Ethics article review

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2006, Vol. 13, No. 1

Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Leadership: A

Mentoring Framework for Business and Organizational Decision Making

Lisa B. Ncube Mara H. Wasburn Purdue University

Recent corporate scandals in the U.S. have shaken the public trust and spurred the creation of a host of new regulatory controls and laws to help ensure compliance with ethical standards. The purpose of this paper is to present an innovative and practical model for resolving the complexity of making ethical decisions in the contemporary business environment. The paper presents Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Decision Making, a mentoring framework for organizations. The framework provides a process for making ethical decisions. A case study approach is employed to gain insight into the application of the framework. The effectiveness of the framework is assessed using an innovative technique called Empowerment Evaluation.

Key Words: Appreciative Inquiry, business leadership, decision making, empowerment evaluation, ethics, mentoring, Strategic Collaboration.

Restoring trust and applying ethical

standards have become principal challenges for U.S. business leaders (Kist 2002). In the wake of recent corporate scandals in the United States, business leaders must contend with a host of new regulatory controls and legislation designed to ensure accurate and timely disclosure, transparent reporting, and ethical accountability. For example, to ensure compliance with ethical standards, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires top management of corporations to certify the accuracy of financial statements and reports (Clark, 2004). It also eliminates senior management’s ability to profit personally from misstated financial reporting. New rules and

guidelines by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the Office of Inspectors General, Government Accounting office, the Public Company accounting Oversight Board, and the Securities and Exchange Commission have introduced more stringent accountability requirements and stiffer penalties for corporate wrong-doing (Clark, 2004).

As business leaders strive to comply with the new laws and regulations, they are also working to restore public trust in U.S. firms. A 2002 Gallup International poll revealed that levels of trust in business were exceedingly low. Only 33% of respondents had either ‘a lot’ or ‘some’ trust in business leaders (Roussouw, 2004). In 2003, a Zogby Poll of college seniors revealed that 56% of respondents believed “the only real difference between executives at Enron and those of other big companies is that those at Enron got caught” (Goodpaster 2004).

Clearly, organizations do not work in isolation and there is a need for them to find pertinent ways to improve their decision making (Stainer, 2004). Employing a case-study approach, this paper presents a synergistic mentoring model, Strategic Collaboration and applies it to ethical decision making. The model blends elements of mentoring with Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider, 2001), which focuses on applied ethics, provides business leaders with a framework and a process for decision making. The effectiveness of the framework is assessed using Empowerment Evaluation, an innovative technique that supports capacity building within organizations.

78 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Ncube & Wasburn

Mentoring and Ethical Decision Making

To compete successfully and govern

effectively, business leaders must develop new skills in strategic and multicultural collaboration (Jelinek and Adler, 1987). Situations continually arise in which business leaders must make decisions that may involve conflicting value systems, regulations or practices (Kamberg, 2001). For organizations to be competitive and sustainable, leaders must demonstrate appropriate levels of responsibility (Smith and Sharma, 2002). Research indicates that the attitudes, practices and decision making processes of business leaders are critical in determining and maintaining the ethical climate of an organization (Clinard, 1983).

It is not enough for corporations to comply with the law by simply developing codes of ethics; they must provide ethics training programs and guidelines for employees and managers, and sustain positive, ethical work environments (Victor and Cullen, 1988). These actions set the tone and direction for the corporation and emphasize the importance of ethical behavior to standard business operations (Trevino, 1990). Furthermore, it is imperative that organizational policies and practices, accountability measures, incentives, training programs, and decision making processes at all levels work in concert to reinforce the organization's fundamental ethical beliefs (Cohen and Nelson, 1994). Developing an ethical decision making process within organizations requires a framework and a shared understanding of what is valued in the organization (Vuuren and Crous, 2005). Values not only influence individuals’ behavior, but also have an impact on achievement of specific goals and objectives. Ethical decision making in organizations is not only the right thing to do but is vital to organizational survival.

The framework Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Decision Making is not an ethical paradigm. Rather, it is an extension and application of the Strategic Collaboration Model developed by Wasburn and Crispo (2006). The Strategic Collaboration Model combines Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider, 2001) with elements of mentoring. Appreciative Inquiry is an approach to organizational innovation that

focuses on the positive outcomes of an organization (Cooperrider, 1990). While the basic aspects of the framework are based on the original AI model, it is important to remember that each AI process is unique—designed to meet the unique challenges of the organization and industry involved (Cooperrider and Whitney, 1999a). Most organization-change efforts flow through the 4-D cycle discussed below, and organizations grow in the direction of what they persistently ask questions about (van Vuuren and Crous, 2005).

Mentoring is a process whereby a more experienced person (mentor) provides guidance, support, knowledge, and opportunities to a less experienced individual or protégé (Burlew, 1991; Haring, 1999). From the point of view of companies and corporations, mentoring can provide a mechanism for assuring the continuity of a strong corporate culture, and a common set of values and expectations (Wilson & Elman, 1990).

Organizations that choose to create formal, facilitated mentoring programs generally utilize one of three models: grooming mentoring, networking mentoring, or a blending of grooming and networking mentoring models. Grooming mentoring, the traditional style of mentoring, involves a dyadic relationship consisting of a more experienced mentor and a less experienced protégé (Swoboda, & Millar, 1986). By contrast, networking mentoring is non-hierarchical, and generally involves more than two participants. A third alternative model blends the grooming and networking by matching a group of newcomers with one or two more experienced employees (Haring, 1999). If properly managed, this model would combine the strengths of the other two by promoting a strong networking relationship while still providing some of the benefits of a grooming mentoring relationship.

However, a major shortcoming of mentoring relationships in organizations is a lack of formal training. Mentoring arrangements also tend to be morally and ethically burdensome for some mentors. Furthermore, mentors are seldom rewarded for their efforts. Morberg and Velasquez (2004) consider this arrangement unjust as it relies largely on virtues of mentors. They point out both mentors and protégés need to be aware of the ethical

Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Leadership Volume 13, Number 1, 2006 79

implications built into these roles. Strategic Collaboration seeks to modify and combine the strengths of Appreciative Inquiry and the blended alternative mentoring model to create a positive support structure that offers a mechanism for ensuring that organizations can develop and maintain ethical decision making processes and structures.

