nichomachean ethics (M. Ostwald, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 126–140.

Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–52.

Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 134–145.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.). (2002). A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions about future directions for a positive psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Astor, M. (2018, March 8). Florida gun bill: What’s in it, and what isn’t. The New York Times.

Augenstein, N. (2017, November 27). DC chef Jose Andres feeds millions in hurricane-stricken Puerto Rico. Retrieved from https://wtop.com/author/neal-augesntein

https://wtop.com/author/neal-augesntein

961

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823.

Bacon, M. (2012). Pragmatism. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Bad bosses drain productivity. (2005, November). Training & Development, p. 15.

Badaracco, J. L. (2016). Managing in the gray: 5 timeless questions for resolving your toughest problems at work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Baird, C. A. (2003). Everyday ethics: Making hard choices in a complex world. Denver, CO: CB Resources.

Bailón, R. R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2000). Why do superiors attend to negative stereotypic information about their subordinates? Effects of power legitimacy on social perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 651–671.

Baker, A. (2013, December 19). Runner-up: Malala Yousafzai, the fighter. Time.com

962

Ball, J. (2016, March 31). Universities grapple with donor influence. Citizen-Times.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193 –209.

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101– 119.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374.

Barakat, M. (2018, May 1). Documents show ties between university, conservative donors. Associated Press.

Barbuto, J. E. (2000). Influence triggers: A framework for understanding follower compliance. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 365–387.

Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300–326.

Barker, L., Johnson, P., & Watson, K. (1991). The role of listening in managing interpersonal and group conflict. In D. Borisoff & M. Purdy (Eds.), Listening in everyday life: A personal and professional approach (pp. 139–157). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

963

Barnes, M., Brannelly, T., Ward, L, & Ward, N. (Eds.). (2015). Ethics of care: Critical advances in international perspective. Bristol, England: Policy Press.

Baron, R. A. (2004). Workplace aggression and violence: Insights from basic research. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 23–61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barron, L. (2017, October 31). U.S. emergency response efforts in Puerto Rico aren’t good enough, U.N. experts say. Time.

Barry, E. (2018, November 2). In Finland, every citizen’s taxable income is revealed. The New York Times, p. A8.

Barry, V. (1978). Personal and social ethics: Moral problems with integrated theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Barsky, A. (2011). Investigating the effects of moral disengagement and participation on unethical work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 59–75.

Bartholomew, C. S., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived leader integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of leader integrity. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 127– 145.

Barton, L. (2001). Crisis in organizations II. Cincinnati, OH: South- Western.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

964

Bass, B. M. (1995). The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics, the heart of leadership (pp. 169–192). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49–80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207–218.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217.

Bates, D. (2017, December 7). The complicity files: Devastating report says many top people, including the Clintons, knew about Weinstein’s predatory behavior. Irish Daily Mail, pp. 20, 37.

Batson, C. D., & Thompson, E. R. (2001). Why don’t moral people act morally? Motivational considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 54–57.

Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., & Chen, H. (2002). Moral hypocrisy: Addressing some alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 330–339.

965

Batson, C. D., Van Lange, P. A. M., Ahmad, N., & Lishner, D. A. (2003). Altruism and helping behavior. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social psychology (pp. 279–295). London, England: Sage.

Battistella, E. (2014, May 7). The art of political apology. Politico.

Bauman, D. C. (2011). Evaluating ethical approaches to crisis leadership: Insights from unintentional harm research. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 281–295.

Baumeister, R. F. (1999). Evil: Inside human violence and curelty. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.

Bazerman, M. H. (1986). Management in managerial decision making. New York, NY: Wiley.

Bazerman, M. H. (2014). The power of noticing: What the best leaders see. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Blind spots: Why we fail to do what’s right and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bazerman, M. H., & Watkins, M. D. (2004). Predictable surprises: The disasters you should have seen coming and how to prevent them. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

966

Becker, J. A. H., & O’Hair, H. D. (2007). Machiavellians’ motives in organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 246–267.

Becker, S. W., & Eagly, A. H. (2004). The heroism of women and men. American Psychologist, 59, 163–178.

Bedian, A. G. (2007). Even if the tower is “ivory,” it isn’t “white”: Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6, 9–32.

Beech, H. (2018, January 1). For the youngest Rohingya survivors, horrors await. The New York Times, p. A16.

Beech, H. (2017, October). What happened to Myanmar’s human- rights icon? The New Yorker.

Beech, H. (2018, July 10). Stateless and poor, some boys in Thai cave had already beaten long odds. The New York Times.

Beech, H., Paddock, R. C., & Suhartono, M. (2018, July 12). “Still can’t believe it worked”: The story of the Thailand cave rescue. The New York Times.

Beech, H., & Suhartono, M. (2018, July 18). Thai cave boys leave hospital and apologize for all the fuss. The New York Times.

Behrens, J., & Ernst, H. (2014). What keeps managers away from a losing course of action? Go/stop decisions in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 361–374.

967

Bell, M. A. (1974). The effects of substantive and affective conflict in problem-solving groups. Speech Monographs, 41, 19–23.

Bell, M. A. (1979). The effects of substantive and affective verbal conflict on the quality of decisions of small problem-solving groups. Central States Speech Journal, 3, 75–82.

Benefiel, M. (2005). Soul at work: Spiritual leadership in organizations. New York, NY: Seabury Books.

Benefiel, M. (2005). The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership for organizational transformation. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 723–747.

Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2002). Geeks and geezers: How era, values, and defining moments shape leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Benoit, W. L. (2004). Image restoration discourse and crisis communication. In D. P. Millar & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 263 –280). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. New York, NY: Hafner.

Bergfeld, K., & Bergfeld, M. (2017, November 21). Cartoons and class struggle. Jacobin.

968

Berkowiz, M. (2015). What a chief resilience officer does. 100 Resilient Cities, Rockefeller Foundation.

Berman, M. (2015, June 19). “I forgive you.” Relatives of Charleston church shooting victims address Dylann Roof. The Washington Post.

Bertsch, A. M. (2012). Validating GLOBE’s societal values scales: A test in the U.S.A. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3, 10–23.

Bestselling author owes charity $1M. (2012, April 6). The Toronto Star, p. A12.

Bianculli, D. (2018, February 19). It’s a beautiful 50th birthday for “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.” NPR.

Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Two faces of the powerless: Coping with tyranny in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp. 203– 219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Biography: Malala Yousafzai. (2015, December 9). Biography.com

Bird, F. B. (1996). The muted conscience: Moral silence and the practice of ethics in business. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Birkinshaw, P. (2006). Transparency as a human right. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 47–57). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

http://biography.com/

969

Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 128–139). New York, NY: Wiley.

Blasi, A. (2005). Moral character: A psychological approach. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Character psychology and character education (pp. 67–100). Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press.

Block, P. (1996). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2007). Development and validation of the Moral Disengagement in Sport Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 608–628.

Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2008). The Moral Disengagement in Sport Scale—Short. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 1507–1517.

Bobocel, D. R., & Meyer, J. P. (1994). Escalating commitment to a failing course of action: Separating the roles of choice and justification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 360–363.

Boddy, C. R. (2006). The dark side of management decisions: Organizational psychopaths. Management Decision, 44(10), 1461–1475.

Boddy, C. R. (2011). Corporate psychopaths: Organisational destroyers. New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.

Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective well-being and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 107–121.

970

Boddy, C. R. (2015). Organisational psychopaths: A ten-year update. Management Decision, 53, 2407–2432.

Boddy, C. R., Ladyshewsky, R., & Galvin, P. (2010). Leaders without ethics in global business: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs, 10, 121–138.

Bogdanich, W., & Forsythe, M. (2018, June 26). How McKinsey lost its way in South Africa. The New York Times.

Boin, A., t’Hart, P. Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2017). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Boin, A., Kuipers, S., & Overdijk, W. (2013). Leadership in times of crisis: A framework for assessment. International Review of Public Administration, 18, 79–91.

Boje, D. (2008). Critical theory approaches to spirituality in business. In J. Biberman & L. Tischler (Eds.), Spirituality in business: Theory, practice, and future directions (pp. 160–187). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Boksem, M. A. S., & De Cremer, D. (2009). The neural basis of morality. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision-making (pp. 153–166). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Boone, J. (2015, December 15). Peshawar school attack: One year on “the country is changed completely.” The Guardian.

Borisoff, D., & Victor, D. A. (1998). Conflict management: A communication skills approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

971

Bosman, J., & Smith, M. (2016, January 19). Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan apologizes in Flint water crisis. The New York Times.

Bouchckaert, P., & Hancock, S. (2017, March 2). The killing squads: Inside the Philippines “war on drugs.” Human Rights Watch.

Bowie, N. E. (2000). A Kantian theory of leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21, 185–193.

Bowie, N. E. (2005). Kantian ethical thought. In J. W. Budd & J. G. Scoville (Eds.), The ethics of human resources and industrial relations (pp. 61–87). Champaign, IL: Labor and Employment Relations Association.

Boyle, A. (2018, August 30). Commercial branding on spacecraft? Five key points in NASA’s evolving space vision. GeekWire.

Bragues, G. (2006). Seek the good life, not money: The Aristotelian approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 341–357.

Bratton, V. K., & Kacmar, K. M. (2004). Extreme careerism: The dark side of impression management. In W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 291–308). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bremmer, I. (2018). Us vs. them: The failure of globalization. New York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin.

Bright, D. S., Barros, I., & Kumar Marthy, V. R. (2014). Appreciative inquiry and ethical awareness: Encouraging morally driven organizational goals. In L. E. Sekerka (Ed.), Ethics training in action: An examination of issues, techniques,

972

and development (pp. 293–310). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Brinsfield, D. T. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 671–697.

Brissett, D., & Edgley, C. (1990). The dramaturgical perspective. In D. Brissett & C. Edgley (Eds.), Life as theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Brock, J. (2018, July 9). McKinsey overhauls South Africa office after graft scandal. Reuters.

Brooks, D. (2015). The road to character. New York, NY: Random House.

Brooks, D. (2016, February 5). A question of moral radicalism. The New York Times, Op-Ed.

Brown, D. J., Scott, K. A., & Lewis, H. (2004). Information processing and leadership. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 125–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006a). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595– 616.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006b). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954–962.

973

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.

Brown, M. T. (2005). Corporate integrity: Rethinking organizational ethics and leadership. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 759–771.

Brown, T. A., Sautter, J. A., Littvay, L., Sautter, A. C., & Bearnes, B. (2010). Ethics and personality: Empathy and narcissism as moderators of ethical decision making in business students. Journal of Education for Business, 85, 203–208.

Bruhn, J. G. (2001). Trust and the health of organizations. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.

Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1663–1676.

Bruzzese, A. (2012, August 16). Employees share stories of worst bosses ever [Web log post]. Quick Base.

Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2005). Toward a conceptual framework for stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics,

974

58, 137–148.

Budde-Sung, A. (2013). The invisible meets the intangible: Culture’s impact on intellectual property protection. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 345–359.

Burgman, P. R., Jr. (2015, January 29). China: Embracing Africa, but not Africans. The Diplomat.

Burkhardt, P. (2018, July 9). McKinsey apologizes for overcharging South African power utility. Bloomberg.

Burkhardt, P., & Bonorchis, R. (2017, September 14). McKinsey and KPMG targeted in South Africa graft scandal. Bloomberg.

Burns, A. S. (2018, February 18). Mister Rogers still lives in your neighborhood. NPR.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness. New York, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteem and abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Science, 3, 340 –355.

Business Roundtable. (2012, March 27). 2012 principles of corporate governance. Business Roundtable. Retrieved from http://businessroundtable.org

Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York, NY: Wiley.

http://businessroundtable.org/

975

Caldwell, C. (2011). Duties owed to organizational citizens— Ethical insights for today’s leader. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 343–356.

Caldwell, D. F., & Moberg, D. (2007). An exploratory investigation of the effect of ethical culture in activating moral imagination. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 193–204.

Calfas, J. (2017, March 17). Disney is going to pay $3.8 million to employees who were charged for their costumes. Fortune.

Calfas, J. (2018, May 30). Was Starbucks’ racial bias training effective? Here’s what these employees thought. Time.

Cameron-Moore, S. (2017, November 14). Burmese army clears itself of raping and murdering Rohingya Muslims after “internal investigation.” The Independent.

Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 268–284.

Carden, S. D. (2006). Virtue ethics: Dewey and Macintyre. London, England: Continuum.

Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1995). Institutionalization of organizational ethics through transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 829–838.

Carman, T. (2017, October 1). José Andrés, a naturalized U.S. citizen, has become the face of American disaster relief. The Washington Post.

976

Carman, T. (2017, October 18). After Maria, José Andrés and his team have prepared more hot meals in Puerto Rico than the Red Cross. The Washington Post.

Caron, C. (2018, August 25). Walt Disney World workers reach deal for $15 minimum wage by 2021. The New York Times.

Carroll, A. B. (2013). Caux Round Table principles. In S. O. Idowu, N. Capaldi, L. Zu, & A. Das Gupta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2012). Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management (8th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Carroll, S. J., & Gannon, M. J. (1997). Ethical dimensions of management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2013). Ethical followership: An examination of followership beliefs and crimes of obedience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 49–61.

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543– 562.

Carter, B. (2018, February 9). Millennial employee engagement & loyalty statistics: The ultimate collection. Access Perks.

Carter, S. (2014, August 3). A battlefield of drones and privacy in your backyard. Chicago Tribune.

977

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2005). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231 –243). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Casarjian, R. (1992). Forgiveness: A bold choice for a peaceful heart. New York, NY: Bantam.

Casebeer, W. D. (2003). Moral cognition and its neural constituents. Neuroscience, 4, 841–846.

Caudron, S. (1995, September 4). The boss from hell. Industry Week, 12–16.

Caux Round Table. (2000). Appendix 26: The Caux principles. In O. F. Williams (Ed.), Global codes of conduct: An idea whose time has come (pp. 384–388). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Caux Round Table. (2006). Principles for non-governmental organizations; Principles for governments. Retrieved from http://www.cauxroundtable.org

Cavazotte, F., Duarte, C., & Gobbo, A. M. (2010). Authentic leader, safe work: The influence of leadership performance. Brazilian Business Review, 10, 95–119.

Cenkci, A. T., & Ozcelik, G. (2015). Leadership styles and subordinate work engagement: The moderating impact of leader gender. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 7, 8–20.

CEO’s moral compass steers Siemens. (2010, February 15). USA Today, p. 3B.

http://www.cauxroundtable.org/

978

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Occupational violence. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/violence/training_nurses.html

Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Chaleff, I. (2015). Intelligent disobedience: Doing right when what you’re told to do is wrong. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2015, September 28). The best managers are boring managers. Harvard Business Review.

Chan, A. H., & Cheung, H. Y. (2012). Cultural dimensions, ethical sensitivity, and corporate governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 45–59.

Chan, A., Hannah, S. T., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Veritable authentic leadership: Emergence, functioning, and impacts. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development (pp. 3–41). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Chan, A. H., & Cheung, H. Y. (2012). Cultural dimensions, ethical sensitivity, and corporate governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 45–59.

Chang, I. (1997). The rape of Nanking: The forgotten holocaust of World War II. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Chang, K. (2018, September 12). (Corporate name here) Rocket? NASA asks if branding is possible. The New York Times, p. A20.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/violence/training_nurses.html

979

Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2018, January/February). The new CEO activists. Harvard Business Review.

Chatterji, R. (2018, February 21). A new survey finds 81 percent of women have experienced sexual harassment. NPR.

Chen, A., Lawson, R. B., Gordon, L. R., & McIntosh, B. (1996). Groupthink: Deciding with the leader and the devil. Psychological Record, 46, 581–590.

Chen, X.-P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T.-L., Farh, J.-L., & Cheng, B.- S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to performance. Journal of Management, 40, 796–819.

Cheng, M.-Y., & Wang, L. (2015). The mediating effect of ethical climate on the relationship between paternalistic leadership and team identification: A team-level analysis in the Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 639–654.

Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (Eds.). (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chidambaram, L., & Tung, L. L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology- supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16, 149– 168.

Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 475–501.

Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1999). The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial leadership: An empirical test.

980

Leadership Quarterly, 10, 397–421.

Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformational and servant leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 433–440.

Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Christensen, L. T., & Langer, R. (2009). Public relations and the strategic use of transparency: Consistency, hypocrisy, and corporate change. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 129–153). New York, NY: Routledge.

Christensen, S. L., & Kohls, J. (2003). Ethical decision making in times of organizational crises: A framework for analysis. Business & Society, 42, 328–358.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Chu, B. (2014, February 7). McKinsey: How does it always get away with it? The Independent.

Chuck, E. (2018, July 20). For nearly 20 years, duck boat safety recommendations have gone largely ignored. NBC News.

Cialdini, R. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

981

Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics, the heart of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 3– 24). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 227–240.

Clark, E. (2004). Around the corporate campfire: How great leaders use stories to inspire success. Sammamish, WA: C&C Publishing.

Clements, C. E., Neill, J. D., & Stovall, O. S. (2009). The impact of cultural differences on the convergence of international accounting codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 383 –391.

Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2013). How words do the work of politics: Moral foundations theory and the debate over stem cell research. The Journal of Politics 75, 659–671.

Cohen, D. V. (1993). Creating and maintaining ethical work climates: Anomie in the workplace and implications for managing change. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3, 343–358.

Cohen, R. (2017, November 26). This is not a morality tale. The New York Times, p. SR1.

Cohen, R. A. (2006). Levinas: thinking about death—contra Heidegger. International Journal of the Philosophy of Religion, 60, 21–39.

982

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.

Collins, J. C. (2001). Vision framework. Retrieved from http://www.jimcollins.com/tools/vision-framework.pdf

Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996, September/October). Building your company’s vision. Harvard Business Review, 65–77.

Collins, M., & Kimmel, M. M. (1996). (Eds.), Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood: Children, television, and Fred Rogers. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Collinson, P. (2016, April 11). Norway, the country where you can see everyone’s tax returns. The Guardian.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Yee, N. K. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

Comaford, C. (2016, August 27). 75% of workers affected by bullying—Here’s what to do about it. Forbes.

Comte-Sponville, A. (2001). A small treatise on the great virtues: The uses of philosophy in everyday life. New York, NY: Metropolitan.

Congress approves bill allowing the killing of sea lions . . . to protect salmon. NBC News.

http://www.jimcollins.com/tools/vision-framework.pdf

983

Connelly, S., Helton-Fauth, W., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). A managerial in-basket study of the impact of trait emotions on ethical choice. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 245–267.

Coombs, W. T. (1999). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2004). Reasoned action in crisis communication: An attribution theory-based approach to crisis management. In D. P. Millar & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 95– 115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, S. (2004). Corporate social performance: A stakeholder approach. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Cooper, T. L., & Menzel, D. C. (2013). In pursuit of ethical competence. In T. L. Cooper & D. D. Menzel (Eds.), Achieving ethical competence for public service leadership (pp. 3–24). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett- Koehler.

Cosier, R. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Agreement and thinking alike: Ingredients for poor decision. Academy of Management Executive, 4, 69–74.

Countryman, A. (2001, December 7). Leadership key ingredient in ethics recipe, experts say. Chicago Tribune, pp. B1, B6.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

984

Crace, R. K., & Brown, D. (1992). The Life Values Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Available at http://www.lifevalues.org

Cragan, J. F., Kasch, C. R., & Wright, D. W. (2009). Communication in small groups: Theory, process, skills (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Craigie, F. C. (1999). The spirit and work: Observations about spirituality and organizational life. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 18, 43–53.

Cramton, P. C., & Dees, J. G. (1993). Promoting honesty in negotiation: An exercise in practical ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3, 359–394.

Cramton, P. C., & Dees, J. G. (2004). Promoting honesty in negotiation: An exercise in practical ethics. In C. Menkel- Meadow & M. Wheeler (Eds.), What’s fair: Ethics for negotiators (pp. 108–137). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Crano, W. D., & Seyranian, V. (2009). How minorities prevail: The context/comparison-leniency contract model. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 335–363.

Crenshaw, C. (2018, September 14). PR for the “new” technology CEO. Crenshaw Communications.

Creswell, J., & Draper, K. (2018, May 9). Nike exodus of managers grows to 11 after inquiry. The New York Times, p. B1.

Cresswell, J., Draper, K., & Abrams, R. (2018, April 28). At Nike, revolt led by women leads to exodus of male executives. The New York Times.

http://www.lifevalues.org/

985

Crisis management and communication. (2012, June). IR Insight, Research Report Number 3.

Cropanzano, R., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Organizational justice and behavioral ethics: Promises and prospects. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 193–233.

Cropanzano, R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2010). Moral leadership: A short primer on competing perspectives. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality (pp. 21 –52). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 211–230.

Crouteau, J., & Smallwood, K. (n.d.). Ways Mister Rogers was even more amazing than we knew. Grunge.

Cullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P., & Victor, B. (2003). The effects of ethical climates on organizational commitment: A two-study analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 127–141.

Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J. W. (1993). The Ethical Climate Questionnaire: An assessment of its development and validity. Psychological Reports, 73, 667–674.

Cumming-Bruce, N. (2017, September 12). Rohingya crisis called ethnic cleansing. The New York Times, p. A9.

Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 302–329). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

986

Dale, S. (2012, December 4). Ex-HBOS chief exec Sir James Crosby apologizes for bank failure. Fundweb, p. 11.

Daleus, P., & Hansen, D. (2011). Inherent ethical challenges in bureaucratic crisis management: The Swedish experience with the 2004 tsunami disaster. In L. Svedin (Ed.), Ethics and crisis management (pp. 21–36). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Darley, J. M. (1996). How organizations socialize individuals into evildoing. In D. M. Messick & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (pp. 12–43). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Darley, J. M. (2001). The dynamics of authority influence in organizations and the unintended action consequences. In J. M. Darley, D. M. Messick, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Social influences on ethical behavior in organizations (pp. 37–52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Da Silva, C. (2018, May 29). Starbucks across U.S. closed for racial bias training. Here’s what employees will learn. Newsweek.

