Summarize the major ideas, concepts, or issues that intrigued you, made you realize you lacked certain knowledge or skills, or were very significant for you.
1. Summarize key learning points from the semester found in the book.
2. Reflect on your personal leadership style and how to increase your knowledge and skills in ethical leadership.
Reflective Learning Journal:
1. Summarize the major ideas, concepts, or issues that intrigued you, made you realize you
lacked certain knowledge or skills, or were very significant for you.
2. Describe how the above influenced how you felt about what you read, heard, discussed, or
experienced.
3. Reflect on your feelings and how these affected your experience or interpreted that
information.
4. Note whether these experiences and reflections influenced your assessment of the concepts
from the readings, lectures, or discussions and the way they changed.
5. List how you might use these insights to improve your effectiveness in addressing similar
issues or situations.
I have included an attachment that has the class book.
Requirements: 1-3 pages not including reference page and cover page.
Meeting the Ethical Challenges ofLeadershipSeventh Edition
To my students
Meeting the EthicalChallenges of LeadershipCasting Light or ShadowSeventh EditionCraig E. JohnsonGeorge Fox UniversityLos AngelesLondonNew DelhiSingaporeWashington DCMelbourne
For information:SAGE Publications, Inc.2455 Teller RoadThousand Oaks, California 91320E-mail: [email protected] Publications Ltd.1 Oliver’s Yard55 City RoadLondon EC1Y 1SPUnited KingdomSAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial AreaMathura Road, New Delhi 110 044IndiaSAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.18 Cross Street #10-10/11/12China Square CentralSingapore 048423Copyright © 2021 by SAGE Publications, Inc.All rights reserved. Except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, nopart of this work may be reproduced or distributed in any form orby any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, withoutpermission in writing from the publisher.
All third party trademarks referenced or depicted herein areincluded solely for the purpose of illustration and are the propertyof their respective owners. Reference to these trademarks in noway indicates any relationship with, or endorsement by, thetrademark owner.Printed in the United States of AmericaLibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataNames: 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) | ISBN9781544351667 (epub) | ISBN 9781544351674 (epub) | ISBN 9781544351650(pdf)Subjects: LCSH: Leadership—Moral and ethical aspects.Classification: LCC HM1261 .J64 2020 | DDC 303.3/4—dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019029874This book is printed on acid-free paper.Acquisitions Editor: Maggie StanleyContent Development Editor: Lauren GobellEditorial Assistant: Janeane CalderonProduction Editor: Astha JaiswalCopy Editor: Diane DiMuraTypesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.Proofreader: Jeff BryantIndexer: Celia McCoyCover Designer: Candice Harman
Marketing Manager: Sarah Panella
Brief Contents1. PREFACE2. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS3. INTRODUCTION4. PART I THE SHADOW SIDE OF LEADERSHIP1. CHAPTER 1 The Leader’s Light or Shadow2. CHAPTER 2 Stepping in and out of the Shadows5. PART II LOOKING INWARD1. CHAPTER 3 The Leader’s Character2. CHAPTER 4 Combating Evil6. PART III ETHICAL STANDARDS AND STRATEGIES1. CHAPTER 5 Ethical Perspectives2. CHAPTER 6 Ethical Decision Making and Behavior3. CHAPTER 7 Exercising Ethical Influence4. CHAPTER 8 Normative Leadership Theories7. PART IV SHAPING ETHICAL CONTEXTS1. CHAPTER 9 Building an Ethical Small Group2. CHAPTER 10 Creating an Ethical, InclusiveOrganizational Climate3. CHAPTER 11 Meeting the Ethical Challenges ofLeadership in a Global Society4. CHAPTER 12 Ethical Crisis Leadership8. EPILOGUE9. REFERENCES10. INDEX11. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Detailed ContentsPREFACEKEY FEATURESWHAT’S NEW TO THIS EDITION?DIGITAL RESOURCESACKNOWLEDGMENTSINTRODUCTIONLEADERS: THE NEWS ISN’T ALL BADDEFINING TERMSOVERVIEW OF THE BOOKPART I THE SHADOW SIDE OF LEADERSHIPCHAPTER 1 The Leader’s Light or ShadowWHAT’S AHEADA DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE/THE DARK SIDE OFLEADERSHIPTHE LEADER’S SHADOWSThe Shadow of PowerThe Shadow of PrivilegeThe Shadow of Mismanaged InformationThe Shadow of InconsistencyThe Shadow of Misplaced and Broken LoyaltiesThe Shadow of IrresponsibilityCHAPTER 2 Stepping In and Out of the ShadowsWHAT’S AHEADSHADOW CASTERSUnhealthy MotivationsUnmet NeedsSelf-CenterednessPersonality DisordersFaulty Decision MakingFailure of Moral ImaginationMoral DisengagementLack of Ethical ExpertiseContextual FactorsSTEPPING OUT OF THE SHADOWSPART II LOOKING INWARDCHAPTER 3 The Leader’s CharacterWHAT’S AHEAD