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) helps to create a positive support structure that offers a mechanism for ensuring that organizations can develop and maintain ethical decision making processes and structures (Cooperrider and Whitney, 1999b). Appreciative Inquiry is the collaborative search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them. It involves systematic discovery of what drives the organization when it is most effective and capable (Cooperrider and Whitney, 1999a). AI involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to heighten positive potential. In AI, intervention gives way to imagination and innovation; instead of negation, criticism. Linking this “positive change core” directly to any change agenda results in the realization of changes never thought possible through democratic and collaborative effort (Cooperrider, 1990).

Similarly, the implementation of the Strategic Collaboration mentoring framework can become an integral part of the development of an ethical organizational culture. The question of ethics ceases to be an individual issue, becoming instead a corporate responsibility. The success of the Strategic Collaboration mentoring framework process rests on the assumption that the leadership is supportive, and the organization has provided resources for the ethical decision making process. The impetus for initiating the process is the recognition of an ethical or moral issue within the organization that requires a decision. This may involve the identification of the ethical dilemma or problem and whether it is personal, interpersonal, or social. An assessment of whether the issue goes deeper than legal or institutional concerns and the impact the issue has on individuals dignity, rights, and hopes for a better life together help establish the significance of the problem (Velasquez et al, n.d.).

Training, mentoring, and development activities are generally regarded as having

ethically positive outcomes (Woodall and Douglass, 1999). However, within critical management theory and labor process theory, training and development have been presented as vulnerable to the social and contextual processes of power and control or alternatively as instruments of deskilling (Woodall and Douglass, 1999). Deskilling has been described simplistically, as the elimination of the need for skilled labor or the downgrading of a job or occupation from a skilled to a semiskilled or unskilled position mainly through the introduction of advanced technology. Taplin (1992) argues against this oversimplified and polarized classification by addressing the multidimensionality of skill. While skill levels may increase over time, there may be a deskilling along the complexity and control dimensions for individual workers. This clarifies the situation confronting workers who may find themselves doing more specialized tasks requiring further training (skilling) but having limited discretion and be subject to increased supervision in the performance of that job (deskilling) (Taplin, 1992). It is particularly crucial within this collaborative learning context that the collaboration is not seen as a controlling or deskilling instrument. It is, therefore, not only desirable but necessary for evaluation to be part of any training or mentoring process. Conducting an evaluation entails making value implicit or explicit judgments, about where control should be and the valuing of consequences. (Burgoyne and Cooper, 1975). For this reason, evaluation was considered an important component of Strategic Collaboration mentoring process. When evaluation and accountability are seen as essential, the level of trust within organizations rises appreciably (Burke, 1999).

Empowerment Evaluation

Any organization engaged in professional

activity has an obligation, to itself and to those it serves, to verify that the work and conduct of its members measure up to well-defined of competence (Campfield, 1960). Evaluation should be a central component of all programs and organizational activities. Formatively, it serves to make amendments and improvements as well as a having general monitoring role or

80 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Ncube & Wasburn

summatively to summarize evidence and occurs mainly at the conclusion of a program (Anthansou, 1998).

Since evaluation is a way of deciding worth and merit, the strategy used should not only be relevant but also appropriate to the context. Value assessments are also highly sensitive to the life cycle of the process. Empowerment Evaluation, an innovative approach, was selected as most appropriate for evaluating and ethical decision making because it is collaborative, participatory, action-research oriented, and attentive to empowering processes and outcomes (Fetterman 2000).

The Empowerment Evaluation process is stakeholder-centered, taking into account their “claims, concerns and issues.” The beneficiaries are the key actors in the evaluation process and are viewed as participants in the evaluation process rather than objects or subjects of a study. (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). Participants are involved in understanding the process, assessing successes and failures, and proposing solutions to overcome obstacles (UNDP, 2003). Evaluation is not seen as an activity external to the process but an integral component.

Empowerment evaluation involved defining and articulating the major goals of the collaborative effort at the individual, team and organizational level (Fetterman, 2000). The evaluation of Strategic Collaboration mentoring framework involved making value judgments about such concepts as the extent to which process was ethical in terms of legality, morality, social and political implications; the appropriate use of privilege or power; the extent to which the collaboration met the needs of all participants and stakeholders; the extent to which the collaboration achieved its key objectives; and the extent to which the perspectives and interests of all stakeholders were considered and met (Anthansou, 1998).

To demonstrate the application of the framework and the evaluation process, the case of J. R. Rooney Corporation is presented and analyzed. A case study approach was selected because it uses a particular case to gain insight into an issue or theory. In this type of investigation, details of a particular case serve to illustrate the potential viability of the process under investigation (Stake, 1995). The question being addressed in this case is whether or not it

is ethical for organizations to use criteria that de facto exclude women? All company and individual names have been changed to preserve privacy and confidentiality.

Illustrative Case: Strategic Collaboration and Ethical Decision Making at J. R. Rooney Corporation

J. R. Rooney Corporation, an engineering technology company with more that 25,000 employees worldwide, was committed to shareholder value through increased productivity based on its core values of equality, integrity, innovation, and diversity. In 2003, longtime Rooney vice president John Kirkwood was selected as the company's new President and CEO. The recent corporate scandals in the United States, coupled with new regulatory controls and legislation, concerned Kirkwood greatly.

J. R. Rooney had recently bid for an IT redesign and reorganization project at Hurbro International, an auto parts manufacturing firm. Janice Cole, Rooney’s only female vice president, had assembled a team of her most experienced employees and advisors to review Hurbro's needs, to develop a plan to meet those needs, and to present J. R. Rooney’s plan. Cole felt confident that the team she had identified would represent the company and her division well.