Davenport, C., Friedman, L., & Haberman, M. (2018, July 5). E.P.A. chief Scott Pruitt resigns under a cloud of ethics scandals. The New York Times.

Davenport, C. (2018, September 10). Why NASA’s rockets next rockets may say Budweiser on the side. The Washington Post.

Davis, A., & Mischel, L. (2014, June 12). CEO pay continues to rise as typical workers are paid less. Economic Policy Institute.

987

Davis, A. L., & Rothstein, H. R. (2006). The effects of the perceived behavioral integrity of managers on employee attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 407– 419.

Davis, J. (2016, September 27). When did Che Guevara become CEO? The roots of the new corporate activism. The Conversation.

Davis, J. H., & Ruhe, J. A. (2003). Perceptions of country corruption: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 275–288.

Davis, S. (2015, June). Dissed loyalty. Workforce.com.

Day, D. A. (2018, August 6). NASA as a brand. The Space Review.

“Deathtraps”: Fatal Branson duck boat accident shines light on past incidents. CBS News.

De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 79–93.

De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 553–563.

De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self- sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 140–155.

http://workforce.com/

988

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Beersma, B. (2001). Minority influence in organizations: Its origins and implications for learning and group performance. In C. K. W. De Dreu & N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 258–283). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889–905.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.

De Pree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York, NY: Doubleday.

De Pree, M. (2003). Servant-leadership: Three things necessary. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st century (pp. 89–97). New York, NY: Wiley.

De Zilwa, D. (2014). The strengths and capacities of authentic followership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37, 310–324.

Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 341–352.

Deb, S. (2018, March 5). “Mister Rogers’ neighborhood” at 50: 5 memorable moments. The New York Times.

989

De George, R. T. (2006). Business ethics (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 356–371.

Delanty, G. (2012). Introduction: The emerging field of cosmopolitanism studies. In G. Delanty (Ed.), International handbook of cosmopolitan studies (pp. 1–8). Hoboken, NJ: Routledge.

Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. U., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W. (1999). Culture-specific and cross- culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219–257.

Dennis, B., & Eilperin, J. (2018, April 26). Defending his record to Congress, EPA chief Pruitt shifts spending blame to staff. The Washington Post.

Denyer, S. (2014, March 12). Contradictory statements from Malaysia over missing airliner perplex, infuriate. WashingtonPost.com.

Department of Labor. (2016). Labor force statistics from the current population survey. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps

Desai, S. D., & Kouchaki, M. (2017). Moral symbols: A necklace of garlic against unethical requests. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 7–28.

http://www.bls.gov/cps

990

Deutsch, M. (1990). Psychological roots of moral exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 21–25.

Devine, T., Seuk, J. H., & Wilson, A. (2001). Cultivating heart and character: Educating for life’s most essential goals. Chapel Hill, NC: Character Development.

Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York, NY: Henry Holt.

Dickinson, J. L., McLeod, P., Bloomfield, R., & Shoma, A. (2016). Which moral foundations predict willingness to make lifestyle changes to avert climate change in the USA? PLOS ONE, 11.

Diessner, R., Iyer, R., Smith, M. M., & Haidt, J. (2013). Who engages with moral beauty? Journal of Moral Education, 42, 139–163.

Dipboye, R. L., & Halverson, S. K. (2004). Subtle (and not so subtle) discrimination in organizations. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 404–425). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445– 455.

Dobson, J. (1999). The art of management and the aesthetic manager. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Doctor rescued from Antarctica in 1999 dies at 57. (2009, June 23). CNN.

991

Donaldson, T. (1996, September/October). Values in tension: Ethics away from home. Harvard Business Review, 48–57.

Donaldson, T. (2009). Compass and dead reckoning: The dynamic implications of ISCT. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 659–664.

Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252–284.

Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.

Don’t push it: Why the formula milk industry must clean up its act. (2018). Save the Children Fund.

Dotlich, D. L., Noel, J. L., & Walker, N. (2008). Learning for leadership: Failure as a second chance. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Business leadership (2nd ed., pp. 478–485). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dougall, E. (2008, December 12). Issues management. Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org

Drummond, H., & Hodgson, J. (2011). Escalation in decision- making: Behavioral economics in business. Burlington, VT: Gower.

http://www.instituteforpr.org/

992

Duchon, D., & Plowman, D. A. (2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit performance. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 807 –833.

Duck, J. M., & Fielding, K. S. (2003). Leaders and their treatment of subgroups: Implications for evaluations of the leader and the superordinate group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 387–401.

Duckworth, A. L. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York, NY: Scribner.

Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). Journal of Personality Assessment 91, 166–174.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101.

Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2000). The Salieri syndrome: Consequences of envy in groups. Small Group Research, 31, 3 –23.

Duke, D. L. (1986). The aesthetics of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(1), 7–27.

Dunn, J., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Why good employees make unethical decisions. In E. W. Kidwell & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing organizational deviance (pp. 39–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dunne, J. (2018, June 28). British diving experts join Thai cave rescue team as deluge continues. Evening Standard.

993

Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001, March). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 80– 90.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., & Bano, J. L. (1995). Self-fulfilling prophecy and gender: Can women be Pygmalion and Galatea? Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 253–270.

Earvolino-Ramirez, M. (2007). Resilience: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 42, 73–82.

Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing Pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 9, 64 –73.

Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalion in management. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books/D.C. Heath.

Eden, D. (1993). Interpersonal expectations in organizations. In P. D. Blank (Ed.), Interpersonal expectations: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 154–178). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Eden, D., & Shamir, A. B. (1982). Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy, leadership, and trainee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 194–199.

EDF Energy bosses branded as “hypocritical” in smart meter vehicle tracking row. (2018, January 18). Unite.

Edwards, J. C. (2001). Self-fulfilling prophecy and escalating commitment: Fuel for the Waco fire. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 343–360.

994

Elperin, J., & Dennis, B. (2018, July 10). Days after Pruitt resigned, several top aides are also calling it quits at EPA. The Washington Post.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Copper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3– 40). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Fahrbach, C. M. (2015). Doing well by doing good? Analyzing the relationship between CEO ethical leadership and firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 635–651.

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242.

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high- velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543–576.

995

Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Betrayal of trust in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 23, 547–566.

Elegido, J. M. (2013). Does it make sense to be a loyal employee? Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 495–511.

Elias, R. Z., (2007). The relationship between auditing students’ anticipatory socialization and their professional commitment. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11, 81–90.

Eligon, J. (2013, July 11). City in Iowa rebuilds from flooding but remains vulnerable. The New York Times.

Eligon, J., Williams, T., Smith, M., & Zraick, K. (2018, July 20). Missouri duck boat accident kills 17, including 9 from same family. The New York Times.

ElKordy, M. (2013). Transformational leadership and organizational culture as predictors of employees’ attitudinal outcomes. Business Management Dynamics, 3, 15–26.

Elm, D. R. (2014). The artist and the ethicist: Character and process. In D. Koehn & D. Elm (Eds.), Aesthetics and business ethics (pp. 53–66). New York, NY: Springer.

Enright, R. D. (2012). The forgiving life. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Enright, R. D. (2015). 8 keys to forgiveness. New York: NY: Norton & Company.

Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.),

996

Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Enright, R. D., & Gassin, E. A. (1992). Forgiveness: A developmental view. Journal of Moral Education, 21, 99–114.

Epstein, K., & Amenabar, T. (2018, March 24). The 6 most memorable speeches at the March for Our Lives in D. C. The Washington Post.

Equifax data breach was “entirely preventable,” congressional report says. (2018, December 11). CBS News.

Erben, G. S., & Güneşer, A. B. (2007). The relationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational commitment: Investigating the role of climate regarding ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 955–968.

Erickson, A., Shaw, J. B., & Agabe, Z. (2007). An empirical investigation of the antecedents, behaviors, and outcomes of bad leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(3), 26–43.

Ernst, C., & Yip, J. (2009). Boundary-spanning leadership: Tactics to bridge social identity groups in organizations. In T. L. Pittinsky (Ed.), Crossing the divide: Intergroup leadership in a world of difference (pp. 87–99). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 116–141.

Ewell, P. J., Guadagno, R. E., Jones, M., & Dunn, R. A. (2016). Good person or bad character? Personality predictors of

997

morality and ethics in avatar selection for video game play. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 19, 435–440.

Fabio, M. (2017, October 26). The Harvey Weinstein effect: The end of nondisclosure agreements in sexual assault cases? Forbes.

Fairholm, G. W. (1996). Spiritual leadership: Fulfilling whole-self needs at work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(5), 11–17.

Fairhurst, G. T. (2011). The power of framing: Creating the language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Fairhurst, G. T. & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Farenthold, D. A, & O’Connell, J. (2018, August 3). At president Trump’s hotel in New York, revenue went up this spring—thanks to a visit from big-spending Saudis. The Washington Post.

Farh, J.-L., Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.-F., & Chu, X.-P. (2006). Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In A. S. Tsui, Y. Bain, & L. Cheng (Eds.), China’s domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance (pp. 230–260). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Farrow, R. (2017, November 6). Harvey Weinstein’s army of spies. The New Yorker.

Farrow, R. (2017, November 21). Harvey Weinstein’s secret settlements. The New Yorker.

998

Fausset, R. (2017, September 12). Amid chaos of storms, U.S. shows it has improved its response. The New York Times blog.

Fearn-Banks, K. (2007). Crisis communications: A casebook approach (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Festenstein, M. (2008). John Dewey, inquiry ethics, and democracy. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American philosophy (pp. 87–109). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Feldman, D. C., & Bolino, M. C. (1996). Careers within careers: Reconceptualizing the nature of career anchors and their consequences. Human Resource Management Review 6, 80– 112.

Feldman Bettencourt, M. (2015). Triumph of the heart: Forgiveness in an unforgiving world. New York, NY: Hudson Street Press.

Feldmann, H. (2014, October 9). Ebola—A growing threat? New England Journal of Medicine, 371(15), 1375–1378.

Felton, R. (2016, January 16). Flint’s water crisis: What went wrong. The Guardian.

Ferdman, B. M. (2014). The practice of inclusion in diverse organizations: Toward a systemic and inclusive framework. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 3–54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Fesmire, S. (2015). Dewey. New York, NY: Routledge.

999

Fine, R., & Boon, V. (2007). Introduction: Cosmopolitanism: Between past and future. European Journal of Social Theory 10, 5–16.

Fink, S. (2002). Crisis management: Planning for the inevitable. Lincoln, NE: Backinprint.com.

Fire techs killed at US research station. (2018, December 12). Firehouse.

Fisher, B. (2019, January 12). Stepping into the wild horse debate, one hoof at a time. CarsonNOW.org.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Penguin.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.

Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 357–411). Boston, MA: McGraw- Hill.

Fiske, S. T. (2018). How can universal stereotypes be immoral? In K. J. Gray & J. Graham (Eds.), Atlas of Moral Psychology (pp. 201–208). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

5 countries with lowest life expectancy in the world. (2018, April). The Borgen Project.

Flaccus, G. (2019, January 10). Oregon begins killing sea lions after relocation fails. US News & World Report.

http://carsonnow.org/

1000

Fleishman, G. (2018, July 5). How Scott Pruitt blew it: A list of scandals that led to the EPA chief’s resignation. Fortune.

Fleming, L. N. (2016, January 12). Volunteers deliver water in Flint amid lead crisis. The Detroit News.

Fleming, S. J. (2016, February 5). Lee: Time to end emergency manager law. The Detroit News.

Flescher, A. M. (2003). Heroes, saints, & ordinary morality. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press

Flescher, A. M., & Worthen, D. L. (2007). The altruistic species: Scientific, philosophical, and religious perspectives of human benevolence. Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Fletcher, G. P. (1993). Loyalty: An essay on the morality of relationships. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Flint, K. (2017, March 21). Boston duck tours return under new rules following fatal collision. NBC Boston.

Flippen, A. R. (1999). Understanding groupthink from a self- regulatory perspective. Small Group Research, 3, 139–165.

Florida student Emma Gonzalez to lawmakers and gun advocates: “We call BS.” (2018, February 17). CNN.

Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1996). Violence and hostility at work: A model of reactions to perceived injustice. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 51–85). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

1001

Fonger, R. (2015, October 13). Ex-emergency manager says he’s not to blame for Flint River water watch. MLive.com.

Forced labor at NYU Abu Dhabi. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.forcedlaboratnyuad.org/

Fortin, M. (2008). Perspectives on organizational justice: Concept clarification, social context integration, time and links with morality. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 93– 126.

Foster, R. J. (1978). Celebration of discipline: The path to spiritual growth. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Fowler, K. L., Kling, N. D., & Larson, M. D. (2007). Organizational preparedness for coping with a major crisis or disaster. Business & Society, 46, 100–101.

Franco, Z. E., Blau, K., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2011). Heroism: A conceptual analysis and differentiation between heroic action and altruism. Review of General Psychology 15, 99–113.

Franco, Z. E., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2006, September 1). The banality of heroism. Greater Good.

Franco, Z. E., & Zimbardo P. G. (2016). The psychology of heroism: Extraordinary champions of humanity in an unforgiving world. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good & evil (2nd ed, pp. 494–523). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Franke, G. R., & Nadler, S. S. (2008). Culture, economic development, and national ethical attitudes. Journal of Business Research, 61, 254–264.

http://mlive.com/

https://www.forcedlaboratnyuad.org/

1002

Franz, T. M. (2012). Group dynamics and team interventions: Understanding and improving team performance. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.

Freedman, S., Enright, R. D., & Knutson, J. (2005). A progress report on the process model of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 393–406). New York, NY: Routledge.

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

French, R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Frey, B. F. (2000). The impact of moral intensity on decision making in a business context. Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 181–195.

Frey, W. H. (2018, March 14). The US will become “minority white” in 2045, Census projects. Brookings.

Friedman, L., Lipton, E., & Davenport, C. (2018, July 6). Scott Pruitt’s rocky relationship with his aides set the stage for his fall. The New York Times.

Fritzsche, D. J. (2000). Ethical climates and the ethical dimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 125–140.

Frohlich, T. C., Sauter, M. B., & Stebbins, S. (2015, June 29). 10 worst companies to work for. 24/7 Wall St/Yahoo Finance.

1003

Fromm, E. (1964). The heart of man: Its genius for good and evil. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Frost, P. J. (2003). Toxic emotions at work: How compassionate managers handle pain and conflict. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Frost, P. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2008). The leader as toxin handler: Organizational hero and casualty. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Business leadership (pp. 407–422). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693–727.

Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well- being, and corporate social responsibility through spiritual leadership. In R. A. Giacalone, C. L. Jurkiewicz, & C. Dunn (Eds.), Positive psychology in business ethics and corporate responsibility (pp. 47–84). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Fry, L. W. (2008). Spiritual leadership: State-of-the-art and future directions for theory, research, and practice. In J. Biberman & L. Tischler (Eds.), Spirituality in business: Theory, practice, and future directions (pp. 106–123). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 835–862.

Fulp, C. (2018). Success through diversity: Why the most inclusive companies will win. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

1004

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Compass 7, 199–216.

Furtner, M. R., Maran, T., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2017). Dark leadership: The role of leaders’ dark triad personality traits. In M. G. Clark & C. W. Gruber (Eds.), Leader development deconstructed (pp. 75–99). New York, NY: Springer.

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466.

Gallegos, P. V. (2014). The work of inclusive leadership: Fostering authentic relationships, modeling courage and humility. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 177–202). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary communication qualities as mediators of the relationship between narcissism and attributions of leader charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63, 509–537.

Ganim, S. (2017, June 14). Michigan officials charged in Flint Legionnaires’ outbreak. CNN.

Garcia-Zamor, J. C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 63, 355–363.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self- based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372.

1005

Garside, J. (2016, April 3). A world of hidden wealth: Why we are shining a light offshore. The Guardian.

Garvin, D. A. (1993, July/August). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 78–91.

Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision- making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 175– 187.

Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what’s right. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Germano, S. (2018, May 3). Nike CEO apologizes for corporate culture that excluded some staff. The Wall Street Journal.

Germain, M.-L. (2018). Narcissism at work: Personality disorders of corporate leaders. Bashingstoke, New Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Germano, S., & Lublin, J. S. (2018, March 31). Inside Nike, a boys-club culture and flawed HR. Wall Street Journal.

Gert, B. (2004). Common morality: Deciding what to do. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Getha-Taylor, H. (2008). Identifying collaborative competencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28, 103–119.

Ghose, T. (2016, January 26). Explorer’s death highlights danger of Antarctica. Live Science.

1006

Ghosh, B. (2010, March 29). Sins of the fathers. Time, 34–37.

Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003a). Right from wrong: The influence of spirituality on perceptions of unethical business activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 85–97.

Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003b). Toward a science of workplace spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 3–28). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11/12, 141–148.

Gibbs, N. (2014, December 22). The choice. Time, 67–68.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gioia, D. A. (1992). Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 379–389.

Gladstone, R., & Specia, M. (207, September 29). At the U.N., pressure builds on Myanmar over a “human rights nightmare.”’ The New York Times, p. A4.

Glanz, W. (2003, August 27). NASA ignored dangers to shuttle, panel says. The Washington Times, p. A1.

Glionna, J. M (2013, July 1). Mustangs: How to manage America’s wild horses? The debate rages. Los Angeles Times.

1007

Glover, J. (1999). Humanity: A moral history of the twentieth century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gloy, B. & Widmar, D. (2018, April 9). Tariffs impact price and supply & demand, ag economists say. Successful Farming.

Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 1–18.

Godwin, L. N. (2015). Examining the impact of moral imagination on organizational decision making. Business & Society, 54, 254 –278.

Goldman, S. M. (2008). Temptations in the office: Ethical choices and legal obligations. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Goldman, S. M. (2010, August 5). Loyalty vs. ethics: From the White House to the workplace. American Management Association. Retrieved from http://www.amanet.org/training

Goldstein, J. (2018, October 15). Chinese bring jobs, and bias, Kenyans find. The New York Times.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The emotional reality of teams. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 21(2), 55 –65.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1980). Educational psychology: A realistic approach. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1, 53–73.

http://www.amanet.org/training

1008

Gorovitz, S. (Ed.). (1971). Utilitarianism: Text and critical essays. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Gottlieb, J. Z., & Sanzgiri, J. (1996). Towards an ethical dimension of decision making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 15, 1275–1285.

Gottschall, J. (2012). The storytelling animal: How stories make us human. New York, NY: Mariner Books.

Grady, D. (2001, April 14). Rescue planes are dispatched for sick doctor in Antarctica. The New York Times.

Graen, G. B., & Graen, J. A. (Eds.). (2007). New multinational network sharing. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1998). Relationship-based approach to leadership. Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi- domain perspective. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (pp. 103–158). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Graham, B. A. (2018, May 16). Michigan State reaches $500m settlement with survivors of Larry Nassar abuse. The Guardian.

Graham, D. A. (2018, July 5). What finally did in Scott Pruitt? The Atlantic.

Graham, G. (2004). Eight theories of ethics. London, England: Routledge.

1009

Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2002). Moral Foundations Theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., Motyl, M., Meindl, P., Iskiwitch, C., & Mooijman, M. (2018). Moral foundations theory: On the advantages of moral pluralism over moral monism. In K. Gray & J. Graham (Eds.), Atlas of Moral Psychology (pp. 211–222). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385.

Green, E. L., & Saul, S. (2018, May 7). In deals for donations, conservatives influenced the hiring of professors. The New York Times, p. A10.

Greenberg, J., & Wiethoff, C. (2001). Organization justice as proaction and reaction: Implications for research and application. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (Vol. 2, pp. 271–302). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greene, J. (2005). Cognitive neuroscience and the structure of the moral mind. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Structure and content (pp. 338–352). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Greenhouse, S. (2013, November 23). U.S. retailers decline to aid factory victims in Bangladesh. The New York Times, p. B1.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

1010

Griffin, R. W., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (Eds.). (2004). The dark side of organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grijalva, E., & Harms, P. D. (2014). Narcissism: An integrative synthesis and dominance complementarity model. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 108–127.

Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68, 1–147.

Griswold, C. L. (2007). Forgiveness: A philosophical exploration. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Grojean, M. W., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., & Smith, D. B. (2004). Leaders, values, and organizational climate: Examining leadership strategies for establishing an organizational climate regarding ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 223–241.

Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grush, L. (2018, September 11). Product placement may help power NASA’s next big space mission. The Verge.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1011

Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1997). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gumusluoglu, L., Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z., & Scandura, T. A. (2017). A multilevel examination of benevolent leadership and innovative behavior in R & D contexts: A social identity approach. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24, 479–493.

Günsel, A., & Açikgöz, A. (2013). The effects of team flexibility and emotional intelligence on software development performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 22, 359–377.

Gurmeet Ram Rahim asked his followers to self-immolate and commit suicide to put pressure on judiciary and administration? (2017, November 28). VisionMP.

Guroian, V. (1996). Awakening the moral imagination. Intercollegiate Review, 32, 3–13.

Gutierrez, J. (2019, March 17). Philippines officially leaves the International Criminal Court. The New York Times.

Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lehhardt & S. Weber Nicholsen, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective

1012

sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Haidt, J. (2013). Moral psychology for the twenty-first century. Journal of Moral Education, 42, 281–297.

Haidt, J., & Bjorklund, F. (2008). Social intuitionists answer six questions about moral psychology. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology: Vol. 2. The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 182–217). Cambridge, England: MIT Press.

Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.

Hajdin, M. (2005). Employee loyalty: An examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 259–280.

Hakim, D., & Ewing, J. (2015, October 2). In the driver’s seat. The New York Times, p. B1.

Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3, 397–417.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Random House.

Hallie, P. P. (1979). Lest innocent blood be shed: The story of the village of Le Chambon and how goodness happened there.