ELEMENTS OF CHARACTERCourageGritTemperanceWisdom and Prudence (Practical Wisdom)JusticeOptimismIntegrityHumilityCompassion (Kindness, Generosity, Love)Forming a Moral IdentityCHARACTER BUILDINGFinding Role ModelsHearing Stories/Living Shared StoriesLearning From HardshipDeveloping HabitsDeveloping Personal Mission StatementsIdentifying ValuesCHAPTER 4 Combating EvilWHAT’S AHEADTHE FACES OF EVILEvil as Dreadful PleasureEvil as IdealismEvil as ExclusionEvil as BureaucracyEvil as a ChoiceEvil as OrdinaryFACING EVILMAKING A CASE FOR FORGIVENESSBreaking the Cycle of EvilThe Forgiveness ProcessSeeking ForgivenessSPIRITUALITY AND LEADERSHIPPART III ETHICAL STANDARDS AND STRATEGIESCHAPTER 5 Ethical PerspectivesWHAT’S AHEADUTILITARIANISM: DO THE GREATEST GOODFOR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLEApplications and Cautions
KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: DO WHAT’SRIGHT NO MATTER THE COSTApplications and CautionsJUSTICE AS FAIRNESS: GUARANTEEING EQUALRIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES BEHIND THE VEILOF IGNORANCEApplications and CautionsPRAGMATISM: ETHICS AS INQUIRYApplications and CautionsALTRUISM: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBORApplications and CautionsCHAPTER 6 Ethical Decision Making and BehaviorWHAT’S AHEADETHICAL DECISION MAKING: A DUAL PROCESSAPPROACHCOMPONENTS OF MORAL ACTIONComponent 1: Moral Sensitivity (Recognition)Component 2: Moral JudgmentComponent 3: Moral Focus (Motivation)Component 4: Moral CharacterDECISION-MAKING FORMATSThe Four-Way MethodFive Timeless QuestionsThe Lonergan/Baird MethodThe Foursquare ProtocolCHAPTER 7 Exercising Ethical InfluenceWHAT’S AHEADETHICAL ISSUES IN INFLUENCEFramingCompliance GainingCommunication of ExpectationsArgumentationNegotiationRESISTING INFLUENCEReciprocation (Give-and-Take)Commitment and ConsistencySocial ProofLikingAuthorityScarcity
CHAPTER 8 Normative Leadership TheoriesWHAT’S AHEADTRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: RAISINGTHE ETHICAL BARApplications and CautionsSERVANT LEADERSHIP: PUT THE NEEDS OFFOLLOWERS FIRSTApplications and CautionsAUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP: KNOW YOURSELFAND TO YOUR OWN SELF BE TRUEApplications and CautionsAESTHETIC (BEAUTIFUL) LEADERSHIPApplications and CautionsBenevolent Leadership: Demonstrate Concern andCompassionApplications and CautionsETHICAL LEADERSHIP: MORAL PERSONS ANDMORAL MANAGERSApplications and CautionsPART IV SHAPING ETHICAL CONTEXTSCHAPTER 9 Building an Ethical Small GroupWHAT’S AHEADTHE LEADER AND THE SMALL GROUPFOSTERING INDIVIDUAL ETHICALACCOUNTABILITYPROMOTING ETHICAL GROUP INTERACTIONComprehensive, Critical ListeningDefensive versus Supportive CommunicationEmotional IntelligenceProductive ConflictMinority OpinionAVOIDING MORAL PITFALLSGroupthinkPolythinkFalse AgreementEscalation of CommitmentGROUP LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOODCHAPTER 10 Creating an Ethical, InclusiveOrganizational ClimateWHAT’S AHEAD
ETHICAL CLIMATESSIGNS OF HEALTHY ETHICAL CLIMATESInclusionTrustJusticeIntegrityStructural ReinforcementOrganizational CitizenshipCLIMATE-BUILDING TOOLSDiscovering and Communicating Core IdeologyCodes of EthicsPreventing and Eliminating DestructiveBehaviorsEthical Socialization ProcessesEthics TrainingCHAPTER 11 Meeting the Ethical Challenges ofLeadership in a Global SocietyWHAT’S AHEADTHE DARK SIDE OF GLOBALIZATIONThe Global Shadow of PowerThe Global Shadow of PrivilegeThe Global Shadow of Mismanaged InformationThe Global Shadow of InconsistencyThe Global Shadow of Misplaced and BrokenLoyaltiesThe Global Shadow of IrresponsibilityCULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND ETHICALVALUESDefining CultureWorld Values SurveyProgrammed Value PatternsProject GLOBEMoral Foundations TheoryFACING THE CHALLENGESOvercoming Attitudinal ObstaclesFinding Common Moral GroundA Global EthicMaking Ethical Choices in Culturally DiverseSettingsCHAPTER 12 Ethical Crisis Leadership