Hurbro International's CEO Rodrigo Martinez had personally reviewed information about the firms that had responded. He had sat in on the interviews of several of the clients each firm had served. The extensive review of the firms resulted in a consensus that J. R. Rooney appeared best suited to create the kind of responsive communications infrastructure that Hurbro International was seeking. J. R. Rooney's bid was one of three to receive further review.

As Janice Cole had predicted, their presentation was excellent, and their team fielded all questions well and appropriately. There seemed little doubt that J. R. Rooney would do an outstanding job of creating the type of IT infrastructure that could move Hurbro International to the next level. However, Martinez and his committee were surprised to see that there was not a single woman among the employees Cole had selected to represent J. R. Rooney. Gender diversity had not been one of

Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Leadership Volume 13, Number 1, 2006 81

the areas the Hurbro International committee had investigated.

Following the presentation, Martinez asked the team from J. R. Rooney for a copy of their organizational chart. As he had feared, with the exception of Janice Cole, their entire top management was all male. Because diversity was a key organizational value of Hurbro's, they reluctantly rejected the J. R. Rooney bid in favor of their second choice.

When Janice Cole learned that J. R. Rooney's bid had been rejected, she telephoned Martinez at Hurbro who shared his dilemma with her. How could Hurbro International hire consultants whose company failed to reflect one of their strategic goals? That afternoon, Cole went to see President and CEO John Kirkwood. Although losing the Hurbro contract was a devastating blow, Kirkwood and Cole finally had the dollar value cost of their lack of diversity, which they needed to move a diversity initiative forward. However, there were still major issues to resolve. How could they persuade the employees that they could hire the best candidate while using diversity as one of the criteria? More important still, how could they reconcile this type of hiring with an ethical organization? Clearly J. R. Rooney needed a framework within which such ethical, yet diversity-sensitive hiring decisions could be made. Kirkwood suggested that they consult Hurbro to learn how they managed to use diversity as a key component of their hiring practices. Hurbro had hired a consultant with expertise in mentoring and career development to help the organization develop a program that would level the playing field for all employees and allow women junior executives, as well as other women employees who were in the pipeline to move into junior executive positions. Martinez suggested that the framework should be appropriate for building an ethical organizational culture as well.

Case Analysis The Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Decision Making Process

To promote ethical behavior throughout the company, President and CEO John Kirkwood had made ethics one of the cornerstones of J. R. Rooney Corporation, ensuring that those expectations would be reflected in the mission, vision, and values of the company. However, he was concerned that there was no process for ethical decision making, and no evaluation to ensure that those expectations were being realized in the company's day to day operations. After reviewing the Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Decision Making framework (Figure l), with its detailed process piece, Kirkwood decided to hire the consultant to apply Strategic Collaboration to ethical decision making, to incorporate evaluation to the framework, and to initiate a pilot program.

Preconditions

For Strategic Collaboration to succeed, preconditions in terms of company support and resources had to be met within the organization. In the case of J. R. Rooney Corporation, the foundation for ethical leadership was laid down by the CEO. In addition, he provided release time for the participants, and credited their participation on their annual performance review.

Problem Identification

Vuuren and Crous (2005) suggest seeking an affirmative or positive question rather than focusing on negative aspects. In identifying the problem it is therefore important that the problem be couched in positive terms.

Kirkwood and Cole apprised the consultant of the events leading up to her hiring. She shared with them the importance of not mistaking the symptoms of the problem for the causes. Symptoms are merely the effects of the problem, while causes are the reasons why the problem exists in the first place. It is therefore crucial to separate the symptoms from the causes.

82 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Ncube & Wasburn

Figure 1: Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Decision Making Framework Divisions at J. R. Rooney had historically

been headed by white males because of the industrial and technical nature of the company’s business. President and CEO, John Kirkwood, appointed longtime J. R. Rooney employee Janice Cole to head the Services and Support

Division as the first female vice president in J. R. Rooney's 75-year history. Cole, in turn, had planned to fill some high-level vacancies, particularly those in the IT Division, with women hoping that the other divisions would follow suit. However, the introduction of women

Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Leadership Volume 13, Number 1, 2006 83

into positions of authority was not embraced by many of the long-term J. R. Rooney executives. Their evaluations of Janice Cole and the junior women executives were often less positive than those of the women's male counterparts, thus creating promotion pipeline issues, as well as gendered salary discrepancies. Some of the more talented women began to look to other companies for the promotions they were not receiving at J. R. Rooney. Kirkwood and Cole were concerned that they were losing valuable female employees. However, because they had not been able to put a dollar value on those losses, they had not devised a strategy to persuade the other vice presidents that promoting more women was ethical and would benefit the company in a tangible way.

Guided by the consultant, Cole and Kirkwood determined that the problem was a lack of diversity in the company’s workforce in general but particularly in upper management positions. While this lack of diversity had never been considered an issue before, losing the Hurbro bid had made the impact glaringly obvious. Having a diversified workforce would have translated into a major financial gain for the company. Symptoms of the problem included the loss of a major bid to a less competitive company, and the continuing loss of valuable female employees. The root cause was the organizational culture that existed within the company; a culture that did not promote or support gender and ethnic diversity. With the consultant’s help, they began to realize that although there was no deliberate policy or discriminatory intent to exclude women from senior positions, the cultural norms and expectations made it almost impossible for them to advance beyond certain positions; in effect, they hit the “glass ceiling.”

A critical analysis of J. R. Rooney’s annual performance review revealed that seemingly fair and impartial criteria for advancement often resulted in unequal outcomes. For example, points were assigned to those individuals who brought in the most clients, and those who generated the most revenue. Although appearing to be evenhanded, those criteria tended to favor males, who were often assigned the wealthiest and most prestigious clients.