1013

New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Hallie, P. P. (1997). Tales of good and evil, help and harm. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Hamilton, J. B., & Knouse, S. B. (2001). Multinational enterprise decision principles for dealing with cross cultural ethical conflicts. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 77–94.

Hamilton, J. B., Knouse, S. B., & Hill, V. (2009). Google in China: A manager-friendly heuristic model for resolving cross-cultural ethical conflicts. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 143–157.

Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Moral potency: Building the capacity for character-based leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 291–310.

Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2011). Leader character, ethos, and virtue: Individual and collective considerations. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 989–994.

Hannah, S. T., Jennings, P. L., Bluhm, D., Chunyan Peng, A., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2014). Duty orientation: Theoretical development and preliminary construct testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123, 220–238.

Hannah, S. T., Lester, P. B., & Vogelgesang, G. R. (2005). Moral leadership: Explicating the moral component of authentic leadership. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development (pp. 43–81). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

1014

Hannah, S. T., & Parry, K. W. (2014). Leadership in extreme contexts. In M. J. Rumsey (Ed.), Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 613–637). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 897–919.

Hansen, H., Ropo, A., & Sauer, E. (2007). Aesthetic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 544–560.

Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human Development, 48, 232–256.

Hargie, O., Dickson, D., & Tourish, D. (2004). Communication skills for effective management. Houndmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 1–14.

Harper, S. R., & White, C. D. (2013). The impact of member emotional intelligence on psychological safety in work teams. Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 15, 2–10.

Harris, S., Smallen, J., & Mitchell, C. (2006, February 18). Katrina report spreads blame. National Journal, p. 38.

Hartmann, T. (2012). Moral disengagement during exposure to media violence. In R. Tamborini (Ed.), Media and the moral mind (pp. 241–287). Hoboken, NJ.

1015

Harvey, J. B. (1988). The Abilene paradox and other meditations on management. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Harvey, J. B. (1999). How come every time I get stabbed in the back my fingerprints are on the knife? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harvey, P., Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2006). Promoting authentic behavior in organizations: An attributional perspective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(3), 1–11.

Hashemi, F. (2016, February 5). Probe into KPMG’s audit of failed bank HBOS intensifies. International Accounting Bulletin.

Hatcher, T. (2002). Ethics and HRD: A new approach to leading responsible organizations. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Hatzfeld, J. (2005). Machete season: The killers in Rwanda speak (L. Coverdale, Trans.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Hauser, M. D., Young, L., & Cushman, F. (2008). Reviving Rawls’s linguistic analogy: Operative principles and the causal structure of moral actions. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology: Vol. 2. The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 107–144). Cambridge, England: MIT Press.

Hayes, C. (2018, July 21). Would wearing life jackets have made the deadly Branson duck boat accident even worse? USA Today.

Hayes, H. T. P. (1990). The dark romance of Dian Fossey. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

1016

Hayhurst, K. (2018, August 25). Risk of forced labor at Abu Dhabi remains, contradicting NYU. Washington Square News.

Hays, T., & Krisher, T. (2015, September 18). GM agrees to pay $1.5 billion in settlements. The Oregonian, pp. G1, G3.

Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heath, R. L. (2002). Issues management: Its past, present and future. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4), 209–214.

Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of ethical theory (pp. 537–566). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Heminway, J. (2018). In full flight: A story of Africa and atonement. New York, NY: Knopf.

Herzog, H. A., & Golden, L. L. (2009). Moral emotions and social activism: The case of animal rights. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 485–498.

Higgs, M. (2009). The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism. Journal of Change Management, 9, 165–178.

Hill, L. (2015). Classical Stoicism and the birth of a global ethics: Cosmopolitan duties in a world of local loyalties. Social Alternatives, 34(1), 14–18.

Hinken, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven

1017

(1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 561–567.

Hodgkinson, P. E., & Stewart, M. (1991). Coping with catastrophe: A handbook of disaster management. London, England: Routledge.

Hodgson, G. (2009, August 12). Eunice Kennedy Shriver; mental health campaigner who founded the Special Olympics. The Independent, Obituaries, p. 26.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Difference and danger: Cultural profiles of nations and limits to tolerance. In M. H. Albrecht (Ed.), International HRM: Managing diversity in the workplace (pp. 9– 23). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, England: McGraw-Hill.

Hogg, M. A., Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E. (2012). Intergroup leadership in organizations: Leading across group and organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 37, 232–255.

Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leadership and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 71–75.

Holmes, O. (2017, November 2). Aung San Suu Kyi makes first visit to site of anti-Rohingya violence. The Guardian.

1018

Holmes, O. (2017, August 17). Human rights group slams Philippines president Duterte’s threat to kill them. The Guardian.

Holmgren, J. R. (1998). Self-forgiveness and responsible moral agency. Journal of Value Inquiry, 32, 75–91.

Hood, J. N. (2003). The relationship of leadership style and CEO values to ethical practices in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 263–273.

Hopen, D. (2002). Guiding corporate behavior: A leadership obligation, not a choice. Journal for Quality & Participation, 25, 15–19.

Hornstein, H. A. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey. New York, NY: Riverhead.

Hosie, R. (2018, May 30). What Starbucks employees learned on their racial bias training day. The Independent.

Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Strategic planning as if ethics mattered. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 17–34.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howell, J., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6, 43–54.

Howland, D. (2018, April 30). Nike promotes 2 women to replace executives departing amid “toxic” environment. HR Drive.

1019

Hsieh, N.-H. (2009). The normative study of business organizations: A Rawlsian approach. In J. Smith (Ed.), Normative theory and business ethics (pp. 93–117). Lanham, NA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hsu, T. (2018, March 22). Citigroup sets restrictions on gun sales by business partners. The New York Times.

Huang, L., & Paterson T. A. (2014). Group ethical voice: Influence of ethical leadership and impact on ethical performance. Journal of Management, 43, 1157–1184.

Hubbartt, W. S. (1998). The new battle over workplace privacy. New York, NY: AMACOM.

Hunter, D. (2018, December 4). 2018 Anchorage earthquake: Preparedness works! Scientific American.

Hunter, J. E., & Boster F. J. (1987). A model of compliance- gaining message selection. Communication Monographs, 54, 63–84.

Huo, Y. J., Binning, K. R., & Begeny, C. T. (2015). Respect and the viability of ethnically diverse institutions. In S. Otten, K. van der Zee, & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Towards inclusive organizations: Determinants of successful diversity management at work (pp. 49-66). London, England: Psychology Press.

Husted, B. W. (1999). Wealth, culture and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 339–359.

Hutchinson, M., Nite, C., & Bouchet, A. (2015). Escalation of commitment in United Stated collegiate athletic departments:

1020

An investigation of social and structural determinants of commitment. Journal of Sport Management, 29, 57–75.

Hylton Rushton, C., Caldwell, M., & Kurtz, M. (2016). Moral distress: A catalyst in building moral resilience. American Journal of Nursing, 116, 40–49.

Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudemonic well-being: Understanding leader– follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–394.

Inch, E. S., Warnick, B., & Endres, D. (2006). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Infante, D. A. (1988). Arguing constructively. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Annals of the International Communication Association: Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 319–351). New York, NY: Routledge.

Inglehart, R. F. (2018). Cultural evolution: People’s motivations are changing, and reshaping the world. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Inglehart, R. F., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American

1021

Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.

Inglehart, R. F., & Oyseman, D. (2004). Individualism, autonomy self-expression: The human development syndrome. In H. Vincken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 74–96). Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill.

Institutionalizing urban resilience: A midterm monitoring and evaluation report of 100 resilient cities. (2018, December 6). 100 Resilient Cities, Rockefeller Foundation.

Intezari, A., & Pauleen, D. J. (2013). Students of wisdom. In W. Küpers & D. J. Pauleen (Eds.), Handbook of practical wisdom: Leadership, organizational and integral business practice (pp. 155–174). Burlington, VT: Gower.

Isaac, M. (2016, February 18). Why Apple is putting up a fight over privacy with the F.B.I. The New York Times, p. B4.

Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Isidore, C. (2018, February 20). Union workers want Disney to pay $1,000 tax cut bonuses. CNNMoney.

Ismay, J. (2018, July 11). A diver explains the difficulty of the mission. The New York Times.

Jacobs, D. C. (2004). A pragmatist approach to integrity in business ethics. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13, 215–223.

1022

James, H. S. (2000). Reinforcing ethical decision-making through organizational structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 43–58.

James, S. A. (2007). Universal human rights: Origins and development. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publications.

Janis, I. (1971, November). Groupthink: The problems of conformity. Psychology Today, 271–279.

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, I. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management. New York, NY: Free Press.

Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. New York, NY: Free Press.

Janover, M. (2005). The limits of forgiveness and the ends of politics. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 26, 221–235.

Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining the impact of servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29, 257–275.

Jassawalla, A. R., Malshe, A., & Sashittal, H. (2008). Student perceptions of social loafing in undergraduate business classroom teams. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6, 423–424.

Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational

1023

Dynamics, 29, 289–305.

Jeffrey, S. (n.d.). How to discover your company’s core values and start building a strong culture. CEOsage.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

Jennings, P. L., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). The moralities of obligation and aspiration: Towards a concept of exemplary military ethics and leadership. Military Psychology, 23, 550– 571.

Johannesen, R. L. (1991). Virtue ethics, character, and political communication. In R. E. Denton (Ed.), Ethical dimensions of political communication (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Praeger.

Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in human communication (6th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Johnson, C. E. (2014). Why “good” followers go “bad”: The power of moral disengagement. Journal of Leadership Education, Special Issue, 36–50.

Johnson, C. E. (2018). Organizational ethics: A practical approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, C. E., & Hackman, M. Z. (1997). Rediscovering the power of followership in the leadership communication text. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois.

1024

Johnson, C. E., & Shelton, P. M. (2014, October). Ethical leadership in the age of apology. International Leadership Journal, 6, 7–29.

Johnson, C. E., Shelton, P. M., & Yates, L. (2012). Nice guys (and gals) finish first: Ethical leadership and organizational trust, satisfaction, and effectiveness. International Leadership Journal, 4(1), 3–19.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2000). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Training for cooperative group work. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), The essentials of teamworking: International perspectives (pp. 131–147). West Sussex, England: Wiley.

Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 47–62.

Johnson, D. W., & Tjosvold, D. (1983). Productive conflict management. New York, NY: Irvington.

Johnson, J. (1993). Functions and processes of inner speech in listening. In D. Wolvin & C. G. Coakley (Eds.), Perspectives in listening (pp. 170–184). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Johnson, J., & Orange, M. (2003). The man who tried to buy the world: Jean-Marie Messier and Vivendi Universal. New York,

1025

NY: Portfolio.

Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Johnston, M. K., Reed, K., & Lawrence, K. (2011). Team listening environment (TLE) scale: Development and validation. Journal of Business Communication, 48, 3–26.

Jones, P. E., & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (2000). The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: Biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics, 43, 1129–1152.

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 15, 366–395.

Jordan, J., Diermeier, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The strategic Samaritan: How effectiveness and proximity affect corporate responses to external crises. Business Ethics Quarterly 22(4), 621–648.

Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17, 195–218.

Jourdan, G. (1998). Indirect causes and effects in policy change: The Brent Spar case. Public Administration, 76, 713–770.

Judge, W. Q. (1999). The leader’s shadow: Exploring and developing executive character. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1026

Junod, T. (1998, November). Can you say. . . . Hero? Fred Rogers has been doing the same small good thing for a very long time. Esquire.

Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 129 –142.

Kador, J. (2009). Effective apology: Mending fences, building bridges, and restoring trust. Williston, VT: Berret-Kohler.

Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (H. J. Ryan, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Kanter, R. M. (1979, July–August). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 65–75.

Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18, 257–265.

Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1990). The quest for altruism in organizations. In S. Srivastra & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Appreciative management and leadership (pp. 228–256). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1027

Kaplan, S. (2016, October 24). Climate scientist Gordon Hamilton, 50, dies in accident in Antarctica. The Washington Post.

Karakas, F. (2010). Spirituality and performance in organizations: A literature review. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 89–106.

Karakas, F., & Sarigollu, E. (2012). Benevolent leadership: Conceptualization and construct development. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 537–553.

Karakas, F., & Sarigollu, E. (2013). The role of leadership in creating virtuous and compassionate organizations: Narratives of benevolent leadership in an Anatolian Tiger. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 663–678.

Karakowsky, L., DeGama, N., & McBey, K. (2012). Facilitating the Pygmalion effect: The overlooked role of subordinate perceptions of the leader. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 85, 579–599.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1995). Social loafing: Research findings, implications, and future directions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 134–140.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Understanding individual motivation in groups: The collective effort model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 113–141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

1028

Karim, A. (2000, June 23). Globalization, ethics, and AIDS vaccines. Science, 21–29.

Karmali, R. (2015, November 19). HBOS’ demise: How it happened. BBC.

Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.

Kasser, T., Vanssteenkiste, M., & Deckop, J. R. (2006). The ethical problems of a materialistic value orientation for businesses. Human Resource Management Ethics (pp. 283– 306). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Kassing, J. W. (2002). Speaking up: Identifying employee’s upward dissent strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 187–209.

Kassing, J. W. (2005). Speaking up competently: A comparison of perceived competence in upward dissent. Communication Research Reports, 22, 227–234.

Kassing, J. W. (2009). “In case you didn’t hear me the first time”: An examination of repetitious upward dissent. Management Communication Quarterly, 22, 416–436.

Kassing, J. W. (2011). Dissent in organizations. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Kassing, J. W., & Kava, W. (2013). Assessing disagreement expressed to management: Development of the Upward Dissent Scale. Communication Research Reports, 30, 46–56.

1029

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L. (1951). Productivity, supervision, and morale among railroad workers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Katz, F. E. (1993). Ordinary people and extraordinary evil: A report on the beguilings of evil. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Keil, M., & Montealegre, R. (2000). Cutting your losses: Extricating your organization when a big project goes awry. Sloan Management Review, 41, 55–68.

Kekes, J. (1991). Moral imagination, freedom, and the humanities. American Philosophical Quarterly, 28, 101–111.

Kekes, J. (2005). The roots of evil. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Kellaway, K. (2015, October 15). Malala Yousafzai: “I want to become prime minister of my country.” The Guardian.

Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kellerman, B. (2008). Bad leadership—and ways to avoid it. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Business leadership (2nd ed., pp. 423–432). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

1030

School Press.

Kelley, R. (1992). The power of followership. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.

Keltner, D., Langner, C. A., & Allison, M. L. (2006). Power and moral leadership. In D. L. Rhode (Ed.), Moral leadership: The theory and practice of power, judgment, and policy (pp. 177– 194). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kennedy, D. (2004). The dark side of virtue: Reassessing international humanitarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kenny, A. (2004). Ancient philosophy (Vol. 1). Oxford, England: Clarenton Press.

Kernic, F. (2017). Facing death: The dynamics of leadership and group behavior in extreme situations when death strikes without warning. In M. Holenweger, M. Jager, & F. Kernic (Eds.), Leadership in extreme situations: Advanced sciences and technologies for security applications (pp. 21–40). New York, NY: Springer.

Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self- esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1–26.

Kessler, E. H., & Bailey, J. R. (2007). Introduction: Understanding, applying, and developing organizational and managerial wisdom. In E. H. Kessler & J. R. Bailey (Eds.), Handbook of organizational and managerial wisdom (pp. xv–xxiv). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1031

Kessler, G. (2018, December 30). A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018. The Washington Post.

Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., Nelson, C. E., & Penney, L. M. (2010). Re-examining Machiavelli: A three-dimensional model of Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1868– 1896.

Ketola, T. (2010). Responsible leadership: Building blocks of individual, organizational and societal behavior. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17, 173– 184.

Kets, de Vries, M.F.R. (2004). Lessons on leadership by terror: Finding Shaka Zulu in the attic. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Khuntia, R., & Suar, D. (2004). A scale to assess ethical leadership of Indian and public sector managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 13–26.

Ki, E.-J., Choi, H.-L., & Lee, J. (2012). Does ethics statement of a public relations firm make a difference? Yes it does!! Journal of Business Ethics, 2, 267–276.

Kickul, J. (2001). When organizations break their promises: Employee reactions to unfair processes and treatment. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 289–307.

Kidder, R. M. (2004). Foundation codes of ethics: Why do they matter, what are they, and how are they relevant to philanthropy? New Decisions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 45, 75–83.

1032

Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage. New York, NY: William Morrow.

Kinjerski, V. (2013). The Spirit at Work Scale: Developing and validating a measure of individual spirituality at work. In J. Neal (Ed.), Handbook of faith and spirituality in the workplace: Emerging research and practice (pp. 383–402). New York, NY: Springer.

Kilburg, R. R. (2012). Virtuous leaders: Strategy, character, and influence in the 21st century. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

King, D., Case, C. J., & Premo, K. M. (2011). A mission statement analysis comparing the United States and three other English speaking countries. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 10, Special Issue, 21–45.

King, S., Biberman, J., Robbins, L., & Nicol, D. M. (2007). Integrating spirituality into management education in academia and organizations: Origins, a conceptual framework, and current practices. In J. Biberman & M. D. Whitty (Eds.), At work: Spirituality matters (pp. 243–256). Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press.

Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33–41.

Klatt, J. S., & Enright, R. D. (2009). Investigating the place of forgiveness with the Positive Youth Development paradigm. Journal of Moral Education, 38, 35–52.

Klatt, J. S., & Enright, R. D. (2011). Initial validation of the unfolding forgiveness process in a natural environment. Counseling and Values, 56, 25–42.

1033

Klemaier, J. (2018, November 29). New Belgium’s Kim Jordan talks 25th anniversary, a new CEO and staying independent. The Denver Post.

Klenke, K. (2005). The internal theater of the authentic leader: Integrating cognitive, affective, conative and spiritual facets of authentic leadership. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development (pp. 43–81). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Kline, S. L., Simunich, B., & Weber, H. (2009). The use of equivocal messages in responding to corporate challenges. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 40–58.

Knapp, J. C. (2011). Rethinking ethics training: New approaches to enhance effectiveness. In R. R. Sims & W. I. Sauser (Eds.), Experiences in teaching business ethics (pp. 217–230). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Knight, R. F., & Pretty, D. J. (1996). The impact of catastrophes on shareholder value. Oxford, England: Templeton College, University of Oxford.

Knobe, J. (2006). The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies, 130, 203– 231.

Knobe, J., & Burra, A. (2006). The folk concepts of intention and intentional action: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6, 113–132.

Knoll, M., & van Kick, R. (2013). Do I hear the whistle. . .? A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 349–362.

1034

Koehn, D. (2010). Ethics, morality, and art in the classroom: Positive and negative relations. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 7, 213–232.

Koehn, N. (2017). Forged in crisis: The power of courageous leadership in turbulent times. New York, NY: Scribner.

Kohlberg, L. A. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L. A. (1986). A current statement on some theoretical issues. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and controversy (pp. 485–546). Philadelphia, PA: Palmer.

Kolditz, T. A. (2005, Fall). The in extremis leader. Leader to Leader,S1, 6–18.

Kolditz, T. A. (2007). In extremis leadership: Leading as if your life depended on it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kolditz, T. A., & Brazil, D. M. (2005). Authentic leadership in in extremis settings: A concept for extraordinary leaders in exceptional situations. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development (pp. 345–356). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How the five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.

1035

Kolp, A., & Rea, P. (2006). Leading with integrity: Character-based leadership. Cincinnati, OH: AtomicDog.

Korosec, K. (2015, August 24). Ten times more deaths linked to faulty switch than GM first reported. Fortune.com.

Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kotlyar, I., & Karakowsky, L. (2006). Leading conflict? Linkages between leader behaviors and group conflict. Small Group Research, 37, 377–403.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

KPMG. (2013/2015). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://home.kpmg.com

Kramer, F. M. (2010). Collective trust within organizations: Conceptual foundations and empirical insights. Corporate Reputation Review, 13, 82–97.

Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.). (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krantz, M. (2015, December 9). Scram! 5 CEOs can get paid $1.3B to get lost. USA Today, p. B2.

http://home.kpmg.com/

1036

Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39, 1308– 1338.

Kreps, T. A., & Monin, B. (2011). “Doing well by doing good”? Ambivalent moral framing in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 99–123.

Kristof, N. D. (2010, June 27). Death by gadget. The New York Times, p. WK11.

Kristof, N. D. (2015, September 26). Malala Yousafzai’s fight continues [Op-Ed]. The New York Times.

Kulik, C. T., Cregan, C., Metz, I., & Brown, M. (2009). HR managers as toxin handlers: The buffering effect of formalizing toxin handling responsibilities. Human Resource Management, 48, 695–716.

Kung, H., & Schmidt, H. (1998). A global ethic and global responsibilities: Two declarations. Munich, Germany: SCM Press.

Kuntz, K. (2017, February 27). A politician and an ex-hitman take on Philippine leader. Spiegel Online.

Kuriantzick. J. (2017, September 15). Why Aung San Suu Kyi isn’t protecting the Rohingya in Burma. The Washington Post.

Kurtzberg, T. R. (2014). Virtual teams: Mastering communication and collaboration in the digital age. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

1037

Kyte, R. (2012). An ethical life: A practical guide to ethical reasoning. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic.

Kyte, R. (2016). Ethical business: Cultivating the good in organizational culture. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic.

Lachman, V. D. (2016). Moral resilience: Managing and preventing moral distress and moral residue. MEDSURG Nursing, 25, 121– 124.

Ladkin, D. (2006). The enchantment of the charismatic leader: Charisma reconsidered as aesthetic encounter. Leadership, 2(2), 165–179.

Ladkin, D. (2008). Leading beautifully: How mastery, congruence and purpose create the aesthetic of embodied leadership practice. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 31–41.