WHAT’S AHEADCRISIS: AN OVERVIEWThe Three Stages of a CrisisCOMPONENTS OF ETHICAL CRISISMANAGEMENTAssume Broad ResponsibilityPractice TransparencyTake Decisive (Heroic) ActionDemonstrate Care and ConcernEngage the Head as Well as the HeartImprovise From a Strong Moral FoundationBuild ResilienceTHE ETHICAL DEMANDS OF EXTREMELEADERSHIPEPILOGUEREFERENCESINDEXABOUT THE AUTHOR
PrefaceYou have chosen a critical moment to study ethical leadership.That’s because the need for ethical leaders seems greater thanever with the constant drumbeat of White House and businessscandals; the rise of authoritarianism in Poland, Hungary, China,Brazil, Poland, and the Philippines; and the displacement of over65 million people around the world (an all-time high) throughviolence, war, and persecution. Fortunately, you have a rapidlygrowing body of knowledge to draw from in your efforts to becomea more ethical leader and follower. Academic interest in the topicis greater than ever, generating a constant stream of new books,articles, and research studies as well as the creation of newleadership ethics units and courses. We are learning much moreabout the factors that make up ethical (and unethical) leadership,how leaders make moral choices, how leaders create ethicalgroups and organizations, how leaders can behave more ethicallyin a global society, and so on.This edition of Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadershipincorporates the latest developments in the field but, like previousversions, is guided by seven principles. First, there are few topicsas important as leadership ethics. To highlight that fact, I’veadopted Parker Palmer’s metaphor of light and shadow as thebook’s central metaphor. Palmer reminds us that leaders have thepower to do significant benefit or substantial harm. In extremecases, leaders literally make the difference between life and deathfor their followers.Second, we need to recognize the reality of bad leadership.Understanding why and how leaders cast shadows can help usprevent destructive behaviors and promote positive leadership. Atthe same time, we can also learn a great deal from the example ofgood leaders. Models of ethical and unethical leadership arefound throughout the text.Third, there are important ethical demands associated with theleadership role. Those who want to serve as leaders have a
responsibility to exercise their authority on behalf of others. Thereare also ethical challenges associated with the follower role.Fourth, the study of leadership ethics must draw from a widevariety of academic disciplines and traditions. Philosophers havebeen interested in the moral behavior of leaders for centuries. Inthe modern era, they have been joined by social scientists,resulting in significant advances in our understanding of moral andimmoral leadership. This multidisciplinary approach introducesreaders to (1) how moral decisions are made (what scholarsdescribe as the descriptive perspective on ethics), and (2) how tolead in a moral manner (the prescriptive or normativeperspective).Fifth, both theory and practice are essential to learning. I try tobalance presentation of important concepts and research findingswith opportunities for application through self-assessments, caseanalyses, and exploration exercises.Sixth, important insights come from multiple perspectives. Iencourage you and apply a variety of theories and concepts. Forexample, when faced with an ethical dilemma, employ severalethical theories and decision-making formats to the problem.Consider what each normative leadership theory can contribute toyour understanding and practice of ethical leadership.Seventh, improvement is the bottom line. The ultimate goal ofteaching and writing about ethics is to produce more ethicalleaders. I believe that ethical development is part of leadership(and followership) development. Leaders and followers candevelop their ability to make and carry through on their moraldecisions, just as they develop their other competencies. Meetingthe Ethical Challenges of Leadership is designed to help studentsbuild their ethical expertise through theoretical understanding, skilldevelopment, case and film analysis, group and classdiscussions, personal assessment and reflection, researchprojects, and writing assignments.
