Respond to two of your colleagues’ postings in one or more of the following ways:
ashe.a
Post.docxDwight
assuming Risk
Leaders face ethical decision all the time. It is an inherent responsibility of all leaders. The best solution for PPI is to continue with the inspections from outside agencies. My philosophy on leadership and decision-making has always been to simplify decisions as much as possible. Almost all decisions come down to assuming risk! You will either assume risk in one area or another. The question the leader must answer, is, where does he/she want to assume that risk. Determining where to assume risk comes down to taking a holistic view of the issue and comparing it against organizational goals and needs (Thiel, Bagdasarov, Harkrider, Johnson, & Mumford, 2012). In the case of PPI, the organization’s leadership created a culture of safety and efficiency. Which likely was rooted in the organization’s values and mission statement. Therefore, the organization could not comprise the very values it represented out of fear that an employee would use previously discovered discrepancies against them. In fact, there is an argument that the level of trust that the organization built has garnered a mutual respect between employee and employer. Which may prevent any such liabilities of PPI. In the end, PPI has to decide where to assume the risk. Does the organization want to assume risk in the daily operations of the plant, and risk employee safety, organizational output, and efficacy? Does the organization want to risk employees using the inspections by outside agencies against them? As a leader who is very familiar with these kinds of ethical decisions, PPI needs to assume risk where the employees might use the inspections against them in a lawsuit.
Conflict
Of equal importance is the conflict that exists between PPI’s leadership and the legal team. This conflict, although troublesome, is common in organizations. These conflicts arise because different sections of an organization look at through different lens and have different responsivities. Hence, the legal team is only trying to protect the best interests of PPI. However, what the legal team needs to realize, is that the decision lies with the president. The legal team is there to advise. The PPI leadership will take that information and make the decision that is best for the organization. In the case study, it is clear that the PPI leadership does not want to jeopardize the values and ethics that the organization is built on.
Ethical Framework
The framework that relates to my solution of the ethical dilemma, is called Sensemaking Strategy. Sensemaking strategy is a cognitive process where individuals analyze a problem by taking a look at the circumstances surrounding the issue (Caughron et al., 2011). Thus, relating to my point about taking a holistic view of an issue and determining where to assume the risk. Sensemaking strategy has three components; problem recognition, information gathering, and information integration (Caughron et al., 2011). All three components give the decision-maker the ability to see the issue as it relates to the organization. Which in turn provides the decision-maker with the most, if not all of the necessary information needed to make a decision. In fact, one of the cognitive reasoning strategies contained within sensemaking is to seek outside help and to consider the effect the decision will have holistically (Caughron et al., 2011, Table 1). Cognitive reasoning is the logically part of our brain. When I was faced with difficult decisions as a leader, I just applied simple logic and tried to make the decision that had the least impact on the organization and the people in it.
References
Caughron, J. J., Antes, A. L., Stenmark, C. K., Thiel, C. E., Wang, X., & Mumford, M. D. (2011). Sensemaking strategies for ethical decision-making. Journal for Ethics & Behavior, 21(5), 351-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.604293
Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L., Johnson, J. F., & Mumford, M. D. (2012, April 4). Leader ethical decision-making in organizations: Strategies for Sensemaking. Journal for Business Ethics, 107(1), 49-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1299-1
Case summary
In the case examined, the company Perfect Plastics Incorporated (PPI) has two opposing ethical frameworks. The leader’s ethical framework is altruism. Altruism places a focus on the needs of the employee and not the larger interest of the company (Northouse, 2016). The opposing view of the PPI attorneys’ framework is more aligned with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism places an equal emphasis on the company’s interest and the employees (Gustafson, 2013; Northouse, 2016). The central discussion in the case is whether or not PPI does preventative safety inspections. The opposing views impact the employee's safety, moral, and performance. The leader demonstrates a deontological perspective of focusing on the preventative safety for the employees. The attorneys demonstrate a teleological perspective with a concern for lawsuits as a result of an employee injury. The attorneys view the preventative safety inspections as an additional liability to the company. However, the attorneys do not object to the safety standards used by PPI.
Ethical frameworks of leadership
Ethical decisions, actions, and behaviors are part of leadership (Northouse, 2016). The domains of ethical theory are consequences, duty, and virtue (Northouse, 2016). Consequences, or teleological theories, emphasizes the end purpose of a leaders action (Northouse, 2016). Duty, or deontological theories, focus on the actions and moral obligations of the leader (Northouse, 2016). Virtue-based theories are based on leaders behaviors, either innate or learned (Northouse, 20016). Leaders display their morals to the organization which causes the employees to either trust or distrust the leader (Hoover & Pepper, 2014; Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, and Milner, 2002).
Leadership styles contain an ethical framework that is influenced by the leader's motives, morals, and self-interests. For example, leadership styles such as transformational have a solid ethical framework for influencing the organization (Northouse, 2016). Transformation leaders focus on the greater goals of the organization and not personal interest (Bass & Avolio, 1993, Northouse, 2016). The focus on the greater good of the organization, or the individuals of the organization, instead of the leader’s interest is a form of altruism, virtual-based theories (Northouse, 2016). In contrast, a transactional leader does not focus on the individual interest of employees. The transactional leader establishes the exchange that benefits both the employee and the company (Bass & Avolio, 1993). The ethical framework closely aligned to transactional leaders is utilitarianism (Northouse, 2016; Turner et al., 2002).
Conclusion
The leader’s ethical framework remains the same for the preventative safety inspections. Although the attorneys’ concern for litigation is valid, a sudden change in the established procedure is likely to cause employees to distrust leadership. The leader created a trust with employees by using the framework of altruism. The concern for the employees, or individuals, benefit over the concern for the company is altruism (Northouse, 2016). The routine preventative safety inspections are an example of the leader demonstrating moral obligations to the employees. Also, the inspections and subsequent changes established trust between the employees and the leadership. Leaders demonstrate their moral obligations by actions that exemplify them (Turner et al., 2002). Employees view the actions and develop a trust with the leader to act inconsistent manner (Hoover & Pepper, 2014). If the inspections and subsequent improvements stop, the employees established trust would be negatively impacted.
References
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.
Gustafson, A. (2013). In defense of a utilitarian business ethic. Business & Society Review, 118(3), 325–360. doi:10.1111/basr.12013
Hoover, K. F., & Pepper, M. B. (2015). How did they say that? Ethics statements and normative frameworks at best companies to work for. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(3), 605-617. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2255-z
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 304–311. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.304