Ladkin, D. (2010). Rethinking leadership: A new look at old leadership questions. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Ladkin, D. (2011). The art of “perceiving correctly”: What artists can teach us about moral perception. Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 9, 91–101.

LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2012). The humanitarian leader in each of us: Seven choices that shape a socially responsible life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lamb, K. (2017, April 2). Thousands dead: The Philippine president, the death squad allegations and brutal drugs war. The Guardian.

1038

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Lapsley, D. K. (2008). Moral self-identity as the aim of education. In L. P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 30–52). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lapsley, D. K., & Hill, P. L. (2008). On dual processing and heuristic approaches to moral cognition. Journal of Moral Education, 37, 313–332.

Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership (SOLA) instrument. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida Atlantic University.

Laub, J. (2019). Leveraging the power of servant leadership: Building high performing organizations. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2004). Three ethical issues in negotiation. In C. Menkel-Meadow & M. Wheeler (Eds.), What’s fair: Ethics for negotiators (pp. 5–14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

1039

Lazarus, H., & McManus, T. (2006). Transparency guru: An interview with Tom McManus. Journal of Management Development, 25, 923–936.

Lee, J., Woeste, J. H., & Heath, R. L. (2007). Getting ready for crises: Strategic excellence. Public Relations Review, 33, 334– 336.

Leeper, R. V. (1996). Moral objectivity, Jurgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, and public relations. Public Relations Review 22, 133–150.

Leets, L. (2001). Interrupting the cycle of moral exclusion: A communication contribution to social justice research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1859–1891.

Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 243–255.

Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 255–264.

Levinthal, D. (2015, October 30). Spreading the free-market gospel. The Atlantic.

Lewicki, R. (1983). Lying and deception. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewecki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 68–90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

1040

Lewicki, R. J., Saunders D. M., & Barry, B. (2014). Negotiation (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Lewis, A. (2013, September 25). Is consulting giant McKinsey evil? MarketWatch.

Lewis, C. S. (1946). The great divorce. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Lewis, D., Medland, J., Malone, S., Murphy, M., Reno, K., & Vaccaro, G. (2006). Appreciative leadership: Defining effective leadership methods. Organization Development Journal, 24(1), 87–100.

Li, F., Yu, K. F., Yang, J., Qi, Z., & Fu, J. H. (2014). Authentic leadership, traditionality, and interactional justice in the Chinese context. Management and Organization Behavior, 10, 249–272.

Liao, Y., Liu, X.-Y., Kwan, H., & Jinsong, L. (2015). Work–family effects of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 535–545.

Lieber, C. (2018, March 16). Did Nike’s “frat boy culture” lead to the departures of two executives? Racked.

Limon, M. S., & La France, B. H. (2005). Communication traits and leadership emergence: Examining the impact of argumentativeness, communication apprehension, and verbal aggressiveness in work groups. Southern Communication Journal, 70, 123–133.

1041

Lin, S.-H., Ma, J., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). When leader behavior breaks bad: How ethical leader behavior can turn abusive via ego depletion and moral licensing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 815–830.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—and how we can survive them. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Lisman, C. D. (1996). The curricular integration of ethics: Theory and practice. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Liu, S.-M., Liao, J.–Q., & Wei, H. (2015). Authentic leadership and whistleblowing: Mediating roles of psychological safety and personal identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 107– 119.

Livesey, S. M. (2003). Organizing and leading the grassroots: An interview with Lois Gibbs, Love Canal Homeowners Association activist. Organization, 16, 448–503.

Lloyd, J. (2017, October 17). Dons, donors and the murky business of funding universities. FT Life.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (Eds.). (2013). New developments in goal setting and task performance. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lohr, S. (2014), Unblinking eyes track employees. The New York Times, p. A1.

1042

Lombardo, C. (2017, April 3). How many people die from malnutrition each year? Vision Launch.

Lonergan, B. (1957). Insight: A study of human understanding. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Lonergan, B. (1973). Method in theology. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Long, M. G. (2015). Peaceful neighbor: Discovering the countercultural Mister Rogers. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Lopez, G. (2018, March 26). It’s official: March for Our Lives was one of the biggest youth protests since the Vietnam War. Vox.

Lopez, S. J., Rasmussen, H. N, Skorupski, W. P., Koetting, K., Petersen, S. E., & Yang, Y. (2010). Folk conceptualizations of courage. In C. L. S. Pury & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue (pp. 23–45). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lovegrove, I. (2013). Leaders in Antarctica: Characteristics of an Antarctic station manager. In C. M., Giannantonio & A. E. Hurley-Hanson (Eds.), Extreme leadership: Leaders, teams and situations outside the norm (pp. 47–61). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Low, E. (2018, May 9). Here’s what Nike execs were getting away with as bullying culture ran deep. Investor’s Business Daily.

Lowe, K. B., & Kroeck, K. G. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.

1043

Lowenheim, N. (2009). A haunted past: Requesting forgiveness for wrongdoing in international relations. Review of International Studies, 35, 531–555.

Lubit, R. (2002). The long-term organizational impact of destructively narcissistic managers. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 127–183.

Ludwig, D. C., & Longnecker, C. O. (1993). The Bathsheba syndrome: The ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 265–273.

Luke, J. S. (1998). Catalytic leadership: Strategies for an interconnected world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Luo, Y. (2004). An organizational perspective of corruption. Management and Organization Review, 1, 119–154.

Lynch, J. (2016, February 5). DEQ fires worker who supervised Flint’s water. The Detroit News.

Maak, T. (2009). The cosmopolitical corporation. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 361–372.

Maas, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428–445.

MacAvoy, P. W., & Millstein, I. M. (2003) The current crisis in corporate governance. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Maccoby, M. (2003). The productive narcissist. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

1044

MacFarquhar, L. (2015). Strangers drowning: Grappling with impossible idealism, drastic choices, and the overpowering urge to help. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management 43, 1940–1965.

MacLellan, L. (2017, October 27). A new type of leader is emerging in Silicon Valley. Quartz.

Macur, J. (2013, January 18). Confession, but continuing to fight. The New York Times, p. B11.

Madrid, M. (2018, February 23). The happiest place on earth? Not for Disney employees. TrickleDowners.

Madrigal, A. C. (2012, January 10). The court case that almost made it illegal to tape television shows. The Atlantic.

Manjoo, F. (2018, September 12). The metamorphosis of Silicon Valley C.E.O.s: From big to boring. The New York Times.

Mankins, M., Brahm, C., & Caimi, G. (2014). Your scarcest resource. Harvard Business Review 92, 74–80.

Manz, C. C., & Neck, C. P. (1995). Teamthink: Beyond the groupthink syndrome in self-managing work teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(1), 7–15.

1045

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1989). Superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsch, J., dela Paz, J., & Peterson, J. B. (2006). Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 694–712.

March for Our Lives highlights: Students protesting guns say “enough is enough.” (2018, March 24). The New York Times.

Marek, A. C. (2006, February 27). A post-Katrina public flaying. U.S. News & World Report, 62–64.

Margolis, J. (2006). Introduction: Pragmatism, retrospective and prospective. In J. R. Shook & J. Margolis (Eds.), A companion to pragmatism (pp. 1–9). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Markel, H. (2014). Ebola fever and global health responsibilities. Milbank Quarterly, 92(4), 633–639.

Martin, H. (2018, November 12). Anaheim’s “living wage” initiative is expected to pass. A business advocate calls it a “tragic outcome.” Los Angeles Times.

Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 175–194.

Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (2010). Minority influence and innovations: Antecedents, processes and consequences. Hoboken, NJ: Psychology Press.

1046

Mathews, M. C. (1990). Codes of ethics: Organizational behavior and misbehavior. In W. C. Frederick & L. E. Preston (Eds.), Business ethics: Research issues and empirical studies (pp. 99 –122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Matteson, J. A., & Irving, J. A. (2006). Servant versus self- sacrificial leadership: A behavioral comparison of two follower- oriented leadership theories. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 36–51.

May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247–260.

May, D. R., & Pauli, K. P. (2002). The role of moral intensity in ethical decision-making: A review and investigation of moral recognition, evaluation, and intention. Business & Society, 41, 84–117.

Mayers, D., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant- leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 180–197.

McCabe, D., & Treviño, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522–569.

1047

McCarthy, N. (2017, September 14). Racial wealth inequality in the U.S. is rampant. Forbes.

McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2010). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McConnell, P. (2014). Reckless endangerment: The failure of HBOS. Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions, 7, 202–215.

McConnell, T. (2018, September 6). Chinese man arrested after calling Kenya’s president a “monkey.” AFP.

McCory, K. (2017, August 4). “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli convicted on three of eight criminal charges. USA Today.

McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psychology of forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McCullough, M. E., Sandage, S. J., & Worthington, E. L. (1997). To forgive is human: How to put your past in the past. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

McDonald, D. (2013). The firm: The story of McKinsey and its secret influence on American business. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster.

McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (2010). The corporate reflecting pool: Antecedents and consequences of narcissism in executives. In B. Schyns & T. Hansbrough (Eds.), When

1048

leadership goes wrong: Destructive leadership, mistakes, and ethical failures (pp. 247–284). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

McGregor, J., & Dworkin, E. (2017, February 17). The cost of silence: Why more CEOs are speaking out in the Trump era. The Washington Post.

McGuire, M. (2002, September/October). Managing networks: Propositions on what managers do and why they do it. Public Administration Review, 62, 599–609.

McKay, J. (2014, September 12). Chief resilience officers: Coming to your city? Emergency Management.

McKendall, M., DeMarr, B., & Jones-Rikkers, C. (2002). Ethical compliance programs and corporate illegality: Testing the assumptions of the corporate sentencing guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 367–383.

McKenna, F. P. (1993). It won’t happen to me: Unrealistic optimism or illusion of control? British Journal of Psychology, 84, 39–50.

McKinnon, C. (1999). Character, virtue theories, and the vices. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.

McManus, J. (2018). Hubris and unethical decision making: The tragedy of the uncommon. Journal of Business Ethics, 149, 169 –185.

McNamara, G., Moon, H., & Bromiley, P. (2002). Banking on commitment: Intended and unintended consequences of an organization’s attempt to attenuate escalation of commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 443–452.

1049

McNatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: A meta-analysis of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 314–322.

McPherson, P. (2017, October 19). Rohingya crisis may be driving Aung San Suu Kyi closer to generals. The Guardian.

McVea, J. F. (2007). Constructing good decisions in ethically charged situations: The role of dramatic rehearsal. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 375–390.

McVea, J. F. (2008). Ethics and pragmatism: John Dewey’s deliberative approach. In T. Donaldson & P. H. Werhane (Eds.), Ethical issues in business: A philosophical approach (8th ed., pp. 89–100). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Medina, J. (2018, February 28). Trying to make ends meet with job at the happiest place on earth. The New York Times, p. A1

Mehta, S., & Pillay, R. (2011). Revisiting servant leadership: An empirical study in Indian context. Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 5(2), 24–41.

Meilander, G. (1986). Virtue in contemporary religious thought. In R. J. Neuhaus (Ed.), Virtue: Public and private (pp. 7–30). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Meisenbach, R. J. (2006). Habermas’s discourse ethics and principle of universalization as a moral framework for organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 39–62.

Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving high organization performance through servant leadership. Journal

1050

of Business Inquiry, 9, 74–88.

Menzel, D. C. (2010). Ethics moments in government: Cases and controversies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Meredith, S. (2018, January 22). Inequality gap widens as “world’s richest 1% get 82% of the wealth,” Oxfam says. CNBC.

Merie, R. (2017, August 4). Martin Shkreli is found guilty of three of eight securities fraud charges. The Washington Post.

Messick, D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996, Winter). Ethical leadership and the psychology of decision making. Sloan Management Review, 37(2), 9–23.

Metzger, M., Dalton, D. R., & Hill, J. W. (1993). The organization of ethics and the ethics of organizations: The case for expanded organizational ethics audits. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3, 27– 43.

Meyer, Z. (2018, May 2). Starbucks and two black men arrested in Philadelphia incident reach private settlement. USA Today.

Michigan governor: Solve Flint water crisis instead of laying blame. (2016, February 5). Reuters.

Michigan governor’s emails shine light on Flint water crisis. (2016, Feb. 7). CNN.com

Milgram redux. (2008). The Psychologist, 21, 748–755.

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57–76.

http://cnn.com/

1051

Miller, K. S., & Bellamy, R. (n.d.) Fine print, restrictive grants, and academic freedom. AAUP American Association of University Professors.

Minton-Eversol, T. (2012, July 19). Virtual teams used most by global organizations, survey says. Society for Human Resource Management.

Mintz, A., & Wayne, C. (2016a). The polythink syndrome and elite group decision-making. Advances in Political Psychology, 37, 3 –21.

Mintz, A., & Wayne, C. (2016b). The polythink syndrome: U.S. foreign policy decisions on 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and ISIS. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Minz, A., Mishal, S., & Morag, N. (2003). Evidence of polythink?: The Israeli delegation at Camp David 2000. Normal: Illinois State University.

Mirvis, P. H. (1997). “Soul work” in organizations. Organization Science, 8, 193–206.

Mirza, J. (2018, November 26). Future imperiled: Govt stops fee payment of child labourers sent to school. The Express Tribune (Pakistan).

Mitchell, M. S., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). The managerial relevance of ethical efficacy. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality (pp. 9–108). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mitroff, I. I. (2005). Why some companies emerge stronger and better from a crisis. New York, NY: AMACOM.

1052

Mitroff, I. I., & Alpsaian, M. C. (2003, April). Preparing for evil. Harvard Business Review, 109–115.

Mitroff, I. I., & Anagnos, G. (2001). Managing crises before they happen: What every executive and manager needs to know about crisis management. New York, NY: American Management Association.

Mitroff, I. I., Pearson, C. M., & Harrington, L. K. (1996). The essential guide to managing corporate crises: A step-by-step handbook for surviving major catastrophes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Moll, J., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Zahn, R., & Grafman, J. (2008). The cognitive neuroscience of moral emotions. In W. Sinnott- Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology: Vol. 3. The neuroscience of morality: Emotion, brain disorders, and development (pp. 1–17). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Monks, R. G., & Minow, N. (2004). Corporate governance (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Montero, D. (2018). Kickback: Exposing the global corporate bribery network. New York, NY: Viking.

Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1–48.

Moore, E. C. (1961). American pragmatism: Peirce, James and Dewey. Westport CT: Greenwood Press.

1053

Moore, J. (2018, March 2). These are the companies ending gun sales to buyers under the age of 21. Newsweek.

Moore, M. (2016). 10 things they won’t tell you about the Flint water tragedy. But I will. Retrieved from http://michaelmoore.com/10FactsOnFlint/

Moorhead, G., Neck, C. P., & West, M. S. (1998). The tendency toward defective decision making within self-managing teams: The relevance of groupthink for the 21st century. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 327–351.

Mor Barak, M. E. (2011). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moriarty, J. (2005). On the relevance of political philosophy to business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 15, 455–473.

Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58, 1323–1350.

Morse, R. S. (2008). Developing public leaders in an age of collaborative governance. In R. S. Morse & Terry F. Buss (Eds.), Innovations in public leadership development (pp. 79–100). New York, NY: Routledge.

Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Van Avermaet, E. (Eds.). (1985). Perspectives on minority influence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Moses, A. (2012, December 23). Privacy concern as apps share data from kids left to their own devices. Sunday Age (Melbourne, Australia), p. 3.

http://michaelmoore.com/10FactsOnFlint/

1054

Mourdoukoutas, P. (2018, August 4). What is China doing in Africa? Forbes.

Moxley, R. S., & Pulley, M. L. (2004). Hardships. In C. D. McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (2nd ed., pp. 183–203). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mumford, M. D., Gessner, T. L., Connelly, M. S., O’Conner, J. A., & Clifton, T. (1993). Leadership and destructive acts: Individual and situational influences. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 115–147.

Murphy, J. G. (2003). Getting even: Forgiveness and its limits. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Musekura, C. (2010). An assessment of contemporary models of forgiveness. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Muzaffar, C. (2002). Conclusion. In P. F. Knitter & C. Muzaffar (Eds.), Subverting greed: Religious perspectives on the global economy (pp. 154–172). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Najmabadi, S. (2018, April 24). From the Chinese government to the Koch brothers, outside donors receive scrutiny at Texas universities. Texas Tribune.

Nakamura, B. (2018, April 28). Nike’s “‘bro culture” collides with #MeToo movement. OregonLive.com

Narvaez, D. (2006). Integrative ethical education. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 717– 728). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

1055

Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2005). The psychological foundations of everyday morality and moral expertise. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Character psychology and character education (pp. 140–165). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Nash, L. L. (1990). Good intentions aside: A manager’s guide to resolving ethical problems. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

National Geographic Society (2017). Dian Fossey: Secrets in the mist. [DVD]. Available from www.foxconnect.com

Navarick, D. J. (2009). Reviving the Milgram obedience paradigm in the era of informed consent. Psychological Record, 59, 155– 170.

Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2012). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Neiman, S. (2002). Evil in modern thought: An alternative history of philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Nemeth, C. (1995). Dissent, group process and creativity: The contribution of minority influence research. In E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 57–75). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 157–170.

http://www.foxconnect.com/

1056

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2014). Ethical leadership: Meta- analytic evidence of criterion-related and incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 948–965.

Nguyen, Q., Kuntz, J. R. C., Naswall, K., & Malinen, S. (2016, August). Employee resilience and leadership styles: The moderating role of proactive personality and optimism. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 45, 13–21.

Nichols, M. L., & Day, V. E. (1982). A comparison of moral reasoning of groups and individuals on the “Defining Issues Test.” Academy of Management Journal, 25, 21–28.

Nicholson, C. (2013). Education and the pragmatic temperament. In A. Malachowski (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to pragmatism (pp. 249–271). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Nielsen, R. P., & Dufresne, R. (2005). Can ethical organizational character be stimulated and enabled? “Upbuilding” dialog as crisis management method. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 311 –326.

Nittle, N. K. (2018, March 12). Which states have the highest majority minority populations? ThoughtCo.

Nobles, M. (2008). The politics of official apologies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Noguchi, Y. (2018, February 22). Disney says promised bonus depends on workers signing wage contract. NPR.

1057

Not so smart. (2015, November 28). The Economist.

Nye, J. S. (2008). The powers to lead. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Oatley, K. (2008). The mind’s flight simulator. Psychologist, 21, 1030–1032.

Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moral disengagement among bystanders to school bullying. Journal of School Violence, 10, 239–257.

Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moral disengagement in self-reported and peer-nominated school bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 133–134.

O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579.

O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.

Okoth, J. (2018, October 12). Kenya: China, Kenya relations and the question of racial discrimination. The Conversation.

Oliner, S. P. (2011). The nature of good & evil. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.

Olmsted, K. S. (2009). Real enemies: Conspiracy theories and American democracy, World War I to 9/11. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

1058

Onishi, N. (2014, August 20). Clashes erupt as Liberia sets an Ebola quarantine. The New York Times, p. A1.

Onorato, M., & Zhu, J. (2014, Winter). An empirical study on the relationships between authentic leadership and organizational trust by industry segment. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 26–39.

Oosting, J. (2017, March 7). Flint: “All clear” for drinking water years away. Detroit News.

Opotow, S. (1990). Deterring moral exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 173–182.

Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20.

Opotow, S. (2007). Moral exclusion and torture: The ticking bomb scenario and the slippery ethical slope. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13, 457–461.

Opotow, S., Gerson, J., & Woodside, S. (2005). From moral exclusion to moral inclusion: Theory for teaching peace. Theory Into Practice, 44, 303–318.

Opotow, S., & Weiss, L. (2000). Denial and the process of moral exclusion in environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 475–490.

Oppel, R. A. (2018, July 17). MGM Resorts sues 1,000 victims of Las Vegas Shooting, seeking to avoid liability. The New York Times.

1059

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Osswald, S., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). What is moral courage? Definition, explication, and classification of a complex construct. In C. L. S. Pury & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue (pp. 149–164). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Oswick, C. (2009). Burgeoning workplace spirituality? A textual analysis of momentum and directions. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 1, 15–25.

Ötken, A. B., & Cenkci, T. (2012). The impact of paternalistic leadership on ethical climate: The moderating role of trust in leader. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 525–536.

Our Mission to End School Shootings. (2018, March 24). March for Our Lives.

Owen, R. (2000, November 12). There goes the neighborhood: Mister Rogers will make last episodes of show in December. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Magazine.

Pacanowsky, M. E., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 5, 126–147.

Paddison, L. (2018, November 2). This country publishes everyone’s income on “National Jealousy Day.” HuffPost.

Paddock, R. C. (2017, April 2). From admiration to dismay in Myanmar. The New York Times, p. A6.

1060

Paddock, R. C., & Beech, H. (2018, July 9). “A war against water and time.” Toronto Star.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176–194.

Pagan, N. O. (2008). Configuring the moral self: Aristotle and Dewey. Foundations of Science, 13, 239–250.

Pagliery, J. (2014). Apps aimed at children collect a shocking amount of data. CNN.

Paine, L. S. (1996, March/April). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 106–117.

Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and leadership: A multi-level conceptual framework. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 405–420.

Palmer, P. (1996). Leading from within. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant- leadership (pp. 197–208). New York, NY: Wiley.

Paloutzian, R. F., Emmons, R. A., & Keortge, S. G. (2010). Spiritual well-being, spiritual intelligence, and healthy workplace policy. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jukiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (2nd ed, pp. 73–86). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

The Panama Papers: Here’s what we know. (2016, April 4). The New York Times.

1061

Panchak, P. (2002). Time for a triple bottom line. Industry Week, p. 7.

Papageorgis, D. (1968). Warning and persuasion. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 271–282.

Parboteeah, K. P., Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2014). An international perspective on ethical climate. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 600–617). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Park, G., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). A multilevel model of minority opinion expression and team decision-making effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 824–853.