Key Features
Examples and Case StudiesWhatever their specific contexts, leaders face similar kinds ofethical choices. For that reason, I draw examples from a widevariety 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 toreflect on key ethics issues and concepts and to apply what theyhave learned from that chapter to these narratives.
Self-AssessmentsThe self-assessments are designed to help readers measure theirperformance with respect to important behaviors, skills, orconcepts discussed in the chapters. Two self-assessments arefound at the end of each chapter.
Focus on Follower EthicsThis feature addresses the ethical challenges facing followers.Followers are critical to the success of any enterprise. The “Focuson Follower Ethics” box in each chapter helps students recognizeand master the ethical demands of the follower role.
Implications and ApplicationsThis section, found immediately after the body of each chapter,reviews key ideas and their ramifications for readers.
For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-AssessmentThis feature encourages interaction with chapter content.Activities include brainstorming exercises, small-groupdiscussions, 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 havebeen replaced. Some of the new cases in this edition involveHarvey Weinstein, the McKinsey Company, Scott Pruitt, DianFossey, the Rohingya refugee crisis, Disney, global bribery,fraternity hazing, Mr. Rogers, the Parkland teens, the Thailandcave rescue, Nike, the Koch brothers, Starbucks, Chinese/Africancultural 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 tonarcissism, grit, spirit at work, benevolent leadership, moralattentiveness, team emotional intelligence, inclusion, and personalresilience.Here is a detailed breakdown of new/revised/expanded coveragein this edition:Chapter 1 The Leader’s Light or ShadowLeadership by terrorCases: Harvey Weinstein 3D guns EPA director Scott PruittChapter 2 Stepping In and Out of the ShadowsDark side personality traitsUnmet needsFollower moral disengagementToxic triangle
Cases: McKinsey Company in South Africa Recreational center NASA product brandingSelf-Assessment: Narcissistic Leader ScaleChapter 3 The Leader’s CharacterGritCharacter vicesSchein’s career anchorsCases: Character through hardship Dian Fossey Humble tech leadersChapter 4 Combating EvilEvil as idealismEvil as ordinaryActive bystandersCases: Philippine death squads Rohingya refugee crisisSelf-Assessment: Spirit at Work ScaleChapter 5 Ethical PerspectivesAltruismToxin handlers
Cases: International bribery Tax transparency Mama DaktariChapter 6 Ethical Decision Making and BehaviorDual process decision makingMoral attentivenessFour-Way Decision MethodFive Timeless QuestionsCases: Mortgage refinancing School name change Justice vs. ICESelf-Assessment: Moral Attentiveness ScaleChapter 7 Exercising Ethical InfluenceFramingMoral symbolsNegotiationCases: Disney labor negotiations Fraternity and sorority hazingChapter 8 Normative Leadership TheoriesBenevolent leadershipEthical leadership theory
Self-sacrificeCases: Mr. Rogers Parkland teensSelf-Assessments: Benevolent Leadership Scale Ethical Leadership Scale (moved from Introduction)Chapter 9 Building an Ethical Small GroupSelf-leadershipThe five dysfunctions of a teamGroup ethical voicePolythinkCollaborative/integrative leadershipCases: Thai soccer team rescueSelf-Assessment: Team Emotional Intelligence ScaleChapter 10 Creating an Ethical, Inclusive OrganizationalClimateInclusionMicroaggressionsEmployee silenceCEO activismOrganizational storiesCases: Sexual harassment at Nike
Koch brothers on college campuses Starbucks bias trainingSelf-Assessment: Climate for Inclusion-Exclusion ScaleChapter 11 Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership ina Global SocietyThe high costs of globalizationWorld Values SurveyEthical upward influence across culturesA Global EthicMetaethics LensCases: China in Africa Female circumcision Ethical diversity scenarios: Epidemic, petty theft policy,subcontractor workloadChapter 12 Ethical Crisis LeadershipFirst class noticersHeroic actionCrisis Leadership ScorecardBuilding moral resilienceDealing with deathCases: Duck boat tragedy Chef Andres and Hurricane Maria