Assignments were based upon similarity of interests, and ability to travel. Hence, if a

woman had small children, she was generally not assigned an overseas client based on the assumption that the assignment would pose an undue hardship for her because of her family responsibilities. Had she been asked, she might well have wished to accept the assignment. Similarly, if the CEO of one of the client firms played golf, a golfer was assigned to that client. Since few women at Rooney played golf, their male counterparts were given those clients, which often resulted in larger revenues for the individuals assigned to them.

Equally disturbing were the comments written on performance reviews of many of the women junior executives. It almost appeared as though there were unwritten rules, a "J. R. Rooney way" of self-presentation that many of the women were violating. There were comments such as "Doesn't seem to fit in with the other assistant vice presidents," "Not the image that J. R. Rooney should be projecting," "Seems to let family responsibilities take precedence over client needs too often," and "Seems very aggressive." There were also critical comments on the evaluations of the male junior executives, but they seemed more focused on remediation that was needed: "Could benefit from more accounting classes," and "Let's find a way to suggest another tailor!"

The Strategic Collaboration Team

A Strategic Collaboration team was developed with the assistance of the consultant. It consisted of two senior professionals who served as mentors, four junior-level professionals, and a designated evaluator. The senior personnel had wide-ranging knowledge about the organization and its external environment. They shared an understanding of what constitutes an ethical organizational culture at Rooney. This was the result of having assisted Kirkwood in developing the mission, vision, and values statements in which the company's ethical principles were embedded. They were committed to ensuring that all processes and practices at J. R. Rooney were ethical. The team members developed a written contract to establish the specific goals and objectives that the team was to accomplish. It also defined the roles and responsibilities of each team member. The team also scheduled time for monthly meetings. The contract clearly stated that the

84 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Ncube & Wasburn

outcome of the Strategic Collaboration would be the resolution of the diversity issue, and that all team members would abide by the decision, as recommended by standard practice (Murray, 2001; Lacey, 1990). The following guiding principles were put into practice in forming the team and developing the contract:

1. The Strategic Collaboration must have a high probability of being helpful to all team members;

2. The senior team members should not choose interventions that exceed their expertise;

3. All team members should be kept informed as is practicable about the nature of the process;

4. The senior team members must not be working on any personal, hidden agendas that might affect the outcome of the collaboration;

5. Commitments to privacy and confidentiality must be kept; and

6. Team members must not be coerced into divulging information about themselves or others.

Mentoring and Ethics Training

Rapid changes in the way organizations look and do business have generated mentoring needs beyond the limitations of traditional mentoring approaches. To facilitate their work and cooperation, the Strategic Collaboration team received appropriate training to develop positive strategies for resolving problems that arise, share information more easily, and support one another (Baldwin, 1992). Mentoring is generally considered an effective and valuable source of professional advice. It is an important means by which professional activities and practices can be improved. The training program addressed the retention and succession issues for, but not exclusively, women and other underrepresented groups. Participants in the training program learned how to develop and manage mentoring relationships by effectively selecting and matching mentors and protégés, clarifying expectations, and developing trust. They also learned strategies for setting realistic goals and objectives, and providing feedback.

Participants also received ethics training to help them with the necessary skills for the ethical decision making process. Ethics training involved preparing teams to apply a framework for ethical decision making and develop an

understanding of ethical decision making process. Ethics training allowed individuals to develop an awareness and understanding of the ramifications and impact of the decisions they make. Since employees had not been given any kind of ethics training, the Strategic Collaboration team went through an online ethics training program that allowed its members to develop skills for making ethical decisions.

Trust

With the team formed, the ethics training completed, and the contract agreed upon, the Strategic Collaboration mentoring process began. As can be seen in Figure 1, through each phase of the process described below, trust must continue to be built. Trust is the essential building block upon which any mentoring process rests (Hunt and Weintraub, 2002). All team members made a commitment to the development of an ethical organizational culture aligned with the future needs of the organization. Trust was both explicitly and implicitly implied at every stage. The process could only move forward when trust was established among team members and within the process as a whole. Trust needed to be cultivated within the process by encouraging transparency and through the documentation of the process.

Being part of an ethical decision making team meant, among other things, that members made themselves vulnerable to the judgments of other participants. However, an advantage over other decision making processes was that individual values and morals were not relevant to the process. Team members were not required to pass a values litmus test to be part of the team. They were assured that nothing they said or did during the process would be used against them by the senior members of the group

Discovery

The purpose of the discovery phase is to identify the positive potential of the team through inquiry (van Vuuren and Cross, 2005). During this phase the Strategic Collaboration team members clarified goals and expectations of the collaboration. The team then gathered of relevant facts of the case taking into consideration individuals and groups with stakes in the outcome, consulting with all stakeholders, and reflecting on alternative courses of action.

Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Leadership Volume 13, Number 1, 2006 85

This required that the team determine what course of action to take by examining the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and assessing which alternative would lead to the best overall consequences. The team had to determine which course of action would advance the organization’s goals while addressing the ethical issues.

In making decisions there are various ethical perspectives that Strategic Collaboration team may use. The two main classifications of ethical perspectives are consequentialist and deontological. Consequentialist ethics focuses on the consequences of the action. It takes the perspective that ethical choices are contextual and should be determined by the beneficial desired outcomes (Botes, 2000). On the other hand deontological ethics emphasizes judging the act itself rather than the consequences of the action (Pollock, 1994). Justification of an act based on moral principles, rather than on the outcome of the act (Sandel, 1982). Since the ethical perspectives are often contradictory and contrary, this may lead to conflict and a lack of consensus among the members of the team in the decision making process. When resolving ethical problems or issues it is important to seek some way of avoiding conflict and promote a mutual understanding about ethical decisions in the team. By analyzing the effect of each perspective it is possible to be objective about the impact of each decision.

The Justice or Fairness Ethics is the approach that J. R. Rooney had been using. Rather than focusing on consequences, Deontological or Rights Ethics emphasize the right thing to do or duty whether or not it produces beneficial outcomes (Webb, 2004). The basic principle of Justice or Fairness ethics is that "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved" (Andre and Velasquez, 1990).