Park, M., & Levenson, E. (2018, July 23). Coast Guard raises capsized boat to the surface of Table Rock Lake. CNN.

Parker-Pope, T. (2015, January 6). In with the new mission statement. The New York Times, p. D4.

Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. (2013). An accident waiting to happen: The failure of HBOS. House of Commons, London, England.

Pauchant, T. C., & Mitroff, I. I. (1992). Transforming the crisis- prone organization: Preventing individual, organizational, and environmental tragedies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Paul, J., & Strbiak, C. A. (1997). The ethics of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 149–159.

1062

Paul, R. (2017, November 28). Bangladesh to turn island into temporary home for 100,000 Rohingya refugees. Reuters.

Paulus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.

Pearce, M. (2014, September 27). Growing use of police body cameras raises privacy concerns. Los Angeles Times.

Pearson, C. M., & Judith, A. C. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management Review 23, 59–71.

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2004). On incivility, its impact and directions for future research. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary- Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 131– 158). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7 –18.

Pearson, G. (1995). Integrity in organizations: An alternative business ethic. London, England: McGraw-Hill.

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34, 566–593.

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A., & Jayaraman, V. (2010). Cross-cultural generalizability of paternalistic leadership: An expansion of leader-member exchange theory. Group & Organization Management, 35, 391–420.

1063

Peralta, E. (2018, October 8). A new Chinese-funded railway in Kenya sparks debt-trap fears. NPR.

Perez-Pena, R. (2018, February 13). British charity’s executive resigns over aid workers’ misconduct. The New York Times.

Perlow, L. A., Hadley, C. N., & Eun, E. (2017, July/August). Stop the meeting madness: How to free up time for meaningful work. Harvard Business Review, 62–69.

Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, D. K. (2002). The relationship between unethical behavior and the dimensions of the Ethical Climate Questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 313–326.

Petit, V., & Bollaert, H. (2012). Flying too close to the sun? Hubris among CEOS and how to prevent it. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 265–283.

Petrick, J. A. (1998). Building organizational integrity and quality with the four Ps: Perspectives, paradigms, processes, and principles. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes (pp. 115–131). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Petrick, J. A. (2008). Using the business integrity capacity model to advance business ethics education. In D. L. Swanson & D. G.

1064

Fisher (Eds.), Advancing business ethics education (pp. 103– 124). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012). Authentic leadership: An empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 331–348.

Peyton Roberts, T., & Zigarmi, D. (2014). The impact of dispositional cynicism on job-specific affect and work intentions. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 381–389.

Pfaff, C. A., Reich, T., Redman, W., & Hurley, M. (2011). Ethics in dangerous situations. In P. Sweeney, M. D. Matthews, & P. B. Lester (Eds.), Leadership in dangerous situations: A handbook for the armed forces, emergency, services, and first responders (pp. 121–138). Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1992, Winter). Understanding power in organizations. California Management Review, 34, 29–50.

Pfeffer, J. (2015). Leadership BS: Fixing workplaces and careers one truth at a time. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

Phillips, P. (2018, September 30). Global wealth concentration: The global power elite drive Amazon share value to a trillion dollars. Global Research.

Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Phillips, R. A., & Margolis, J. D. (1999). Toward an ethics of organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9, 623–638.

1065

Picchi, A. (2018, July 27). Disneyland’s minimum wage gets a boost to $15 an hour. CBSNews.

Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (2011). Leaders and the leadership process: Readings, self-assessments and applications (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Piliavin, J. A., & Chang, H. W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. American Sociological Review, 16, 27–65.

Plott, E. (2018, July 6). Inside Scott Pruitt’s tumultuous final months as EPA administrator. The Atlantic.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.

Pogatchnik, S. (2010, March 14). Abuse scandals hit Catholic Church across Europe. The Oregonian, p. A11.

Pogge, T. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics 103(1), 48–75.

Pollard, C. W. (1996). The soul of the firm. Grand Rapids, MI: HarperBusiness.

Pomranz, M. (2017, November 13). Jose Andres says his work in Puerto Rico is far from done. Food & Wine.

Popular DNA-testing companies build databases accessible by law enforcement, third-party companies. (2018, April 27). TheBlaze.

1066

Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1181–1197.

Povoledo, E., & Otterman, S. (2018, July 28). Cardinal Theodore McCarrick resigns amid sexual abuse scandal. The New York Times.

Pradhan, S., & Pradhan, R. K. (2015). An empirical investigation of relationship among transformational leadership, affective organizational commitment and contextual performance. Vision, 19, 227–235.

Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 21–40.

Pratkanis, A., & Aronson, E. (2001). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York, NY: Holt.

Press Association. (2006, January 28). Ex-HBOS bosses face City bans as watchdogs launch bank failure probes. Daily Mail.

Price, T. L. (2006). Understanding ethical failures in leadership. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Provis, C. (2010). Virtuous decision making for business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 3–6.

Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Achieving integrative agreements. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 35–50). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.

1067

Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2008). Ethical turnarounds and transformational leadership: A global imperative for corporate social responsibility. Thunderbird International Business Review, 50, 304–314.

Pulley, B. (2005, October 17). Last days of the lion king. Forbes.

Quiano, K., & Westcott, B. (2017, March 2). Ex-Davao death squad leader: Duterte ordered bombing. CNN.

Quigley, N. R., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2005). Responsible leadership and governance in a global context: Insights from the GLOBE study. In J. P. Doh & S. A. Sumpf (Eds.), Handbook on responsible leadership and governance in global business (pp. 352–379). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2015). The elements of moral philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Rahimina, F., & Sharifirad, M. S. (2015). Authentic leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of attachment insecurity. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 363–377.

Rainer, C., & Motyl, M. (2015). Moral concerns and policy attitudes: Investigating the influence of elite rhetoric. Political Communication, 32, 229–248.

Rainey, J. (2017, January 13). Robert Iger’s pay as Disney CEO dips slightly in 2016 to $43.9 million. Variety.

Rainey, M. (2012, April/May). Fired before you’re hired. INSIGHT into Diversity, 18–21.

1068

Rajah, R., & Arvey, R. D. (2013). Helping group members develop resilience. In A. J. DuBrin, (Ed.), Handbook of research on crisis leadership in organizations (pp. 149–173). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., de la Garza Carranza, M. T., Ramburuth, P., Terpstra-Tong, J., Pekerti, A. A., . . . & Wallace, A. (2009). Ethical preferences for influencing superiors: A 41- society study. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1022–1040.

Ralston, D. A., Hallinger, P., Egri, C. P., & Naothinsuhk, S. (2005). The effects of culture and life stage on workplace strategies of upward influence: A comparison of Thailand and the United States. Journal of World Business, 40, 321–337.

Ralston, D. A., Vollmer, G. R., Srinvasan, N, Nicolson, J. D., Tang, M., & Wan, P. (2001). Strategies of upward influence: A study of six cultures from Europe, Asia and America. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 32, 728–735.

Ram Rahim Singh: India guru guilty of journalist’s murder. (2019, January 11). BBC News.

Rampersad, A. (1997). Jackie Robinson. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1069

Ransley, C., & Spy, T. (Eds.). (2004). Forgiveness and the healing process: A central therapeutic concern. New York, NY: Brunner- Routledge.

Raphael, T. J. (2917, October 11). The Harvey Weinstein cover- up: How censorship, settlements and silence kept the allegations out of the news. PRI.

Rapisarda, B. A. (2002). The impact of emotional intelligence on work team cohesiveness and performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 363–370.

Rasche, A., & Gilbert, D. U. (2012). Institutionalizing global governance: The role of the United Nations Global Compact. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21, 100–114.

Raskin, S. (2017, November 3). NYU department ends relationship with NYU Abu Dhabi. The New York Times.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

Rawls, J. (1993a). Distributive justice. In T. Donaldson & P. H. Werhane (Eds.), Ethical issues in business: A philosophical approach (4th ed., pp. 274–285). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rawls, J. (1993b). Political liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Rawls, J. (2001a). Justice as fairness: A restatement (E. Kelly, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

1070

Rawls, J. (2001b). The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655–687.

Reb, J., Goldman, B. M., Kray, L. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2006). Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice. Personnel Psychology, 59, 31–64.

Reed, L. L., Vidaver-Cohen, D., & Colwell, S. R. (2011). A new scale to measure executive servant leadership: Development, analysis, and implications for research. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 415–434.

Regester, M., & Larkin, J. (2005). Risk issues and crisis management: A casebook of best practice (3rd ed.). London, England: Kogan Page.

Rego, A., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2008). Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21, 53–75.

Reilly, K. (2018, March 24). Emma Gonzalez’s stunning silence for Parkland: The latest on March for Our Lives. Time.

Renati, R., Berrone, C., & Zaneti, M. A. (2012). Morally disengaged and unempathetic: Do cyberbullies fit these definitions? An exploratory study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 391–398.

Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of

1071

ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 345–359.

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY: Praeger.

Rest, J. R. (1993). Research on moral judgment in college students. In A. Garrod (Ed.), Approaches to moral development (pp. 201–211). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Rest, J. R. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 1–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1991). The college experience and moral development. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Vol. 2. Research (pp. 229–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 233–243.

Reynolds, S. J. (2006). A neurocognitive model of the ethical decision-making process: Implications for study and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 737–748.

Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,

1072

1027–1041.

Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1610–1624.

Rezaee, A. (2009). Corporate governance and ethics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Rhoads, K. V. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). The business of influence: Principles that lead to success in commercial settings. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 513–542). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Richards, K. (2018, May 14). Uber promises to do better in a new brand campaign featuring the company’s CEO. Adweek.

Richter, A. W., West, M. A., Van Dick, R., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). Boundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1252–1269.

Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue- based measurement of ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 235–250.

Riley, C. (2017, September 19). McKinsey drawn into South Africa’s sprawling corruption scandal. CNNMoney.

Riley-Smith, B. (2018, September 11). To boldly brand: NASA may sell naming rights for spaceships. The Telegraph.

1073

The rise of workplace spying. (2015, July 5). The Week.

Robehmed, N., & Berg, M. (2017, October 13). Oscar hero to zero: How Harvey Weinstein’s power enabled him—and led to his decline. Forbes.

Roberto, M. A. (2005). Why great leaders don’t take yes for an answer. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

Roberts, K. H. (2006). Some characteristics of one type of high reliability organization. In D. Smith & D. Elliott (Eds.), Key readings in crisis management: Systems and structures for prevention and recovery (pp. 159–179). London, England: Routledge.

Roberts, R. (2011, January). Psychology at the end of the world. The Psychologist, 24, pp. 22–25.

Roberts, T. P., & Zigarmi, D. (2014). The impact of dispositional cynicism on job-specific affect and work intentions. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 381–389.

Robins, F. (2006). The challenge of TBL: A responsibility to whom? Business and Society Review, 111, 1–14.

Rochlin, G. I., LaPorte, T. R., & Roberts, K. H. (1987). The self- designing high-reliability organization: Aircraft carrier flight operations at sea. Naval War College Review, 40(4), 76–90.

Rockman, K. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2006). The ethical implications of virtual interaction. In A. E. Tenbrunsel (Ed.), Ethics in groups (pp. 101–123). Oxford, England: Elsevier.

1074

Rockness, H., & Rockness, J. (2005). Legislated ethics: From Enron to Sarbanes-Oxley, the impact on corporate America. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 31–54.

Rogers, E. M., & Steinfatt, T. M. (1999). Intercultural communication. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Romo, V. (2018, November 8). Duck boat captain indicted in Missouri lake accident that killed 17. NPR.

Roosevelt, M. (2018, February 27). Disneyland Resort workers struggle to pay for food, housing and medical care, union survey finds. Orange County Register.

Roosevelt, M. (2018, February 28). Disney unions ballot drive seeks to $18 an hour at hospitality companies that receive Anaheim subsidies. Orange County Register.

Root, M. P. P. (2003). Racial and ethnic origins of harassment in the workplace. In D. P. Pope Davis, H. L. K. Coleman, W. M., Liu, & R. L. Toporek (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural competencies in counseling and psychology (478–492). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1075

Rosanas, J. M., & Velilla, M. (2003). Loyalty and trust as the ethical bases of organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 49–59.

Rosenberg, T. (2011, November 24). An electronic eye on hospital hand-washing. The New York Times, Opinionator blog.

Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in organizations: Theory, measurement, practice. London, England: Routledge.

Rosenthal, R. (1993). Interpersonal expectations: Some antecedents and some consequences. In P. D. Blank (Ed.), Interpersonal expectations: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 3–24). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Ross, J., & Staw, B. M. (1993). Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from the Shoreham Nuclear Plant. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 701–732.

Rottenberg, J., & Kaufman, A. (2017, October 12). The fallout: How the Harvey Weinstein scandal exposed sexual harassment as Hollywood’s dirty secret. Los Angeles Times.

Royce, J. (1920). The philosophy of loyalty. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., & Brown, M. E. (2010). Do ethical leaders get ahead? Exploring ethical leadership and promotability. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 215–236.

Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Martinez, R. (2011). Improving the “leader- follower” relationship: Top manager or supervisor? The ethical

1076

leadership trickle-down effect on follower job response. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 587–608.

Ruschman, N. L. (2002). Servant-leadership and the best companies to work for in America. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the twenty-first century (pp. 123–139). New York, NY: Wiley.

Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 293–302.

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145–157.

Rybacki, K. C., & Rybacki, D. J. (2004). Advocacy and opposition: An introduction to argumentation. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Sacks, B. (2018, November 14). The California town destroyed by the Camp fire wasn’t prepared for the worst. And then something even worse came. BuzzFeedNews.

Sagarin, B. J., Cialdini, R. B., Rice, W. E., & Serna, S. B. (2002). Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: The motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 526–541.

Sanborn, J. (2016, February 3). The toxic tap. Time, 34–39.

Sandin, P. (2009). Approaches to ethics for corporate crisis management. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 109–116.

1077

Sanford, N., & Comstock, C. (Eds.). (1971). Sanctions for evil. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Savola, A. (2017, December 14). Global inequality is on the rise— but at vastly different rates across the world. The Conversation.

Sauser, W. I. (2011). Beyond the classroom: Business ethics training for professionals. In R. R. Sims & W. I. Sauser (Eds.), Experiences in teaching business ethics (pp. 247–261). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Sawyer, K. (2003, August 24). Shuttle’s “smoking gun” took time to register. The Washington Post, p. A1.

Scarre, G. (2010). On courage. London, England: Routledge.

Schaler, J. A. (Ed.). (2009). Peter Singer under fire. Chicago, IL: Open Court/Carus.

Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Lord, R. G., Treviño, L. K., . . . & Peng, A. C (2012). Embedding ethical leadership within and across organization levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1053–1078.

Scheiber, N. (2017, November 1). Protecting the disgraced. The New York Times, p. B1.

Schein, E. H. (1993). Career anchors: Discovering your real values (rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Schrag, B. (2001). The moral significance of employee loyalty. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11, 41–66.

1078

Schultz, B. (1982). Argumentativeness: Its effect in group decision-making and its role in leadership perception. Communication Quarterly, 3, 368–375.

Schultz, H., & Gordon, J. (2011). Onward: How Starbucks fought for its life without losing its soul. New York, NY: Rodale.

Schuman, S. (2010). The handbook for working with difficult groups: How they are difficult, why they are difficult and what you can do about it. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics 139, 755–776.

Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745–772.

Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.

Sciullo, M. (2018, January 11). Joanne Rogers embodies the life, love and spirit of husband Fred Rogers’s legacy. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2013). Theorizing crisis communication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

1079

Sendjaya, S., Perketi, A., Hartel, C., Hirst, G., & Butarbutar, I. (2016). Are authentic leaders always moral? The role of Machiavellianism in the relationship between authentic leadership and morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 125– 139.

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 57–64.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 402–424.

Severson, K. (2017, October 30). Jose Andres fed Puerto Rico, and may change how aid is given. The New York Times, p. D1.

Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership (pp. ix–xxxix). Greenwich CT: Information Age.

Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18, 513–540.

Shapiro, D. (2017). Negotiating the nonnegotiable: How to resolve your most emotionally charged conflicts. New York, NY: Penguin.

Shaw, J. B., Erickson, A., & Harvey, M. (2011). A method for measuring destructive leadership and identifying types of

1080

destructive leaders in organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 575–590.

Shepela, S., Cook, J, Horlitz, E., Leal, R. Luciana, S., Lutfy, E., Miller, C., Mitchell, G., & Worden, E. (1999). Courageous resistance: A special case of altruism. Theory & Psychology, 9, 787–805.

Shields, C. (2014). Aristotle (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Shklar, J. N. (1984). Ordinary vices. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2006). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. S., Ellis, K., & Cesaria, R. (2000). Measuring organizational trust: A diagnostic survey and international indicator. San Francisco, CA: International Association of Business Communicators.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. S., Ellis, K., & Winograd, G. (2000). Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters. Organization Development Journal, 18(4), 35–48.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. S., Morreale, S. P., & Hackman, M. Z. (2010). Building the high-trust organization: Strategies for supporting five key dimensions of trust. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shriver, D. W. (1995). An ethic for enemies: Forgiveness in politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

1081

Shriver, D. W. (2001). Forgiveness: A bridge across abysses of revenge. In R. G. Helmick & R. L. Peterson (Eds.), Forgiveness and reconciliation: Religion, public policy, and conflict transformation (pp. 151–167). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Dishonest deed, clear conscience: Self-preservation through moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Harvard Business School Working Paper 09-078.

Skogstad, A., Schanke Aasland, M., Birkeland Nielsen, M. B., Hetland, J., Berge Matthiesen, S. & Eidersen, S. (2014). The relative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership on subordinate job satisfaction: Results from two prospective and representative studies. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 222, 221–232.

Sickles, J. (2014, September 8). Ebola evacuation to US greater than previously known. Yahoo News.

Siddiqui, F., Schmidt, S., & Halsey, A. (2018, April 18). “She has nerves of steel”: The story of the pilot who calmly landed the Southwest Airlines flight. The Washington Post.

Silverman, R. E. (2012, February 4). Where’s the boss? Trapped in a meeting. The Wall Street Journal.

Sim, M. (2007). Remastering morals with Aristotle and Confucius. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Simola, S. (2003). Ethics of justice and care in corporate crisis management. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 351–361.

1082

Simola, S. (2005). Concepts of care in organizational crisis prevention. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 341–353.

Simola, S. (2010). Anti-corporate anger as a form of care-based moral agency. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 255–269.

Simons, T. L. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35.

Simonson, I., & Staw, B. M. (1992). De-escalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 419–426.

Sims, R. R. (2003). Ethics and corporate social responsibility: Why giants fall. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Singer, N. (2018, August 3). For sale: Survey data on millions of high school students. The New York Times.

Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 229–243.

Singer, P. (2009). The life you can save: Acting now to end world poverty. New York, NY: Random House.

Singh, N., & Krishman, V. R. (2007). Self-sacrifice and transformational leadership: Mediating role of altruism. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29, 261–274.

Sipe, J. W., & Frick, D. M. (2015). Seven pillars of servant leadership: Practicing the wisdom of leading by serving. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

1083

Sleesman, D. J., Conlon, D. E., McNamara G., & Miles, J. E. (2012). Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review of the determinants of escalation of commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 3, 541–562.

Smith, A. E., & Jussim, L. (1999). Do self-fulfilling prophecies accumulate, dissipate, or remain stable over time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 548–565.

Smith, B. W. M., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K. Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, p. 196.

Smith, C. M., & Tindale, R. S. (2009). Direct and indirect minority influence in groups. In R. Martin & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Minority influence and innovations: Antecedents, processes and consequences (pp. 263–284). Hoboken, NJ: Psychology Press.

Smith, I. H., Aquino, K., Koleva, S., & Graham, J. (2014). The moral ties that bind . . . even to out-groups: The interactive effect of moral identity and the binding moral foundations. Psychological Science, 25, 1554–1562.

Smith, J. Y. (2009, August 12). The Olympian force behind a revolution. The Washington Post, p. A07.

Smith, P. K., Jostmann, N. B., Galinsky, A. D., & van Dijk, W. W. (2008). Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychological Science, 19, 441–447.

Smith, T. (1999). Justice as a personal virtue. Social Theory & Practice, 25, 361–384.

1084

Smith, W. (2007). Cosmopolitan citizenship: Virtue, irony and worldliness. European Journal of Social Theory, 10, 37–52.

Smithson, J., & Venette, S. (2013). Stonewalling as an image- defense strategy: A critical examination of BP’s response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Communication Studies, 64(4), 395–410.

Snow, N. E. (1993). Self-forgiveness. Journal of Value Inquiry, 27, 75–80.

Snyder, C. R., & Lopez. S. J. (2005). Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Snyder, P., Hall, M., Robertson, J., Jasinski, T., & Miller, J. S. (2006). Ethical rationality: A strategic approach to organizational crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 371–383.

Sokoll, S. (2014). Servant leadership and employee commitment to a supervisor. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 8, 88–104.

Solomon, C. M. (2001). Put your ethics to a global test. In M. H. Albrecht (Ed.), International HRM: Managing diversity in the workplace (pp. 329–335). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Solomon, R. C. (1990). A passion for justice: Emotions and the origins of the social contract. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Solomon, R. C. (1992). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

1085

Sosik, J. J. (2015). Leading with character: Stories of valor and virtue and the principles they teach (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Spangle, M. L., & Isenhart, M. W. (2003). Negotiation: Communication for diverse settings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spears, L. C. (1998). Introduction: Tracing the growing impact of servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Wiley.

Squires, N. (2012, July 11). Costa Concordia captain: “I ****** up.” The Telegraph.

Srivastva, S. (Ed.). (1988). Executive integrity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 429–459.

Stanley, J. (n.d.). Nike announces new diversity initiatives following scandal. Hypebeast.

Stansbury, J. (2009). Reasoned moral agreement: Applying discourse ethics within organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 33–56.

1086

Starmann, R. G. (1993). Tragedy at McDonald’s. In J. A. Gottschalk (Ed.), Crisis response: Inside stories on managing image under siege (pp. 309–322). Detroit, MI: Gale Group.

Staub, E. (2015). The roots of goodness & resistance to evil: Inclusive caring, moral courage, altruism born of suffering, active bystandership, and heroism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, 577–587.

Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Smart people are not stupid, but they sure can be foolish. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Why smart people can be so stupid (pp. 232–242). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

Stouten, J., van Dijke, M., Mayers, D. M., De Cremer, D., & Euwema, M. C. (2013). Can a leader be seen as too ethical? The curvilinear effects of ethical leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 680–695.

Strachan, M. (2017). The best argument for saving public media was made by Mr. Rogers in 1969. HuffPost.

Stracqualursi, V. (2018, July 3). Reports: EPA aides testify to Congress about how Pruitt enlisted them for personal errands. CNN.

1087

Street, M. D. (1997). Groupthink: An examination of theoretical issues, implications, and future research suggestions. Small Group Research, 28, 72–93.

Sturm, R. E. (2017). Decreasing unethical decisions: The role of morality-based individual differences. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 37–57.

Sucher, S. J. (2008). The moral leader: Challenges, tools, and insights. London, England: Routledge.

Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamic, and impact. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Suedfeld, P., & Steel, G. D. (2000). The environmental psychology of capsule habitats. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 227– 253.

Sullivan, B. K. (2017, November 28). The most expensive U.S. hurricane season ever: By the numbers. Bloomberg.

Sullivan, D, & Tifft, L. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of restoriative justice. London, England: Routledge.

Sun, W., Xu, A., & Shang, Y. (2014). Transformational leadership, team climate, and team performance within the NPD team: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31, 127–147.

1088

Sun, Y. (2014, February 7). China’s aid to Africa: Monster or Messiah? Brookings.

Sweeney, C., & Bothwick, F. (2016). Inclusive leadership. Harlow, England: Pearson.

Szmania, C. (2018, July 27). This one design flaw led to a deadly Missouri duck boat accident. Yahoo!News.

Talbot, M. (1999). Against relativism. In J. M. Halstead & T. H. McLaughlin (Eds.), Education in morality (pp. 206–217). London, England: Routledge.

Talbot, M. (2018, April 2). Scott Pruitt’s dirty politics. The New Yorker.

Tan, H.-H., & Quek, B.-C. (2001). An exploratory study on the career anchors of educators in Singapore. The Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 527–545.

Tangney, J. P. (2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 70–82.

Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta- analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 405–439.

Taylor, A. (2018, May 21). Why the new CEO activism is bad for everyone. Quartz at Work.

1089

Taylor, S. G., & Pattie, M. W. (2014). When does ethical leadership affect workplace incivility? The moderating role of follower personality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24, 595–616.

Taylor S. S., & Elmes, M. B. (2011). Aesthetics and ethics: You can’t have one without the other. Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 9, 61–62.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17, 223–236.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.

Terez, T. (2001, December). You could just spit: Tales of bad bosses. Workforce, 24–25.

Tessman, L. (2014). Virtue ethics and moral failure: Lessons from neuroscientific moral psychology. In. M. W. Austin (Ed.), Virtues in action: New essays in applied virtue ethics (pp. 171–189). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thai cave rescue: The watery trap is now empty. (2018, July 10). The New York Times.

The dawn of CEO activism. (2016, June 21). Weber Shandwick. Retrieved from https://www.webershandwick.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/the-dawn-of-ceo-activism-2.pdf

https://www.webershandwick.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/the-dawn-of-ceo-activism-2.pdf

1090

The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International. Retrieved from https://gorillafund.org

Thoma, S. J. (2006). Research on the Defining Issues Test. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 67–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thoma, S. J., & Deng, Y. (2014). The defining issues test of moral judgment development. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19, 55–60.

Thomas, G. (2000, January 10). The forgiveness factor. Christianity Today, 38–43.

Thomas, R. J. (2008). Crucibles of leadership: How to learn from experience to become a great leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Thoresen, C. E., Harris, H. S., & Luskin, F. (2000). Forgiveness and health: An unanswered question. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 254–280). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Thoroughgood, C. N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W. (2012). The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 897–917.

Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19, 230–255.

https://gorillafund.org/

1091

Tileaga, C. (2006). Representing the “other”: A discursive analysis of prejudice and moral exclusion in talk about Romanies. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16, 19–41.

Timmons, M. (2002). Moral theory: An introduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2011). Intercultural communication ethics: Multiple layered issues. In G. Cheney, S. May, & D. Munshi (Eds.), The handbook of communication ethics (pp. 135–147). New York, NY: Routledge.

Tivnan, E. (1995). The moral imagination. New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman, and Hall.

Toffler, B. L., & Reingold, J. (2003). Final accounting: Ambition, greed, and the fall of Arthur Andersen. New York, NY: Broadway.

Toor, S. R., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 533–547.

Toohey, P. (2018, July 11). Against all odds, hero divers save soccer boys. The Adelaide Advertiser.

Top ten: Africa Infrastructure projects in 2018. (n.d.). The Business Year.

Toulmin, S. (1958/2003). The uses of argument. London, England: Cambridge University Press.

1092

Torino, G. C., Rivera, D. P., Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., Sue, D.W. (Eds.). (2019). Microaggression theory: Influence and implications (pp. 159–177). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Tourish, D. (2008). Challenging the transformational agenda: Leadership theory in transition? Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 522–528.

Tourish, D. (2013). The dark side of transformational leadership: A critical perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership, corporate cultism, and the spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 55, 147–172.

Toward a global ethic: An international declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions. (n.d.) Retrieved from ParliamentOfReligions.org

Townsend, M., & Deprez, E. E. (2018, May 9). Companies have an aha! moment: Bullies don’t make the best managers. Bloomberg

Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2005). The role of leaders in influencing unethical behavior in the workplace. In R. E. Kidwell & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing organizational deviance (pp. 69 –87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2013). Ethical leadership. In M. G. Ramsey (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership (pp. 524– 548). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Treviño, L. K., Brown, M. E., & Pincus Hartman, L. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical

http://parliamentofreligions.org/

1093

leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56, 5–37.

Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 447–476.

Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. E. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42(4), 128–133.

Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2004). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2001). Organizational justice and ethics program “follow-through”: Influences on employees’ harmful and helpful behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11, 651–671.

Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2003). Managing ethics in business organizations: Social scientific perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9, 653–699.

Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York, NY: Routledge.

1094

Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality, and justice. New York: New York University Press.

Troyer, J. (2003). The classical utilitarians: Bentham and Mill. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002, April). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 304–311.

Turner, S. (n.d.). 2018 data breaches—the worst so far. IdentityForce.

The twilight zone. (2011, November 15). Economist, 49–50.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership (pp. 187–209). Greenwich CT: Information Age.

Ulmer, R. R., Seeger, M. W., & Sellnow, T. L. (2007). Post-crisis communication and renewal: Expanding the parameters of post- crisis discourse. Public Relations Review, 33, 130–134.

Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2000). Consistent questions of ambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the Box as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 143–155.

Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2008). Post-crisis communication and renewal: Understanding the potential for positive outcomes in crisis communication. In R. L. Heath & D. H. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of risk and crisis communication (pp. 302–322). Hoboken, NJ: Routledge.

1095

Understanding poverty. (2018, September 24). The World Bank.

United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/universal- declaration-human-rights/

UnKoch my campus. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.unkochmycampus.org

Useem, M. (1998). The leadership moment: Nine stories of triumph and disaster and their lessons for us all. New York, NY: Times Books.

Vaglanos, A. (2015, February 19). 1 in 3 women has been sexually harassed at work, according to survey. HuffPost.

Valacich, J. S., & Schewenk, C. (1995). Devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry effects on face-to-face and computer- mediated group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 158–173.

Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2003). Ethics code awareness, perceived ethical values, and organizational commitment. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23, 359–367.

Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 249–267.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

http://www.unkochmycampus.org/

1096

Van Hoot, S. (2009). Cosmopolitanism: A philosophy for global ethics. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Van Knippenberg, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self- sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25– 37.

Van Slyke, J. A. (2014). Moral psychology, neuroscience, and virtue. In K. Timpe & C. A. Boyd (Eds.), Virtues and their vices (pp. 459–479). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Van Vuuren, L. J., & Crous, F. (2005). Utilising appreciative inquiry (AI) in creating a shared meaning of ethics in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 399–412.

Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Bullying and harassment in the workplace. In R. E. Kidwell, Jr. & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing organizational deviance (pp. 183–203). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vejpongsa, T., & Kaewjinda, K. (2018, July 19). ‘We weren’t sure it was for real.’ Toronto Star.

Velasquez, M. G. (2014). Philosophy (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Vetelson, A. J. (2005). Evil and human agency: Understanding collective evildoing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101

1097

–125.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1990). A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations. In W. C. Frederic & L. E. Preston (Eds.), Business ethics: Research issues and empirical studies (pp. 77–97). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Villamor, F. (2017, February 20). Ex-officer in Philippines says he led death squad at Duterte’s behest. The New York Times.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 193–203.

Vitell, S. J., Nwachukwu, S. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1993). The effects of culture on ethical decision-making: An application of Hofstede’s typology. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 753–760.

Volcovici, V. (2018, June 13). Senate Republicans call for hearing on Pruitt scandals. Reuters.

Von Culin, K. R., Tsukayama, E., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). Unpacking grit: Motivational correlates of perseverance and passion for long-term goals. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 306–312.

Vozza, S. (2014, February 25). Personal mission statement of 5 famous CEOS (and why you should write one too). Fast Company.

Waddock, S. (2014). Wisdom and responsible leadership: Aesthetic sensibility, moral imagination, and systems thinking. In

1098

D. Koehn & D. Elm (Eds.), Aesthetics and business ethics (pp. 129–147). New York, NY: Springer.

Wagner, D. (2014, June 9). VA scandal audit: 120,000 veterans experience long waits for care. The Arizona Republic.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 381–394.

Walker, L. J., Frimer, J. A., & Dunlop, W. L. (2010). Varieties of moral personality: Beyond the banality of heroism. Journal of Personality, 78(3), 970–942.

Wallace, J. (2018, December 13). Report on Hurricane Harvey response finds plenty of room for improvement. Houston Chronicle.

Wallace, T. (2015, November 19). Up to 10 former HBOS executives could be banned over collapse, damning report finds. The Telegraph.

Waller, J. (2007). Becoming evil: How ordinary people commit genocide and mass killing (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Waller, J. (2016). Confronting evil: Engaging our responsibility to prevent genocide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Waltman, M. A., Russell, D. C., Coyle, C. T., Enright, R. D., Holter, A. C., & Swoboda, C. M. (2009). The effects of a forgiveness intervention on patients with coronary artery disease. Psychology and Health, 24, 11–27.

1099

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89–126.

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517–529.

Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 204–213.

Wang, A. B. (2108, April 11). Bank of America to stop lending some gun manufacturers in wake of Parkland massacre. The Washington Post.

Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36, 223–270.

Wang, H., Sui, Y., Luthans, F., Wang, D., & Wu, Y. (2014). Impact of authentic leadership on performance: Role of followers’ positive psychological capital and relational processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 5–12.

Wang, Y.-D., & Hseih, J.-H. (2012). Toward a better understanding of the link between ethical climate and job satisfaction: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 535–545.

1100

Waples, E. P., Antes, A., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 133–151.

Warnke, G. (1993). Justice and interpretation. Cambridge, England: MIT Press.

Watkins, E., & Foran, C. (2018, July 5). EPA Scott Pruitt’s long list of controversies. CNN.

Wayne, L. (2005, March 8). Boeing chief is ousted after admitting affair. The New York Times, p. A1.

Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency. Organization Studies, 27, 341– 436.

Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 539–552.

Weaver, G. R., Reynolds, S. J., & Brown, M. E. (2014). Moral intuition: Connecting current knowledge to future organizational research and practice. Journal of Management 40, 100–129.

Weber, E. T. (2011). What experimentalism means in ethics. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 25(1), 98–115.

1101

Weber, J., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2001). Investigating influences on managers’ moral reasoning: The impact of personal and organizational factors. Business & Society, 40, 105–107.

Weber, J., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2013). Corporate ethics and compliance programs: A report, analysis and critique. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 609–626.

Weber, J. A. (2007). Business ethics training: Insights from learning theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 61–85.

Wei, X., Liu, Y. ,& Allen, N. J. (2016). Measuring team emotional intelligence: A multimethod comparison. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 20, 34–50.

Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (2006). Collective minds in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. In D. Smith & D. Elliott (Eds.), Key readings in crisis management: Systems and structures for prevention and recovery (pp. 343–368). London, England: Routledge.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Weise, E. (2017, November 1). Russian fake accounts showed posts to 126 million Facebook users. USA Today.

Weiser, B. (2018, December 19). Bike path attack suspect was on the F.B.I.’s radar. The New York Times.

Weitz, E. D. (2003). A century of genocide: Utopias of race and nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

1102

Werhane, P. H. (1999). Moral imagination and management decision-making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

West, H. R. (2004). An introduction to Mill’s utilitarian ethics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

West, M. A. (2012). Effective teamwork: Practical lessons from organizational research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Wheeler, D., Colbert, B., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusing on values: Reconciling corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and a stakeholder approach in a network world. Journal of General Management, 28, 1–28.

Wheeler, M. (2004, March). Fair enough: An ethical fitness test quiz for negotiators. Negotiation, 3–5.

Whicker, M. L. (1996). Toxic: leaders: When organizations go bad. Westport, CT: Quorum.

White, G. B. (2018, January 8). The Black and Hispanic unemployment rates don’t deserve applause. The Atlantic.

White, S. S., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Problems with the Pygmalion effect and some proposed solutions. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 389–415.

Whiting, K. (2018, November 2). Finland has just published everyone taxes on “National Jealousy Day.” World Economic Forum.

Whitlock, C. (2017, September 30). How the military handles sexual assault cases behind closed doors. The Washington

1103

Post.

Whitney, D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003). The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Why McKinsey is under attack in South Africa (2017, October 12). The Economist.

Why your negotiating behavior may be ethically challenged—and how to fix it. (2008, April). Negotiation, 11(4), 1–5.

Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. (2008). The effect of culture on consumers’ willingness to punish irresponsible corporate behaviour: Applying Hofstede’s typology to the punishment aspect of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17, 210–226.

Williams, K. D., Harkins, S. G., & Karau, S. J. (2003). Social performance. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social psychology (pp. 327–346). London, England: Sage.

Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Wilson, D. S. (2015). Does altruism exist? Culture, genes, and the welfare of others. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Wilson, S. R. (2002). Seeking and resisting compliance: Why people say what they do when trying to influence others. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1104

Witt, E. (2018, March 25). The March for Our Lives presents a radical new model for youth protest. The New Yorker.

Witt, J. L., & Morgan, J. (2002). Stronger in the broken places: Nine lessons for turning crisis into triumph. New York, NY: Times Books/Henry Holt.

Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, G. C. (1993). A listening taxonomy. In A. D. Wolvin & C. G. Coakley (Eds.), Perspectives in listening (pp. 15–22). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wood, J., Hysong, S. J., Lugg, D. J., & Harm, D. L. (2000). Is it really so bad? A comparison of positive and negative experiences in Antarctic winter stations. Environment and Behavior, 32, 84–110.

Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analytic syntheses of forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 119–138.

Woods, K. C., & Buchanan, N. T. (2008). Sexual harassment in the workplace. In M. Paludi (Ed.), The psychology of women at work: Challenges and solutions for our female workforce (Vol. 1, pp. 119–132). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Woody, C. (2017, May 8). Filipinos trust Rodrigo Duterte—even if they don’t like many of his policies. Business Insider.

Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 15–30.

Wooler, S. (2018, March 15). Health boss claims back 5.90 for short taxi ride after telling nation to exercise more. The Sun.

1105

Worthington, E. L. Lavelonk, C., Van Tongeren, D. R., Jennings, D. J., Gartener, H. A. L., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Virtue in positive psychology. In K. Timpe & C. A. Boyd (Eds.), Virtues & their vices (pp. 433–458). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2005). Initial questions about the art and science of forgiving. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Routledge.

Wright, D. K. (1993). Enforcement dilemma: Voluntary nature of public relations codes. Public Relations Review, 19, 13–20.

Wu, Y., & Bai, Z. (2017, March 21). Plunder or mutual gain? On the ever-growing scale of China’s investment in infrastructure in Africa. International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development.

Wu, L.-Z., Kwan, H. K., Hong-kit, F., Chiu, R. K., & He, X. (2014). CEO ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 819–831.

Yidong, T., & Xinxin, L. (2013). How ethical leadership influences employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 441–455.

Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 428–436.

Yousafzai, M., & Lamb, C. (2013). I am Malala: The girl who stood up for education and was shot by the Taliban. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.

1106

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Yount, J. (1993). Patterns of influence behaviors for managers. Group and Organization Management, 18, 5–28.

Yunus, M. (1998, October 31). Banker to the poor. The Guardian.

Yurtsever, G. (2006). Measuring moral imagination. Social Behavior and Personality, 34, 205–220.

Zack, N. (2009). Ethics for disaster. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Zadek, S. (2004, December). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 125–132.

Zhang, B. (2018, July 30). The TSA has been secretly monitoring US airline passengers using air marshals. Business Insider.

Zhang, Y., & Liao, Z. (2015). Consequences of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 32, 959–987.

Zhong, C.-B. (2011). The ethical dangers of deliberative decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1–25.

Zhou, R., Long, L., & Hao, P. (2016). Positive affect, environmental uncertainty, and self-sacrificial leadership influence follower’s self-sacrificial behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality, 44, 1515–1524.

1107

Zhu, W., He, H., Trevino, L. K., Chao, M. M., & Wang, W. (2015). Ethical leadership and follower voice and performance: The role of follower identifications and entity morality beliefs. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 702–718.

Zhu, W., May, D. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership behavior on employee outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(1), 16–26.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2005). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 21–50). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House.

Zinnbauer, B. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness and spirituality. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 21–42). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Zyglidopoulus, S. C. (2002). The social and environmental responsibilities of multinationals: Evidence from the Brent Spar case. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 141–151.

1108

1109

Index

Abbott, 366 Abbott, Greg, 409 Abilene paradox, 304, 305 Ability grouping, 213 Abu Ghraib prison, 110, 117 Acquiescent silence, 345 Active bystanders, 114 Active followers, 150 Acton, Lord, 11 Act utilitarianism, 145 Adams, Guy, 113 Affective (destructive) conflict, 295 Affective prebehavioral disposition competence, 54 Affordable Care Act, 333 “Age of Apology,” 122 AI. See Appreciative inquiry al-Assad, Bashar, 12 al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr, 5 Alford, C. Fred, 109 Allinson, Robert, 413 ALT. See Authentic Leadership Theory Altruism, 147, 156–161, 168 Amazon, 13, 37, 196 American Express, 58 Anand, Vikas, 346 Ancestry.com, 15 Annan, Kofi, 124 Anning, Fraser, 5 Anticipatory socialization, 346 Apple, 97, 147, 191, 214, 365 Appreciative inquiry (AI), 335 Appreciative listening, 291 Aquinas, Thomas, 77 Arendt, Hannah, 115 Aristotle, 70–71, 190 Armstrong, Lance, 19, 123

1110

Arnold, Benedict, 19 Ashforth, Blake, 346 Atlas Shrugged, 351 AT&T, 13, 58, 59, 249 Audubon Society, 227 Aurelius, Marcus, 383 Authentic Leadership Theory (ALT), 255 Authoritarianism, 262 Authoritarian Reflex, 371 Autry, James, 249 Avolio, Bruce, 256

Badaracco, Joseph, 79, 190 BAE Systems, 337 Baird, Catharyn, 193, 194, 196 Balfour, Danny, 113 Ballmer, Steve, 97 Banana Republic, 20 Bandura, Albert, 47 Bank of America, 16, 333 Barker, Larry, 291 Barrick Gold Corporation, 337 Bass, Bernard, 244 Bat Flu, 394 Baumeister, Roy, 110 Bay of Pigs fiasco, 301 Bazerman, Max, 44, 180, 182 BB&T Charitable Foundation, 351 Beecher, Henry Ward, 207 Benetton, 368 Benevolent leadership theory, 262, 264 Bentham, Jeremy, 145, 414 Berkshire Hathaway, 77 Berlin, Isaiah, 364 Bezos, Jeff, 13, 37 Biden, Joe, 303 Big Dig (Boston), 305 Biogen, 192 BioGenex, 125 Black Friday sales, 230

1111

Blair, Tony, 123 Blaming others, 48 Block, Peter, 249 Bloomberg, Michael, 47 The Body Shop, 381 Boeing, 58, 62, 85 Bogle, Jack, 79 Boin, Arjen, 410 Boisjoly, Roger, 46 Bombardier, 337 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 101, 402 Booker, Corey, 78 Boster, Franklin, 211 Boston Marathon bombing, 16 Bower, Marvin, 59 Bowie, Norman, 148 BP, 415 Branch Davidian compound, 301 Branson, Richard, 93, 262 Brent Spar, 43 Bribery, global corporate, 163–166 Bristol-Myers Squibb, 164 Brotheridge, Celeste, 80 Brown, Duane, 94 Brown, Michael, 265 Buddha, 190 Buffett, Warren, 14, 77 Bulger, Whitey, 347 Burns, James MacGregor, 243–244 Bush, George H. W., 81, 122 Bush, George W., 109

Callous leaders, 3–4 Cambridge Analytica, 413 Cantor Fitzgerald, 413 Career anchors, 93 Caremark, 13 Caring climates, 323 Carrefour, 368 Carson, Ben, 180