The principle seeks to answer the question: Is this decision fair and just to all concerned? According to the criteria J. R. Rooney had had developed, the best candidates were being identified and rewarded. This begs the question, "Are the criteria fair and just?" The consequence of this approach had been a lack of diversity within the organization and the exclusion of women in senior positions. Operating from the

‘Golden Rule’ premise: “Do unto others as you would like them do unto you,” Rooney had succeeded in creating a company that lacked diversity. While upper management was overwhelmingly white and male, the company had not deliberately discriminated against or favored certain individuals over others. Promotion was presumably based on merit. The company had in place criteria that applied equally to everyone; whether or not these criteria applied fairly to everyone had not been a consideration. A lack of diversity in the senior management positions had come about as a result of the policies in palace in the company.

The Utilitarian or Benefits Approach. Utilitarianism, a form of consequentialist ethics, promotes doing what provides the greatest good for the greatest number. The principle considers those actions that produce the greatest of benefits over harms most as appropriate (Moberg and Velasquez, 2004). By seeking those decisions and courses of action that would produce the most good and do the least harm, leading to the best overall consequences, the team was able to impact the current diversity environment directly. Previously, it had not been possible to demonstrate how a lack of diversity was impacting the company and or put a dollar value on losses which were a direct result of a lack of diversity. By examining the benefits, this course of action necessarily looked at how individuals were advantaged or disadvantaged by the annual performance review process. If Rooney had chosen this option, which encourages actions that benefit the greatest number of people, it would probably have resulted in maintaining the status quo. Since this approach requires that individual needs be sacrificed for the good of everyone, the company can and would deprive of a few individual rights for the good of the majority (Geva, 2000).

Ethics of Rights or Deontology constitutes an ethical perspective in terms of which ethical decisions are made on the basis of universal principles and rules, and in an impartial and verifiable manner with a view to ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of all people. The principle requires that people are treated the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them. By taking into consideration the rights and dignity of all

86 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Ncube & Wasburn

stakeholders, this course of action excluded rather than included the women employees in the promotion process.

The Ethics of Virtue or Care uphold certain ideals, such as excellence or dedication to the common good, toward which all individuals should strive and which allow the full development of humanity (Velasquez et al, n.d.). It constitutes an ethical approach that focuses on the needs in terms of which involvement, harmonious relations and the needs of others play an important part in ethical decision making in each ethical situation (Botes, 2000). Virtues are considered to be attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that allow individuals to be and to act in ways that develop humanity’s full potential including the capacity to care. The principle examines aspects of what is ethical and develops moral virtues in individuals and communities. The virtues or traits that the company valued as individuals and as an organization had resulted in a homogenous upper management team.

The Ethics of Common Good or Beneficence focuses on attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable individuals to be and to act in ways that develop human potential these include honesty, courage, faithfulness, trustworthiness, and integrity (Botes, 2000). It requires that individuals in organizations identify and further common goals while accepting the autonomy of individuals to pursue their own interests. While this may appear a common sense approach to resolving organizational issues, it is important to realize that different people have differing ideas about what is good. The question then arises whose view of good should be accepted? Most Americans view society as comprised of autonomous individuals who have the freedom to pursue their own goals and interests without interference from others. In this individualistic culture it is difficult, if not impossible, to convince people that they should sacrifice some of their freedom, goals, and self-interest, for the sake of the "common good" (Elsbernd, 2005).

No approach in any decision making situation is without some challenges. The problem with the utilitarian approach is defining those outcomes that should be considered "good." Similarly, with common good ethics the challenge is in identifying and agreeing on

common goals. In the rights approach determining which values comprise what is “right” is especially difficult. Seeking harmonious relations and the needs of others may be counterintuitive for business organizations. To overcome these difficulties, a company can use more than one approach. As the organization contemplates its future products and services, the company can simultaneously carry out one or more approaches to moral reasoning that would be complementary to each other. Identification of the corporate common goals while recognizing individual needs, goals and interests, and the determining the appropriate outcomes for employees would be one way of overcoming shortcomings in each approach.

A combination of the rights, care, and utilitarian approaches proved to be the most relevant ethical perspective for this problem. By focusing on how fairly or unfairly company actions distribute benefits and burdens among the members of a group, the rights or fairness approach required consistency in the way people are treated. On the other hand by examining the needs of each individual, harmonious relations wee fostered in the organization. From a utilitarian perspective, those decisions which caused the least harm were made.

Evaluation during discovery was the first step of Empowerment Evaluation – defining individual level goals and objectives and involved determining the feasibility of the identified goals and validity, accuracy, completeness, appropriateness, and relevance of the facts, data and information gathered on salaries, promotion, client assignments, and revenue generation. Participants also specified activities required to achieve desired processes and outcomes. Formative evaluations during this phase also allowed team members to make necessary revisions before moving on to the next phase.

Dream

The future and the past are connected as an image of the future emerges grounded in positive past experiences (van Vuuren & Crous, 2005). This stage can be viewed as analogous to a brainstorming session in which creative ideas, regardless of their merit or lack thereof, were considered and then accepted or rejected on a

Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Leadership Volume 13, Number 1, 2006 87

consensus basis. Some of the ideas that emerged from the brainstorming included changing the way clients are assigned (e.g., looking for commonalities of interest other than sports), trying to understand the impact of “The J. R. Rooney way,” building a childcare facility, developing retention strategies for women, starting a mentoring program for all junior executives, hiring an ombudsman for diversity, holding diversity workshops, and holding brainstorming retreats.

Evaluation during the dream phase was the second step in the empowerment evaluation process. Individual goals defined during the discovery phase were assessed to determine whether each participant’s goal was “unique” (only one person has expressed it), “shared” (between two or more respondents), or “contrasting” across all group members. The second step also involved taking stock and identifying and prioritizing the most significant program activities. Participants rated how well the program was doing in each of those activities. This helped to determine where the program stands, including strengths and weaknesses. It also involved weighing the alternatives identified in the brainstorming session.