1112

Carson, Rachel, 101, 402 Carsten, Melissa, 150 Case studies

character (leader’s), 97–102 crisis leadership, 428–434 decision making, ethical, 200–202 ethical perspectives, 163–169 evil, combating, 131–138 global society, leadership challenges in, 390–396 influence, ethical issues in, 232–238 leadership theories, 269–275 organizational climate, 351–356 shadow side of leadership, how leaders cast shadows, 23–29 shadow side of leadership, why leaders cast shadows, 58–63 small groups, ethical leadership in, 311–316

Castro, Fidel, 16 Categorical imperative (Kant), 147–150, 372 Catholic priests (US), 19–20 Caux Round Table, 384–385 CCL. See Center for Creative Leadership Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), 53, 87 Chaleff, Ira, 185 Challenger, explosion, 46, 301 Chappell, Thomas, 125 Character (leader’s), 70–107

building character, 85–95 career anchors, 93 case studies, 97–102 clergy sex abuse, 84 compassion, 81–83 courage, 72–74 developing habits, 88–90 elements, 70–85 further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 96– 97 genocide, 75 grit, 74–75 habit, definition of, 89

1113

hearing stories/living shared stories, 86–87 highly unsuccessful executives, habits of, 90–92 (box) humanitarian leadership, 82–83 (box) humility, 80–81 implications and applications, 96 integrity, 79–80 justice, 77–78 learning from hardship, 87–88 #MeToo movement, 72 moral identity, 83–85 optimism, 78–79 personal mission statements, 92–93 practical wisdom, 76–77 rescripting, 89 role models, 85 self-assessment, 102–104 student study site, 97 temperance, 75–76 “trust busters,” 79 values, identifying of, 93–95 virtue ethics, 70 wisdom and prudence, 76–77

Chevron, 164 Chick-Fil-A, 27, 334 Chief resilience officers (CROs), 423 Chipotle, 125 Christianity, 156 Christie, Richard, 40 Chrystal, Stanley, 303 Cialdini, Robert, 226 Cicero, 383 Citigroup, 341 Clergy sex abuse, 19–20, 84 Clinton, Bill, 84, 123, 409 Clinton, Hillary, 24, 86 CMP. See Crisis management plan Coca Cola, 60, 333 Coercive power, 7 Cognitive decision-making competence, 54 Cognitive dissonance, 180

1114

Colby, Anne, 70 Collaborative leadership, 307 Collective corruption, 344 Collins, James, 334 Colluders, 53 Columbia explosion, 46, 301 Columbine mass shooting, 16, 410 Compassion, 81–83 Complicit bystanders, 114 Comprehensive listening, 291 Conformers, 53 Confucianism, 156 Confucius, 70, 190, 364 Connolly, John, 347 ConocoPhillips, 336 Constructive leaders, 6 The Container Store, 249 Context management competence, 54 Contingent reward, 244 Cook, Tim, 97, 191 Cordon Bleu-Tomasso, 125 Corporate activism, 332 Corporate Athlete, 92 Corporate social responsibility (CSR), 161, 332 Corrupt leaders, 4–5 Cosby, Bill, 18 Costco, 227 Courage, 72–74 Covey, Stephen, 89, 90 Crace, R. Kelly, 94 Creutzfeldt-Jakob (CJD) brain disease, 406 Crisis leadership, 402–441

abnormal accidents, 404 biases, 404 case studies, 428–434 components, 412–423 crises, types of, 403–404 crisis event, 408–409 crisis management plans, 427 discourse of renewal, 410

1115

ethical demands, 424–426 ethical rationality, 420 follower ethics, 423–424 foresight effect, 418 further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 427 –428 heroic imagination, 417 “Horwitz Rule,” 419 implications and applications, 426–427 intention effect, 418 mindful cultures, 419 normal accidents, 404 organizational crisis learning, 409 postcrisis, 409–410 precrisis, 404–408 reconsidering structure, 409 resilience, 421–423 retrospective sense making, 409 scorecard, 410–411 (box) self-assessment, 434–436 “Stockdale Paradox,” 417 stonewalling, 415 student study site, 428 transparency, 413–416 triage, 407 vicarious learning, 409

Crisis management plan (CMP), 407, 427 Critical listening, 291 CROs. See Chief resilience officers CSR. See Corporate social responsibility Cullen, John, 323 Culture (organizational). See Organizational climate Cummins Inc., 341 Custer, George Armstrong, 3 CVS, 13

Dalai Lama, 156 Damon, William, 70 Danone, 366 Darwin, Charles, 74

1116

Dayspring cards, 125 Decision making, ethical, 174–206

case studies, 200–202 cognitive dissonance, 180 conventional thinking, 178 decision-making formats, 188–198 Defining Issues Test, 179 dual process approach, 174–176 duty orientation, 186 ethical fading, 177 follower ethics, 185 Foursquare Protocol, 198 Four-Way Method, 188–190 further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 199 –200 implications and applications, 198–199 implicit prejudice, 181 in-group favoritism, 181 justice-as-fairness theory, 179 maintaining norms schema, 179 moral action, components of, 176–186 moral attentiveness, 177 moral dumbfounding, 174–175 moral emotions, 183 moral hypocrisy, 183 moral judgment, 178 moral potency, 182 motivation, 182–183 other-condemning moral emotions, 183 other-praising (positive) emotions, 184 other-suffering emotions, 184 partial disengagement, 188 postconventional reasoning, 178 postconventional schema, 179 preconventional thinking, 178 recognition, 176–178 self-assessment, 202–203 self-conscious emotions, 184 Social Intuitionist Model, 175 student study site, 200

1117

Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 415 Defense Distributed, 25 Defining Issues Test (DIT), 179 Dehumanization, 48 DePree, Max, 249 Derailed leaders, 6 Desai, Sreedhari, 209 Deutsche Bank, 333 Dewey, John, 153, 154 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 41 (box) Dialectic inquiry method, 302 Diet of Worms, 83 Diogenes, 383 Discourse ethics, 218 Discovery Communications, 13 Discovery Toy party, 229 Discrimination, 342 Discriminative listening, 291 Disney, 39, 234 Distributive negotiation, 222 DIT. See Defining Issues Test Diversity and inclusion (D&I) efforts, 324 DNA-testing companies, 15 Dodd-Frank Act, 19 Donaldson, Thomas, 385 Douglass, Frederick, 101, 402 Dramatic rehearsal, 154 Drones, 15 Duchon, Dennis, 126 Dunfee, Thomas, 385 Duterte, Rodrigo, 131–132 Duty orientation, 186

Ebbers, Bernie, 85 Ebola epidemic (West Africa), 367 Eden, Dov, 207 EI. See Emotional intelligence Eichmann, Adolf, 115 Einarsen, Ståle, 6

1118

Eisner, Michael, 39 Eli Lilly, 164 Elizabeth II, Queen, 77 Ellison, Darren, 260 Ells, Steve, 125 Ellsworth, Richard, 79 Emotional-ethical threshold, 211 Emotional intelligence (EI), 294–295 Empathetic listening, 291 Encounter socialization, 346 Enright, Robert, 120 Enron, 59, 95, 339 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 27, 136, 402 Eskom, 59 Ethical climate, 322 Ethical fading, 177 Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS), 265 Ethical leadership theory, 265, 267 Ethical perspectives, 144–173

active followers, 150 act utilitarianism, 145 altruism, 147, 156–161 capitalist theorists, 153 case studies, 163–169 categorical imperative (Kant), 147–150 corporate social responsibility, 161 dramatic rehearsal, 154 ethics of care, 159–160 (box) follower ethics, 150 further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 162 –163 group-focused leader altruistic behaviors, 157 hospice volunteers, 157 implications and applications, 162 individual-focused leader altruistic behaviors, 157 justice as fairness, 151–153 meaningful work, 148 organizational-focused leader altruistic attitudes, 158 passive followers, 150 pragmatism, 153–156

1119

proactive followers see, 150 rule utilitarianism, 145 societal-focused leader altruistic behaviors, 158 student study site, 163 toxin handlers, 158 utilitarianism, 144–147 “veil of ignorance,” 151

Ethics Game simulation, 196 Ethnocentrism, 44, 379 Euphemistic language, 47 Evil, combating, 108–142

Abu Ghraib prison, 110 active bystanders, 114 “banality of evil,” 116 bureaucracy, evil as, 112–113 case studies, 131–138 choice, evil as, 113–114 community, 127 complicit bystanders, 114 cultural factors, 115 dreadful pleasure, 109 exclusion, evil as, 110–112 faces of evil, 108–109 facing evil, 116–117 “5-R” model, 124 follower ethics, 114–115 forgiveness, 119–125 further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 130 –131 harmful bystanders, 114 Holocaust, 113 idealism, evil as, 109–110 implications and applications, 129–130 inner life, 126 meaningful work, 126–127 moral community, 110 moral exclusion, symptoms of, 111 (box) moral inversion, 113 ordinary, evil as, 114–115 pseudo-apologies, 123, 124

1120

psychological factors, 115 scope of justice, 110 self-assessment, 138–139 situational pressures, 118–119 (box) social factors, 115–116 spirituality, 125–129 Stanford Prison Experiment, 117 student study site, 131 “surplus populations,” 113 warning labels, 108

Evil leaders, 5 Expert power, 7 Exxon Valdez, 413, 417

Facebook, 226, 336, 366, 406, 413 Farrow, Mia, 24 Farrow, Ronan, 24 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 147, 190, 303, 347, 406 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 409, 421 FedEx, 337 Female genital mutilation (FGM), 392 Feurstein, Aaron, 191 FIFA, 344 Finkelstein, Sidney, 90 Fiorina, Carly, 3 Fisher, Roger, 222 Fletcher, George, 20 Flint, Michigan (poisoning of), 135–138 Followership, ethical challenges of, 8–10 Foot-in-the-door strategy, 227 Ford, Henry, 126 Ford Motor Company, 46, 176 Foresight effect, 418 Forgiveness, 119–125

breaking the cycle of evil, 119–120 process, 120–122 seeking forgiveness, 122–125

Fortune, 79 Fossey, Dian, 99–100

1121

Foursquare Protocol, 198 Four-Stream model (benevolent leadership), 262, 264, 265 Fowler, Susan, 72 Fox News, 27 Francis, Pope, 83, 84, 122 Franco, Zeno, 402, 416 Franklin, Benjamin, 76 FranklinCovey, 89 Frazier, Kenneth, 333 Fries, Michael, 13 Fromm, Erich, 114 Fry, Louis, 128 Fukushima nuclear power plant, 406

Galatea effect, 214, 230 Galdikas, Birute, 99 Gandhi, Mahatma, 209, 244, 245 Gandhi, Mohandas K., 123 Gap, 20 Garrison, William Lloyd, 102 Gates, Bill and Melinda, 14 Geis, Florence, 40 General Motors, 48, 90 Genocide, introduction of term, 75 Gert, Bernard, 381 Ghosn, Carlos, 76 Gibb, Jack, 293 Gilligan, Carol, 159 (box) Gioia, Dennis, 46 Giving Voice to Values, 187–188 (box) GlaxoSmithKline, 164 Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Project, 246, 373–374 Global society, leadership challenges in, 364–401

Authoritarian Reflex, 371 Bat Flu, 394 case studies, 390–396 Caux Round Table, 384–385 challenges, 378–388 common morality, 381

1122

cosmopolitanism, 383 cultural differences and ethical values, 368–378 dark side of globalization, 364–368 ethnocentrism, 379 followership ethics, 375–376 further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 389 –390 Golden Rule, 383, 387 HKH model, 386 hypernorms, 386 implications and applications, 389 integrative social contracts theory, 385 macrosocial contracts, 385 metaethics guidelines, 388 (box) microsocial contracts, 386 mindfulness, 380 moral foundations theory, 376–378 moral free space, 386 multinational enterprises, 386 prejudice, 378 Project GLOBE, 373–374 self-assessment, 397–398 stereotyping, 379 student study site, 390 survival values versus self-expression values, 370 traditional values vs. secular-rational values, 370 World Values Survey, 370–371

Golden Rule, 383, 387 Goldman, Stephen, 196, 197 Goldman Sachs, 59 Golem effect, 230 Goodall, Jane, 99 Google, 13, 58, 98 GoPro, 13 Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, 154 Grant, Ulysses S., 72, 122 Greed, 39, 58–60 “Greekthink,” 237 Greenleaf, Robert, 249 Grit, 74–75

1123

Groppel, Jack, 92 Groupthink, 300–301 Gun printers (3-D), 26 Gunsmoke myth, 304 Gupta, Rajat, 59 Gutfreund, John, 331 Gutierrez, Ambra Battilana, 23

Habermas, Jürgen, 218 Habitat for Humanity, 332 Habits, developing, 88–90 Haidt, Jonathan, 174, 376 Hallie, Philip, 440 Hamilton, J. Brooke, 386 Hanna-Attisha, Mona, 416 Hard power, 7 Harmful bystanders, 114 Harrison, David, 265 Harvey, Jerry, 304 Harvey, Steve, 125 Hastert, Dennis, 18 Hastings, Reed, 124 Havel, Václav, 78, 87 Hayward, Tony, 415 HBOS, 402 HDS. See Hogan Development Scale Health maintenance organization (HMO), 346 HealthSouth, 84 Hearit, Keith, 415 Held, Virginia, 159 (box) Hemingway, Earnest, 80 Hewlett-Packard, 3, 45 High-reliability organizations (HROs), 419 Hill, Vanessa, 386 HKH (Hamilton, Knouse, Hill) model, 386 Hobby Lobby, 333 Hofstede, Geert, 371 Hogan, Robert and Joyce, 41 (box) Hogan Development Scale (HDS), 41 (box) Holocaust, 113

1124

Hooker Chemical, 405 Horwitz, Don, 419 “Horwitz Rule,” 419 Hospice volunteers, 157 Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 180 Hreljac, Ryan, 82 (box) Huang, Liu, 300 Hubris, 39, 58–60 Huckabee, Mike, 334 Humility, 80–81 Hunter, John, 211 Hurd, Mark, 45 Hurricane Katrina, 226, 409, 421 Hussein, Saddam, 16, 164 Hypernorms, 386

IBM, 37, 371 Ibori, James, 164 Iger, Robert, 234 Ignatieff, Michael, 70 Impression management, 17, 40 Incivility, 342 Incompetent leaders, 3 Incrementalism, 346 Independence climates, 323 Influence, ethical issues in, 207–242

ability grouping, 213 argumentation, 214–219 authority, 229 bargainers, 221 case studies, 232–238 commitment and consistency, 227–228 communication of expectations, 211–214 compliance gaining, 208–210 discourse ethics, 218 emotional-ethical threshold, 211 follower ethics, 209 foot-in-the-door strategy, 227 framing, 207–208

1125

further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 231 –232 Galatea effect, 214, 230 Golem effect, 230 “Greekthink,” 237 illusion of invulnerability, 226 implications and applications, 230–231 liking, 229 lobbyists, 227 negotiation, 219–224 principled negotiation model, 222 Principle of Universalization, 218 prosocial tactics, 211 Pygmalion effect, 211–212, 230 reciprocation, 226–227 rejection then retreat, 227 resisting influence, 226–230 scarcity, 229–230 self-assessment, 238–240 self-fulfilling prophecy, 211, 212 social roof, 228–229 student study site, 232 Toulmin model, 217–218 (box) tribal minds, stepping beyond, 224–225 (box) win–lose approach, 222

Inglehart, Ronald, 370 Ingraham, Laura, 27 Inner life, 126 Instrumental climates, 323 Insular leaders, 5 Integrative leadership, 307 Integrative negotiation, 222 Integrative social contracts theory (ISCT), 385 Integrity, 79–80, 329–330 Intel, 365 Intemperate leaders, 3 Intention effect, 418 International Monetary Fund, 76 Interstate Batteries, 125 Invulnerability, illusion of, 226

1126

Iscariot, Judas, 19 ISCT. See Integrative social contracts theory ISIS, 5, 109, 246 Islamic law, 395 Islamic National Party (BNP), 165

Jack in the Box, 415 James, Joshua, 440 James, William, 153 Janis, Irving, 300 JC Penney, 20, 368 Jesus, 156–157, 190 Jobs, Steve, 97, 214 Johannesen, Richard, 339 John Paul, II, 120 Johnson, Lyndon, 259 Johnson, Patrice, 291 Johnson & Johnson, 414 Johnsonville Sausage, 12 Jolie, Angelina, 23 Jones, Jim, 10 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 125 JPMorgan Chase, 123 J Sainsbury, 337 Judaism, 156 Judd, Ashley, 23, 72 Justice, 77–78, 328–329 Justice as fairness, 151–153, 179

Kador, John, 124 Kahn, Dominique Strauss, 76 Kalanick, Travis, 329 Kant, Immanuel, 144, 147, 383 Kanter, Rosabeth, 22 Karakas, Fahri, 263 Karau, Steven, 288 Keil, Mark, 306 Kelleher, Herb, 329 Kellerman, Barbara, 3, 5 Kelly Blue Book, 223

1127

Kennedy, John F., 16, 81, 245, 259 Khosrowshahi, Dana, 98 Kilpatrick, Kwame, 49 Kim Jong-Il, 11 Kim Jong-un, 12 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 16, 84, 245 Knoll, Michael, 345 Knouse, Stephen, 386 Koch, Charles, 351 Koch, David, 351 Kohlberg, Lawrence, 178 Kolditz, Thomas, 426 Kouchaki, Mayam, 209 Kozlowski, Dennis, 84 Kuipers, Sanneke, 410 Kung, Hans, 383 Kyte, Richard, 180

Ladkin, Donna, 260 LaFasto, Frank, 82 (box) Laissez-faire leaders, 6, 244 Lapsley, Daniel, 55 Larson, Carl, 82 (box) Lasnik, Robert, 25 Las Vegas mass shooting, 417 Laub, Jim, 249 Lauer, Matt, 124 Law and order climates, 323 Lawrence, Penny, 20 Law of the Sea negotiations, 224 Lax, David, 220 Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, 18, 266 Leadership theories, 243–282

authentic leadership, 255–267 authoritarianism, 262 balanced processing, 255 benevolent leadership theory, 262, 264 case studies, 269–275 community responsiveness, 263 contingent reward, 244

1128

descriptive theories, 243 ethical leadership, 265–267 follower ethics, 258–259 Four-Stream model (benevolent leadership), 262, 264 further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 268 –269 implications and applications, 268 internalized moral perspective, 255 laissez-faire leaders, 244 management by exception, 244 normative theories, 243 passive-avoidant leaders, 244 paternalistic leadership, 262 positive engagement, 263 relational transparency, 255 self-assessment, 275–277 self-awareness, 255 self-sacrifice, 247–249 (box) servant leadership, 249–255, 251–252 (box) social learning theory, 265 student study site, 269 transactional leaders, 244 transformational leadership, 243–247 trigger events, 256

Learning, vicarious, 409 Legitimate power, 7 Lehman Brothers, 19 Lemkin, Raphael, 75 Lendlease, 337 LePage, Paul, 3 Levi Strauss, 381 Lewis, C. S., 113 Liberty Global, 13 Liddy, G. Gordon, 227 Life Values Inventory, 94 Lincoln, Abraham, 101, 245, 402 Lipman-Blumen, Jean, 3, 5 LMX theory. See Leader–member exchange theory Lobbyists, 227 Loblaw, 368

1129

Loescher, Peter, 344 London Olympics, 305 Lonergan, Bernard, 193 Louis C. K., 122 Love Canal environmental crisis, 405 Lovegrove, Ian, 433 Luthans, Fred, 256 Luther, Martin, 83, 123 Lutnick, Howard, 413

MacFarlane, Seth, 23 MacFarquar, Lisa, 161 Machiavelli, Niccolò, 40, 190 Machiavellianism, 40 MacIntyre, Alasdair, 87 Macrosocial contracts, 385 Madoff, Bernie, 17, 181 Maduro, Nicolas, 3 Majoo, Farhad, 97 Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, 408 Management by exception, 244 Mandela, Nelson, 87, 120 March of Dimes, 227 Markey, Ed, 62–63 Mattel, 90 Mattis, Jim, 40 McDonald, Duff, 58 McDonald’s, 419 McGowan, Rose, 23, 72 McKesson, 336 McKinnel, Hank, 13 McKinsey & Company, 58, 402 McVea, John, 154 Meaningful work, 126–127, 148 Medtronic, 125 Mengele, Josef, 156 Menzel, Donald, 54 Mercer, Lucy, 84 Merck & Co., 46, 333 Messick, David, 44

1130

Metamorphosis socialization, 346 #MeToo movement, 72 Meyer, Urban, 14 MGM Resorts, 417 Microaggressions, 325–327 (box) Microsocial contracts, 386 Microsoft, 97, 98 Mill, John Stuart, 145 Mindfulness, 380 Mintz, Alex, 302 Miramax, 23 Mission statements, personal, 92–93 Mitroff, Ian, 404, 405 MNEs. See Multinational enterprises Montealegre, Ramiro, 306 Montero, David, 163 Moral attentiveness, 177 Moral dumbfounding, 174–175 Moral exclusion, symptoms of, 111 (box) Moral foundations theory, 376–378 Moral free space, 386 Moral identity, 83–85 Moral inversion, 113 Moral justification, 47 Mori, Yoshiro, 409 Morning Star, 12 Morris, J. Andrew, 80 Morrison, Denise, 93 Moxley, Russ, 87 Moynihan, Brian, 333 Mugabe, Robert, 12 Mullen, Jim, 192 Multinational enterprises (MNEs), 386 Munoz, Oscar, 122 Musk, Elon, 98

Nadella, Satya, 98 Narcissism, 39 Narvaez, Darcia, 55, 179 Nassar, Larry, 20

1131

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 62, 331 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 154 National Australia Bank, 337 National Basketball Association, 333 National Geographic, 99 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 46 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 81 National Rifle Association, 322 NDAs. See Nondisclosure agreements Negotiation, 222 Nelson, Rashon, 355 Nestlé, 366 Netflix, 124 New Belgium Brewing, 332 New Yorker, 23 New York Post, 23 New York Times, 23, 97, 421 Nike, 20, 402 Nixon, Richard, 10, 227, 259 Noddings, Nel, 159 (box) Nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), 23 Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 384 Northern Healthy, 61 Northwest Mutual Insurance, 338 Novartis, 164 Nugent, Robert, 415

Obama, Barack, 3, 303, 409 O’Connor, Sandra Day, 87 Oklahoma City bombing, 16, 409 Old Navy, 62 Olmsted, Kathryn, 16–17 Opioid crisis, 3, 20 Opotow, Susan, 111 Oppenheimer Funds, 421 Opportunistic silence, 345 Optimism, 78–79

1132

Organizational climate, 322–363 acquiescent silence, 345 aggression, 343 anticipatory socialization, 346 appreciative inquiry, 335 caring climates, 323 case studies, 351–356 climate-building tools, 334–348 collective corruption, 344 compromise, 347 core values, 335–336 (box) corporate activism, 332 corporate social responsibility, 332 culture, 322 discrimination, 342 diversity and inclusion efforts, 324 encounter socialization, 346 ethical climate, 322 ethics codes, 341–342 (box) follower ethics, 344 further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 349 –350 healthy ethical climates, 323–334 implications and applications, 348–349 incivility, 342 incrementalism, 346 independence climates, 323 instrumental climates, 323 integrity, 329–330 justice, 328–329 law and order climates, 323 metamorphosis socialization, 346 microaggressions, 325–327 (box) mission statements, 336–337 opportunistic silence, 345 organizational trust, 327 prosocial silence, 345 quiescent silence, 345 rules climates, 323 self-assessment, 356–359

1133

sexual harassment, 342 stakeholder focus, 332 student study site, 350 sustainability, 332 zero-tolerance policies, 343

Organizational crisis learning, 409 Origen of Alexandria, 108 Overconfidence, 45 Overdijk, Werner, 410 Oxfam, 20

Paine, Lynn, 329 Palmer, Parker, 2, 3, 6, 37, 284 Paltrow, Gwyneth, 23 Panama Papers, 14 Panera Bread, 413 Parker, Mark, 353 Parkland teens, 402 Passive-avoidant leaders, 244 Passive followers, 150 Patagonia, 12 Paternalistic leadership (PL), 262 Paterson, Tad, 300 Patton, Bruce, 222 Pauchant, Terry, 405 PayPal, 208, 333 Pearl Harbor, 301 Pearlman, Robert, 62 Peets Coffee, 381 Peirce, Charles, 153 PepsiCo, 58, 341, 414 Perkins, Zelda, 24 Personal mission statements, 92–93 Petrick, Joseph, 54 Petrobras, 208 Pfeffer, Jeffrey, 257 Pfizer, 13 Pichai, Sundar, 13, 98 Pinera, Sebastian, 417 Pizza Hut, 62

1134

PL. See Paternalistic leadership Plowman, Donde Ashmos, 126 Pogge, Thomas, 383 Polanski, Roman, 24 Polythink, 302–304 Pompeo, Mike, 28 Popeye’s Chicken, 249 Porras, Jerry, 334 Practical wisdom, 76–77 Pragmatism, 153–156 Prejudice, 378 Price, Terry, 45 Primark, 368 The Prince, 40 Principled negotiation model, 222 Principle of Universalization, 218 Privacy issues, 15 Proactive followers see, 150 Proctor & Gamble, 59 Project GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness), 373 Prosocial silence, 345 Protestantism, 371 Prudence, 76–77 Pruitt, Scott, 27–28 Pseudo-apologies, 123, 124 Psychopathy, 40 Pulley, Mary Lynn, 87 Purdue Pharma, 20 Purple Promise Award, 338 Putin, Vladimir, 10, 409 Putnam, Hilary, 153 Pygmalion effect, 211–212, 213, 230

Quaker Oats, 90 Questionable Practice (QP), 387 Quiescent silence, 345 Quisling, Vidkun, 19

Rahim, Gurmeet Ram, 254

1135

Ralston, David, 375 Rand, Ayn, 351 Rawl, Lawrence, 413 Rawls, John, 151, 152 Reave, Laura, 127 Reciprocation, 226–227 Reconsidering structure, 409 Reese, Pee Wee, 20 Referent (role model) power, 7 Rejection then retreat, 227 Rescripting, 89 Rest, James, 176 Retrospective sense making, 409 Return on investment (ROI), 191 Reward power, 7 Rigid leaders, 3 Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, 406 Robinson, Donte, 355 Robinson, Jackie, 20 Rockefeller Foundation, 423 Rockwell Collins, 341 Rohingya refugee crisis, 133–135 Role models, 85 Rolling Stone, 303 Roosevelt, Eleanor, 84 Roosevelt, Franklin, 84, 244, 245 Rorty, Richard, 153 Rose, Charlie, 122 Royce, Josiah, 20 Rules climates, 323 Rule utilitarianism, 145 Ryan, Tom, 13

Saatchi and Saatchi, 90 Sackler, Richard, 20 Sadat, Anwar, 120 Salomon Brothers, 331 Samsung, 90 Sandburg, Sheryl, 14, 21 Sandy Hook Elementary mass shooting, 16

1136

Sarbanes–Oxley Act, 330, 338 Sarigollu, Ermine, 263 Schein, Edgar, 93 Schröder, Gerhard, 123 Schultz, Howard, 79, 355 Schwinn, 90 Scotiabank, 337 Scrushy, Richard, 84 Sears, 58, 368 SeaWorld, 406 Sebenius, James, 220 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 98, 165 Seeger, Matthew, 402, 403 Selbie, Duncan, 18 Self-directed work teams (SDWTs), 302 Self-fulfilling prophecy, 211, 212 Self-leadership, 287 Self-sacrifice, 247–249 (box) Sellnow, Timothy, 402, 403 Seneca, 383 Servant leadership, 249–255, 251–252 (box) Sessions, Jeff, 40 The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, 89 Sexual harassment, 342 Shackleton, Ernst, 101, 416 Shadow side of leadership, how leaders cast shadows, 2–35

“brutal” bosses, behaviors of, 11 callous leaders, 3–4 case studies, 23–29 coercive power, 7 concentrated power, danger of, 12 constructive leaders, 6 contrast between light and darkness, 2–6 corrupt leaders, 4–5 derailed leaders, 6 destructive leader behaviors, 5 DNA-testing companies, 15 drones, 15 evil leaders, 5 expert power, 7

1137

followership, ethical challenges of, 8–10 further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 22– 23 hard power, 7 implications and applications, 21–22 impression management, 17 incompetent leaders, 3 inconsistency, shadow of, 18–19 insular leaders, 5 intemperate leaders, 3 irresponsibility, shadow of, 20–21 laissez-faire leaders, 6 leader–member exchange theory, 18 legitimate power, 7 mismanaged information, shadow of, 14–18 misplaced and broken loyalties, shadow of, 19–20 nondisclosure agreements, 23 power, shadow of, 7–12 power deprivation, 12 privacy issues, 15 privilege, shadow of, 13–14 prototypes, 17 referent (role model) power, 7 reward power, 7 rigid leaders, 3 self-assessment, 29–32 soft power, 7 study study site, 23 supportive-disloyal leaders, 6 terror, leadership by, 12–13 (box) toxic leaders, 3, 4 (table) tyrannical leaders, 6

Shadow side of leadership, why leaders cast shadows, 36–67 affective prebehavioral disposition competence, 54 blaming others, 48 case studies, 58–63 cognitive decision-making competence, 54 colluders, 53 conformers, 53 context management competence, 54

1138

contextual factors, 52–53 dark side personality traits, 41–43 (box) devaluing victims, 48–49 diffusion of responsibility, 48 displacement of responsibility, 48 ethical skills, 55–56 (box) ethnocentrism, 44 euphemistic language, 47 failure of moral imagination, 46–47 faulty decision making, 43–44 follower ethics, 49–51 (box) further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 57– 58 goal blockage, 38 greed, 39, 58 hubris, 39, 58 implications and applications, 56–57 impression management, 40 inner monsters, 37–38 lack of ethical expertise, 51–52 Machiavellianism, 40 moral disengagement, 47 moral justification, 47 narcissism, 39 overconfidence, 45 personality disorders, 39–41 psychopathy, 40 self-assessment, 63–64 self-centeredness, 38–39 shadow casters, types of, 36 stereotypes, 45 student study site, 58 theories about how the world operates, 44 theories about other people, 44–45 theories about ourselves, 45 toxic triangle, 53 turning immoral conduct into moral conduct, 47–48 unhealthy motivations, 36 unmet needs, 38 untrustworthy leaders, 38

1139

victim blaming, 49 Shaka Zulu, 12–13 (box) Shakespeare, William, 2 Shapiro, Daniel, 224 Shell Oil, 164 Shkreli, Martin, 80 Shriver, Donald, 121 Shriver, Eunice Kennedy, 81, 85 Shults, Tammie Jo, 260 Siemens Global, 344 Silent Spring, 101 Silva, Lula da, 4 Simmons, Russell, 122 Singer, Peter, 147 Skilling, Jeffrey, 59 Small groups, ethical leadership in, 284–321

Abilene paradox, 304, 305 affective (destructive) conflict, 295 appreciative listening, 291 case studies, 311–316 collaborative leadership, 307 common good, group leadership for, 307–308 comprehensive listening, 291 critical listening, 291 definitions, 285–286 (box) dialectic inquiry method, 302 discriminative listening, 291 emotional intelligence, 294–295 empathetic listening, 291 escalation of commitment, 305–307 ethical group interaction, 290–299 false agreement, 304–305 follower ethics, 300 further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 309 –310 groupthink, 300–301 Gunsmoke myth, 304 implications and applications, 307–308 individual ethical accountability, 286–289 integrative leadership, 307

1140

minority opinion, 298–299 moral pitfalls, 300–307 motivation factors, 288 polythink, 302–304 productive conflict, 295–296 risk seeking, 306 self-assessment, 317–318 self-directed work teams, 302 self-enhancement, 306 self-leadership, 287 social loafing, 288 student study site, 310 substantive (constructive) conflict, 295 sunk costs, 306 team dysfunctions, 289–290 (box) therapeutic listening, 291 virtual teams, 296–298 (box)

Smith, Travis, 85 Sneader, Kevin, 60 Social Intuitionist Model, 175 Social learning theory, 265 Social loafing, 288 Sociometric Solutions, 15, 16 Soft power, 7 Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, 87 Sony, 90 Southwest Airlines, 329 SpaceX, 62, 98 Special Olympics, 81 Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams, 424 Spirituality, 125–129 Spiritual leadership theory, 128 Spoerry, Anne, 168 Staggs, Tom, 234 Stanford Prison Experiment, 117 Starbucks, 79, 208, 355 Stereotypes, 45, 379 Stockdale, James, 417 “Stockdale Paradox,” 417 Stonecipher, Harry, 85

1141

Stonewalling, 415 Strong Lives, 61 Substantive (constructive) conflict, 295 Sullivan, Scott, 85 Sun Tzu, 190 Supportive-disloyal leaders, 6 Sutcliffe, Kathleen, 419 Swift, Taylor, 72

Tales of Good and Evil, Help and Harm, 440 Target, 62, 333 Tax transparency, 166–167 Temperance, 75–76 Terror, leadership by, 12–13 (box) Tesco, 337 Tesla, 98 Thai cave rescuers, 402 Theories. See Leadership theories Theranos Labs, 322 Therapeutic listening, 291 Thoreau, Henry David, 77 Tillerson, Rex, 40 Tillman, Pat, 16 Timberland, 19 Time, 72 Ting-Toomey, Stella, 388 Today Show, 124 Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), 406 Tokyo Rose, 19 Tom’s of Maine, 125 Tonka, Paul, 27 Toro, 125 Toshiba, 176 Toulmin, Stephen, 217 Toulmin model, 217–218 (box) Toxic leaders, 3, 4 (table) Toxic triangle, 53 Toxin handlers, 158 Transactional leaders, 244 Trevino, Linda, 265

1142

Trigger events, 256 Trudeau, Justin, 123 Trump, Donald, 14, 27, 28, 40, 84, 86, 148, 190, 274, 365 “Trust busters,” 79 Turing Pharmaceutical, 80 Tutu, Desmond, 108, 120, 209 23andMe, 15 Twitter, 226, 366, 406 Tyco, 85 Tylenol poisoning, 414 Tyrannical leaders, 6

Uber, 98, 329 Uhl-Bien, Mary, 150 Ulmer, Robert, 403 United States Anti-Doping Agency, 124 United States Olympic Committee, 20 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations), 384 UPS, 16 Urbanski, John, 80 Ury, William, 222 USA Gymnastics, 20, 402 U.S. Air Force, 16 USA Today, 58 U.S. Sentencing Commission, 330, 347 Utilitarianism, 144–147

Vagelos, Roy, 46 Valde, Kathleen, 339 Values, identifying of, 93–95 van Dick, Rolf, 345 Veterans Administration, 14 Vicarious learning, 409 Victor, Bart, 323 Vietnam War, 301 Virgin, 93, 262 Virtual teams, 296–298 (box) Virtue ethics, 70 Volkswagen, 52, 322

1143

Waller, James, 116 The Wall Street Journal, 13 Walmart, 20, 52, 221 Wang Laboratories, 90 Washington, George, 86 Watergate scandal, 227 Watson, Kittie, 291 Watson, Thomas, 37 Wayne, Carly, 302 Wayne, John, 72 Weick, Karl, 419 Weinstein, Harvey, 23–24, 72 Wells Fargo, 122, 322 Wheatley, Margaret, 81, 125, 249 Whedbee, Karen, 339 Whicker, Marcia Lynn, 38 Whitacre, Ed, 13 Whyte, David, 125 Wilberforce, William, 75, 85 Williams, Kipling, 288 Wilson, Cory, 25 Winfrey, Oprah, 93 Wisdom, 76–77 Woodman, Nick, 13 Woodruff, Paul, 2 Woolworths, 337 Workplace Bullying Institute, 11 WorldCom, 85 World Trade Center terrorist attacks (2001), 413, 421 World Values Survey (WVS), 370–371

Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), 285 Yousafzai, Malala, 402 YouTube, 184, 226, 291, 329, 406 Yukl, Gary, 210 Yunus, Muhammad, 154, 155

Zack, Naomi, 407, 408 Zappos, 12 Zaslav, David, 13

1144

Zero-tolerance policies, 343 Zillow, 223 Zimbardo, Philip, 117, 417 Zuckerberg, Mark, 14

1145

1146

About the Author

Craig E. Johnson (PhD, University of Denver) is emeritus professor of leadership studies at George Fox University, Newberg, Oregon, where he taught undergraduate and graduate courses in leadership, ethics, management, and communication. During his time at the university, he served as director of the George Fox Doctor of Business Administration program and chair of the Department of Communication Arts. Though retired from full-time teaching, Johnson continues to serve as an adjunct professor. He is the author of Organizational Ethics: A Practical Approach (also published by SAGE) and co-author, with Michael Z. Hackman, of Leadership: A Communication Perspective. His research findings, instructional ideas, and book reviews have been published in the Journal of Leadership Studies, the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, the Journal of Leadership Education, Academy of Management Learning and Education, the International Leadership Journal, Communication Quarterly, Communication Reports, and other journals. In 2016, he received the George Fox University outstanding graduate faculty researcher award. He has held volunteer leadership positions in a variety of religious and nonprofit organizations. In addition to teaching and writing, he enjoys working out, reading, fly-fishing, watching sports, and spending time with family.

PREFACE

KEY FEATURES
WHAT’S NEW TO THIS EDITION?
DIGITAL RESOURCES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INTRODUCTION

LEADERS: THE NEWS ISN’T ALL BAD
DEFINING TERMS
OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

PART I THE SHADOW SIDE OF LEADERSHIP

CHAPTER 1 The Leader’s Light or Shadow

WHAT’S AHEAD
A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE/THE DARK SIDE OF LEADERSHIP
THE LEADER’S SHADOWS

The Shadow of Power
The Shadow of Privilege
The Shadow of Mismanaged Information
The Shadow of Inconsistency
The Shadow of Misplaced and Broken Loyalties
The Shadow of Irresponsibility

CHAPTER 2 Stepping In and Out of the Shadows

WHAT’S AHEAD
SHADOW CASTERS

Unhealthy Motivations
Unmet Needs
Self-Centeredness
Personality Disorders
Faulty Decision Making
Failure of Moral Imagination
Moral Disengagement
Lack of Ethical Expertise
Contextual Factors

STEPPING OUT OF THE SHADOWS

PART II LOOKING INWARD

CHAPTER 3 The Leader’s Character

WHAT’S AHEAD
ELEMENTS OF CHARACTER

Courage
Grit
Temperance
Wisdom and Prudence (Practical Wisdom)
Justice
Optimism
Integrity
Humility
Compassion (Kindness, Generosity, Love)
Forming a Moral Identity

CHARACTER BUILDING

Finding Role Models
Hearing Stories/Living Shared Stories
Learning From Hardship
Developing Habits
Developing Personal Mission Statements
Identifying Values

CHAPTER 4 Combating Evil

WHAT’S AHEAD
THE FACES OF EVIL

Evil as Dreadful Pleasure
Evil as Idealism
Evil as Exclusion
Evil as Bureaucracy
Evil as a Choice
Evil as Ordinary

FACING EVIL
MAKING A CASE FOR FORGIVENESS

Breaking the Cycle of Evil
The Forgiveness Process
Seeking Forgiveness

SPIRITUALITY AND LEADERSHIP

PART III ETHICAL STANDARDS AND STRATEGIES

CHAPTER 5 Ethical Perspectives

WHAT’S AHEAD
UTILITARIANISM: DO THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE

Applications and Cautions

KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: DO WHAT’S RIGHT NO MATTER THE COST

Applications and Cautions

JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS: GUARANTEEING EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES BEHIND THE VEIL OF IGNORANCE

Applications and Cautions

PRAGMATISM: ETHICS AS INQUIRY

Applications and Cautions

ALTRUISM: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR

Applications and Cautions

CHAPTER 6 Ethical Decision Making and Behavior

WHAT’S AHEAD
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING: A DUAL PROCESS APPROACH
COMPONENTS OF MORAL ACTION

Component 1: Moral Sensitivity (Recognition)
Component 2: Moral Judgment
Component 3: Moral Focus (Motivation)
Component 4: Moral Character

DECISION-MAKING FORMATS

The Four-Way Method
Five Timeless Questions
The Lonergan/Baird Method
The Foursquare Protocol

CHAPTER 7 Exercising Ethical Influence

WHAT’S AHEAD
ETHICAL ISSUES IN INFLUENCE

Framing
Compliance Gaining
Communication of Expectations
Argumentation
Negotiation

RESISTING INFLUENCE

Reciprocation (Give-and-Take)
Commitment and Consistency
Social Proof
Liking
Authority
Scarcity

CHAPTER 8 Normative Leadership Theories

WHAT’S AHEAD
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: RAISING THE ETHICAL BAR

Applications and Cautions

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: PUT THE NEEDS OF FOLLOWERS FIRST

Applications and Cautions

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP: KNOW YOURSELF AND TO YOUR OWN SELF BE TRUE

Applications and Cautions

AESTHETIC (BEAUTIFUL) LEADERSHIP

Applications and Cautions

Benevolent Leadership: Demonstrate Concern and Compassion

Applications and Cautions

ETHICAL LEADERSHIP: MORAL PERSONS AND MORAL MANAGERS

Applications and Cautions

PART IV SHAPING ETHICAL CONTEXTS

CHAPTER 9 Building an Ethical Small Group

WHAT’S AHEAD
THE LEADER AND THE SMALL GROUP
FOSTERING INDIVIDUAL ETHICAL ACCOUNTABILITY
PROMOTING ETHICAL GROUP INTERACTION

Comprehensive, Critical Listening
Defensive versus Supportive Communication
Emotional Intelligence
Productive Conflict
Minority Opinion

AVOIDING MORAL PITFALLS

Groupthink
Polythink
False Agreement
Escalation of Commitment

GROUP LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

CHAPTER 10 Creating an Ethical, Inclusive Organizational Climate

WHAT’S AHEAD
ETHICAL CLIMATES
SIGNS OF HEALTHY ETHICAL CLIMATES

Inclusion
Trust
Justice
Integrity
Structural Reinforcement
Organizational Citizenship

CLIMATE-BUILDING TOOLS

Discovering and Communicating Core Ideology
Codes of Ethics
Preventing and Eliminating Destructive Behaviors
Ethical Socialization Processes
Ethics Training

CHAPTER 11 Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership in a Global Society

WHAT’S AHEAD
THE DARK SIDE OF GLOBALIZATION

The Global Shadow of Power
The Global Shadow of Privilege
The Global Shadow of Mismanaged Information
The Global Shadow of Inconsistency
The Global Shadow of Misplaced and Broken Loyalties
The Global Shadow of Irresponsibility

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND ETHICAL VALUES

Defining Culture
World Values Survey
Programmed Value Patterns
Project GLOBE
Moral Foundations Theory

FACING THE CHALLENGES

Overcoming Attitudinal Obstacles
Finding Common Moral Ground
A Global Ethic
Making Ethical Choices in Culturally Diverse Settings

CHAPTER 12 Ethical Crisis Leadership

WHAT’S AHEAD
CRISIS: AN OVERVIEW

The Three Stages of a Crisis

COMPONENTS OF ETHICAL CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Assume Broad Responsibility
Practice Transparency
Take Decisive (Heroic) Action
Demonstrate Care and Concern
Engage the Head as Well as the Heart
Improvise From a Strong Moral Foundation
Build Resilience

THE ETHICAL DEMANDS OF EXTREME LEADERSHIP

EPILOGUE
REFERENCES
INDEX
ABOUT THE AUTHOR