The Strategic Collaboration team members assessed how each idea would support the course of action identified in the Discovery phase; revising the annual performance review. Also, how this would strengthen the organization and enhance its ethical culture. More important still, what specific changes to the performance review process would have a direct impact on the retention and promotion of women junior executives? Using those criteria, the team determined that the childcare facility, the ombudsman, and the diversity and brainstorming sessions, while all important, were only incidental to the annual review process. Therefore, the client assignment procedures and the impact of the “The J. R. Rooney way” were deemed the most essential elements to pursue.

Design

The design phase was an opportunity for the Strategic Collaboration team members to evaluate how the revision of the annual review policy would strengthen the organization and

move it forward in the years to come. In order to complete this phase successfully, some forecasting on the organization's future needed to be completed. Ongoing strategic planning was one source for such information. Based on the organization’s strategic direction, alternative actions from various ethical perspectives were then evaluated.

For J. R. Rooney, its future needs included a diversification of its senior management personnel. The company lacked diversity in general but this was particularly evident in the upper echelons. Since this was not part of the organization's strategic plan, it was necessary that the company make the necessary changes to its future goals and objectives.

After determining the shared definitions the same process was repeated for all stakeholders. Face to face feedback sessions assist in this process. The third step of Empowerment Evaluation involved charting a course for the future. The group stated goals and strategies to achieve their dreams. Goals helped team members determine where they wanted to go in the future with an explicit emphasis on improvement. Strategies helped them accomplish identified goals. These efforts were monitored using credible documentation (Fetterman, 2000).

Destiny

Decisions were made during this phase, each team member was asked to make a commitment to the approach that will sustain the design from the dream that was discovered (Cooperrider, Whitney, and Stravos, 2003). Making a decision involved ascertaining if the decision made and course of action taken were appropriate for resolving the ethical issue. It also involved considering how the decision might be viewed by stakeholders.

While this process helped to identify most of the important ethical considerations, it did not provide an automatic solution to the ethical problem: seemingly unfair promotion procedures and policies within the company and its resulting impact on retention. The Strategic Collaboration process allowed the team to deliberate about solving their ethical problems while taking into account both the facts and the ethical considerations involved. If, however, the resulting decision had been unsatisfactory, the

88 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Ncube & Wasburn

process, being dynamic, with a cyclical design, would have enabled the process to begin again with the discovery phase. If necessary, more facts could have been gathered and considered anew with a view toward the organization’s future. In this case, since all members were satisfied with the decision, they acted upon it.

After determining how individual groups were being benefited or harmed by the present promotion policies at J. R. Rooney, the team decided to completely revamp those policies. Among the changes that resulted from the Strategic Collaboration:

1. All junior executives would now be able to request particular client assignments. While those assignments would not be guaranteed, a broader range of criteria were established to help make those decisions. This was particularly helpful in solving the policy of not assigning women with family responsibilities to overseas clients. Those who requested them were considered equally with their male counterparts, regardless of whether or not they had family commitments.

2. Goodness of fit between junior executive and client was now determined not only by extracurricular interests but also by experience, background, interest in the particular project, and capabilities, among other things. While seemingly not an ethical issue, using standards for advancement that exclude one group of people is inherently unethical.

During the Destiny phase a summative evaluation of the process was conducted. It required an assessment of impact on retention and promotion of women and if the process were repeated, what, if anything, would the team members have done differently. Because impact of the policy changes on the retention and promotion of women was would not be immediately apparent, a monitoring mechanism through the use of base line data was implemented. The main objective of empowerment evaluation was to foster improvement and self-determination through the use of evaluation concepts, techniques, and findings. The approach used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

Outcomes

The Strategic Collaboration mentoring process resulted in a number of positive

outcomes for the organization. New procedures for promotion and retention strategies of employees were put into place. Discussions within the mentoring context produced decisions concerning new company policies that subsequently were implemented. Within two years, several women had begun to receive more favorable performance reviews resulting in promotions and more diversity in upper management. Women were being retained longer than before. Criteria and standards that had previously favored one group of individuals over another were replaced by policies that promoted diversity within the company. Continuing reviews of client assignments and client requests will reveal the extent to which an ethical shift has been sustained.

The organizational culture at J. R. Rooney began to change. In addition to golf outings, the company included to its social calendar activities that were more inclusive such as company picnics, retreats, tennis tournaments, camping among others. A more family friendly environment was developing that allowed employees with family commitments to still feel a part of the organization. There was greater transparency and openness in the management and administration of clients than had existed previously.

Discussion

Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Decision

Making provides a positive group of individuals, at least one of whom is senior to the organization, who can fulfill both ethical and psychosocial functions (Kram, 1985). They can answer questions, provide information, ease the transition into a new organizational culture, and help combat the isolation that a new environment can bring.

Since this Strategic Collaboration is focused on ethical decision making, the team can function as individual mentors would by helping the junior members develop strategies for making ethical decisions and in so doing develop an ethical organizational culture. Senior colleagues benefit, too, by sharing their knowledge and experiences, helping others work through difficult decisions, and thereby gaining different perspectives and insights from both junior and senior group members.

Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Leadership Volume 13, Number 1, 2006 89

The idea that Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Decision Making could be essential to corporate success should be emphasized within the organization. This will have the effect of shifting the focus from individual development toward organizational interests. In most organization there is an over reliance on organizational codes of ethics to direct and determine ethical behavior in the organization. This places the onus on the individual rather than upon the organization, with no expectations beyond the individual for the development of an ethical culture. Individuals are manipulated into accepting the ‘need’ for commitment, and that commitment is judged by their display of certain behavioral competencies and their espousal of certain values. Linking this to their acceptance of increased uncertainty and insecurity in the employment relationship tends to invite a very emphatic critique based on principles of ethical humanism. Furthermore, there is no need to establish and evaluate moral agency among those involved in development (French and Bell, 1990).

Strategic Collaboration is versatile and can be applied to varying organizational situations and conditions. As illustrated by the J. R. Rooney case, when applied to ethical decision making within organizations, the framework can serve as an important tool in the development of a more ethical organizational culture. The question of ethics ceases to be an individual issue, becoming instead a corporate responsibility. By virtue of its reliance on the group, rather than the individual, Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Decision Making results in a more transparent decision making environment. Anyone who is interested in developing ethical values within the organization can be part of a Strategic Collaboration team. Since Strategic Collaboration is future-focused, it unlikely to stifle creativity and innovation within the organization, hence reinforcing the way things have always been done.

Implications

Strategic Change

The Golden Rule states "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" the basic premise being that other people would like to be

treated the way you would like to be treated yourself. Alessandra and O’Connor (1996) argue that this basic premise makes ‘The Golden Rule’ flawed and inadequate in equitable treatment of individuals. The ‘Golden Rule’ approach could be considered the cause for some of the difficulties women junior executives has experienced at J. R. Rooney. What appeared to be the same treatment of employees did not result in equitable outcomes. Alessandra and O’Connor (1996) propose, instead, an alternative to the ‘Golden Rule,’ they call the ‘Platinum Rule.’ The ‘Platinum Rule’ states "Treat others the way they want to be treated." By considering how individuals want to be treated, ‘The Platinum Rule’ takes into account the feelings of others. The focus shifts from "This is how I liked to be treated, so I'll treat everyone the same way" to "Let me first understand how people want to be treated and I will treat them that way." The application of Strategic Collaboration process in ethical decision making situations would result in the advancement of the Platinum Rule and a change within the organization in the way the individuals are treated. At J. R. Rooney, this was evidenced by a shift from the use of standardized performance evaluation criteria to more subjective and individualized approaches. While this appears to have been a shift from meritocracy or the use individual merit for advancement, it was actually an incorporation of other non-merit factors that are most often ignored and yet have a profound impact on individual advancement. Non-merit based factors include "fitting in" (cultural capital), being at the right place at the right time (luck), unequal access to opportunities including clients, and discrimination on the bases of race, sex, age, sexual orientation, physical disability, region, religion, and physical appearance (McNamee and Miller, 2004).

Organizational Leadership

While ethical decisions depend on the experience, intelligence, capability, and integrity of the decision maker (Stainer, 2004), ethical decision making is not the sole purview of the leader. Ethical approaches to decisions, interactions, conduct, and business practices must be infused throughout the organization. Creating a code of conduct or code of ethics does not ensure ethical behavior within the

90 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Ncube & Wasburn

organization (Kamberg, 2001). It is applied ethics or ethics in practice that can make a difference. Applying ethics and values as a leadership imperative requires one to sort out individual values. An approach for doing this is to identify: individual moral beliefs, legal aspects, organizational or professional code of ethics (Burke, 1999). It is important to determine if the situation can be resolved by checking our own values individually. Our individual moral basis for decision making is applicable in situations where the decisional approach will not clash with the organization’s standards, values, and ethics (Burke, 1999). However, when the situation where a decision is needed does not respond to nor call for a moral individual-based response it is important to have a collaborative organizational process in place. Strategic Collaboration mentoring framework applies to such situations.

Employee Empowerment

The implementation of Strategic Collaboration mentoring framework necessitates a transformation of organizational culture. Stainer and Stainer (2000) point out that effective corporate change is frequently valueless and transient unless it seeks to empower. Therefore it is crucial that the process of change in the organizational culture is seen as empowering to employees. Not only do empowered employees make better decisions, but empowering employees with decision making capacities also allows power, guidance, and direction to be redistributed from upper echelons to employees at all levels throughout the organization. In an organization where power is distributed, a single leader is not be required to initiate strategic change (Landrum, Howell, & Paris, 2000).

During the Strategic Collaboration process junior executives at J. R. Rooney were trained and entrusted with appropriate levels of accountability and decision making authority and in so doing a sense of employee involvement was created. It is important to note that empowerment does involve certain risks since mutual trust forms the ethical foundation of employee empowerment (Stainer and Stainer, 2000).

Conclusion Selecting an appropriate process for

decision making is critical to the development of an ethical organizational culture. The use of a decision making model provides organizations a framework for conceptualizing and solving various types of ethical problems (Geva, 2000). By combining mentoring, Appreciative Inquiry, and Empowerment Evaluation, the resulting Strategic Collaboration mentoring framework allows for critical analysis and resolution of ethical problems and dilemmas in organizations. The framework can be customized to a particular organization's needs, and then applied to developing their employees with a view toward ensuring that those employees will be well prepared to make the kinds of ethical decisions that will help restore public trust.

The paper presented a practical strategy for determining and resolving the complexity of decision making collaboratively and ethically in the contemporary business environment. The real challenge in ethical decision making is ensuring that the decision made will not only meet the needs of the individual but advance organizational goals as well. As demonstrated by the J. R. Rooney Corporation case, through the use of an appropriate decision making framework and process, it is possible to change and move an organizational culture in a more ethical direction.

References

Alessandra, A. & O'Connor M. J. (1996).The

Platinum Rule: Discover the Four Basic Business Personalities and How They Can Lead You to Success, New York: Warner Books.

Andre, C. & Velasquez, M. (1990). Justice and Fairness. Issues in Ethics, 3(2). Retrieved April 10, 2006 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v 3n2/.

Baldwin, T. T. (1992). Effects of Alternative Modeling Strategies on Outcomes of Interpersonal Skills Training, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 147-154.

Strategic Collaboration for Ethical Leadership Volume 13, Number 1, 2006 91

Bews, N. (2000). An Investigation into Facilitators of the Trustworthiness of Managers Rand Afrikaans University Press, Johannesburg.

Botes, A. (2000). A Comparison Between The Ethics of Justice and The Ethics of Care, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(5), 1071- 1075.

Burgoyne, J. G. & Cooper C. L. (1975). Evaluation Methodology, Journal of Occupational Psychology 48, 53-62.

Burke, F. (1999). Ethical Decision-Making: Global Concerns, Frameworks, and Approaches, Public Personnel Management 28, 529-539.

Campfield, W. L. (1960). An Approach to Formulation of Professional Standards for Internal Auditors, Accounting Review 35, 444-448.

Clark, M. E. (2004). Hamstrung or Properly Calibrated? Federalism and the Appropriate Role of Government in the Post-Sarbanes- Oxley World, International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 1, 385-412.

Clinard, M. B. (1983). Corporate Ethics and Crime: The Role of Middle Management Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Cooperrider, D. & S. Srivastva. (1987). Appreciative Inquiry In Organizational Life, in W. Pasmore, & R. Woodman, eds., Research in Organization Change and Development JAI Press, Greenwich, Vol. 1, pp.129-169.

Cooperrider, D. & Srivastva S. (1990). Positive Image, Positive Action: The Affirmative Basis of Organizing, in S. Srivastva and D.L. Cooperrider eds., Appreciative Management and Leadership Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 91-125.

Cooperrider, D. (2000). Appreciative Inquiry in Action. Global Social Innovations, Journal of the GEM Initiative 13.

Cooperrider, D. (2001). AI: The beginnings Toward a methodology for understanding and enhancing organizational innovation, Lakeshore Publishing, Cleveland, OH.

Cooperrider, D. L. & D. Whitney (1999a). Appreciative inquiry Berrett-Koehler Communications, Inc., San Francisco, CA.

Cooperrider, D. L. & Whitney D. (1999b). Collaborating for Change: Appreciative Inquiry, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Cooperrider, D. L. (1990). Positive Image, Positive Action: The Affirmative Basis of Organizing, in S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider eds., Appreciative management and leadership: The power of positive thought and action in organizations. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA, pp. 91-125.

Elsbernd, M. (2005). Social Ethics, Theological Studies, 66(1), 137-158.

Fetterman, D. M. (2000). Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

French, W. L. & Bell C. B. (1994). Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement Prentice-Hall, Inc: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Geva, A. (2000). Moral decision making in business: A phase-model. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 773-803.

Goodpaster, K. E. (2004). Ethics Or Excellence? Conscience as a Check on the Unbalanced Pursuit of Organizational Goals, Ivey Business Journal 684, 1-9.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Haring, M. J. (1993). Mentoring for Research: Examining Alternative Models in N. Minghetti, J. Cooper, H. Goldstein, L. Olswang, & S. Warren, eds., Research mentorship and training in Communication Sciences and Disorders Conference Proceedings American Speech-Language- Hearing Foundation, Rockville, MD, pp. 117-125.

Hunt, J. M. & Weintraub J. R. (2002). The Coaching Manager: Developing Top Talent in Business Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Jelinek, M. & Adler N. J. (1988). Women: World-Class Managers For Global Competition, Academy of Management Executive 2, 11-19.

Kamberg, M. (2001). Making Ethical Business Decisions, Women in Business 532, 22-25.

92 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Ncube & Wasburn

Kist, A. W. (2002). Decentralisation of Enforcement of EC Competition Law, Intereconomics; 371, 36-41.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring At Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life, Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.

Kwasnicki, W. (2001). Firms Decision Making Process in an Evolutionary Model of Industrial Dynamics, Advances in Complex Systems 4, 101-125.

Lacey, K. (1999. Making Mentoring Happen Business and Professional Publishers Ltd, Warriewood, NSW.

Landrum, N. E., Howell, J. P, & Paris, L. (2000). Leadership for Strategic Change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21, 150-6.

McNamee S. J. & Miller R. K. (2004). The Meritocracy Myth Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, MD.

Minter, R. L. & Thomas E. G. (2000). Employee Development Through Coaching, Mentoring, and Counseling: A Multidimensional Approach, Review of Business 212, 43-47.

Moberg, D. J. & Velasquez, M. (2004). The Ethics of Mentoring. Business Ethics Quarterly 14: 95-122.

Murray, M. (2001). Beyond the Myths and Magic of Mentoring: How to Facilitate an Effective Mentoring Process Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Sandel, M. (1982). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Smith, P. A. C. & Sharma M. (2002). Developing Personal Responsibility and Leadership Traits in All Your Employees: Part 2 – Optimally Shaping and Harmonizing Focus, Will and Capability, Management Decision 40, 814-822.

Spence, L. J. & Schmidpeter, R. (2003). SMEs, social capital and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 93-108.

Stainer, A. & Stainer L. (2000). Empowerment and Strategic Change: An Ethical Perspective, Strategic Change 95, 287-296.

Stainer, L. (2004). Ethical Dimensions of Management Decision-Making, Strategic Change, 136, 333-342.

Stake, R. E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Taplin, I. M. (1992). Rising From The Ashes: The Deskilling Debate and Tobacco Manufacturing. Social Science Journal, 29, 87-106.

Trevino, L.K. (1990). A Cultural Perspective on Changing and Developing Organizational Ethics, in R. Woodman and W. Passmore eds., Research in Organizational Change and Development, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 195-230.

Van Vuuren, L. J. & Crous, F. (2005). Utilising Appreciative Inquiry AI in Creating a Shared Meaning of Ethics in Organisations. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 399-412.

Velasquez, M., C. Andre, T. Shanks S. J., & Meyer M. (not dated). Thinking Ethically: A Framework For Moral Decision Making” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved May 19, 2005, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decisi on/thinking.html.

Victor, B, & Cullen J. (1988). The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates, Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101-125.

Wasburn, M. H., & Crispo, A. W. (2006). Strategic Collaboration: Developing a More Effective Mentoring Model, Review of Business, 27 (1), 18-25.

Woodall, J. & Douglas D. (1999). Ethical Issues in Contemporary Human Resources Development, Business Ethics: A European Review 8(4), 249-261.