Polar leadershipSelf-Assessment: Resilience Scale
Digital Resources
SAGE edge for InstructorsA password-protected instructor resource site atwww.edge.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e supports teachingwith high-quality content to help in creating a rich learningenvironment for students. The SAGE edge site for this bookincludes the following instructor resources:Instructor’s Manual offers the author’s insights on how touse this book most effectively in a course on leadershipethics.Test banks built on AACSB standards, the book’s learningobjectives, and Bloom’s Taxonomy provide a diverse range oftest items.PowerPoint slides capture key concepts and terms for eachchapter for use in lectures and review.Case Notes designed to help instructors expand questions tostudents or initiate class discussion include a brief summaryof each case and sample answers to case questions.Leadership ethics at the movies cases introduce films anddocumentaries that illustrate chapter principles and includequestions to prompt discussion.Course syllabi provide suggested models for instructors touse when creating the syllabi for their courses.SAGE journal articles give access to full journal articles thatinstructors can use as further teaching tools in class.
SAGE edge for StudentsAn open-access student study site can be found atwww.edge.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e. The site offerslearning 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 inthe book. This feature also provides discussion questions to focusand guide student interpretation.
AcknowledgmentsColleagues and students, past and present, provided practical andemotional support during the writing of this edition, just as they didfor earlier versions. I am particularly grateful to instructors whoadopted the first six editions of Meeting the Ethical Challenges ofLeadership, which made this seventh edition possible. I also wantto thank readers, both faculty and students, who have e-mailedme with comments and corrections. I’ve had the opportunity tomeet some of you at International Leadership Associationconferences, where you introduced yourselves and offeredencouragement and feedback. Five reviewers provided insightfulresponses that guided my revisions for this edition. Editor MaggieStanley ably picked up where her predecessors at SAGE left off,assisted by the rest of the SAGE staff. Finally, I want to onceagain thank my wife, Mary, who continues to encourage my writingefforts, though it often means less time together.SAGE gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the followingreviewers:We would like to thank the following reviewers for this helpfulfeedback in preparation of this edition:John W. Aldridge, Jr., Colorado Christian UniversitySusan Burton, PhD, University of Nebraska-LincolnCrystal R. Chambers, East Carolina UniversityDr. David L. Cook, Judson UniversitySarah Deluliis, Duquesne UniversityMark E. Evans, Piedmont International UniversityMary M. Gill, Buena Vista UniversityPatricia Greer, PhD, University of DenverCarolyn P. Simoneaux, Ed.D., Urshan College, Wnetzville,Missouri
Introduction
Leaders: The News Isn’t All BadAs I noted in the Preface, when it comes to leaders, there is plentyof bad news. Wherever we turn—politics, business, military,medicine, sports, education, or religion—we find leaders engagedin unethical and criminal behavior. Some have escapedpunishment but many have sacrificed their positions of leadershipand their reputations. They also face civil lawsuits, criminalcharges, and jail time. The costs can be even greater forfollowers. Consider, for example, the following:Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf and other bank executivesadmitted to creating millions of fake customer accounts,charging unfair mortgage fees, illegally repossessing servicemembers’ cars, and punishing whistle-blowers.Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacy, R. Kelly, BillO’Reilly, Matt Lauer, and other prominent political,entertainment, and media figures were accused of sexualmisconduct ranging from sexual harassment to sexualassault.Citizens protested police shootings of black suspects inChicago, Memphis, Sacramento, Dallas, and other Americancities.Goldman Sachs bankers were charged with defraudinginvestors out of $6 billion in a financial scandal involvingMalaysia’s former prime minister.Executives at Nissan, Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, Suzuki, andother auto makers admitted to overstating fuel economyratings or falsifying emissions test results.Administrators at Tokyo Medical University blocked femaleapplicants from enrolling by lowering their entrance examresults.Philippines president Eduardo Duterte allegedly overseesdeath squads that murder drug suspects, political enemies,and ordinary citizens.The University of Maryland board of trustees came underintense criticism for recommending that the school president
retain the head coach of its football team after the death of aplayer and reports of a “toxic” football culture.Top Saudi officials ordered the killing of Washington Postcorrespondent Jamal Khashoggi in its Turkish consulate andthen disposed of the body and the evidence. A Saudiblockade has cut off food, medicine, and clean drinking waterto Yemen, creating what the United Nations describes as theworld’s worst humanitarian crisis.Google and Facebook executives are under fire for themisuse of user data, privacy violations, and electioninterference.Nobel Laureate Ang San Suu Kyi refuses to intervene onbehalf of Rohingyans forced to flee Myanmar in the face ofbrutal military repression.City officials in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, andPhiladelphia face major federal corruption investigations.The misery caused by unethical leaders drives home an importantpoint: Ethics is at the heart of leadership.1 When we assume thebenefits of leadership, we also assume ethical burdens. I believethat as leaders, we must make every effort to act in such a way asto benefit rather than damage others, to cast light instead ofshadow. Doing so will significantly reduce the likelihood that wewill join the future ranks of fallen leaders.Thankfully, the news isn’t all bad. We can also find plenty ofexamples of leaders who brighten the lives of those around them.Consider these examples:Ashley Judd, Taylor Swift, and hundreds of other women fromall walks of life were honored as Time magazine’s people ofthe year for breaking the silence about male sexualmisconduct and launching the #MeToo movement.Doctors Without Borders staff were first to respond to Ebolaoutbreaks in West Africa and later in the Congo.Former president Jimmy Carter, in his 90s, continues to workwith Habitat for Humanity and his humanitarian Carter Center,even after a brain cancer diagnosis.Syria’s “White Helmets” rush to the scene of shelling andbombings to dig out victims from the rubble during that
country’s civil war.Celebrity chef Jose Andres led efforts to provide 14 millionmeals to survivors of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico.Winners of the CNN Hero Award are involved in helpingothers through a variety of community efforts ranging fromrescuing survivors of sex trafficking to building beds for needychildren to teaching English to immigrants.For over 30 years, Alberto Cairo has overseen a Red Crossphysical rehabilitation program in war torn Afghanistan. Cairoand his colleagues have treated nearly 180,000 patients andbuilt nearly 20,000 artificial limbs.Liberian peace activist Leymah Roberta Gbowee helped bringan end to the country’s civil war and continues to developyoung West African women leaders.Local authorities and volunteers searched for human remainsin the ashes of Paradise, California, hoping to identify firevictims and bring closure to family members.You should find this book helpful if you are a leader or an aspiringleader who (1) acknowledges that there are ethical consequencesassociated with the leadership role, (2) wants to exert positiveinfluence over others, (3) seeks to make more informed ethicalchoices and to follow through on your decisions, and (4) desires tofoster ethical behavior in others. You will also find useful insights ifyou are a follower who wants to behave ethically and bring out thebest in your leaders.There is no guarantee that after reading this book you will act in amore ethical fashion in every situation. Nor can you be sure thatothers will reach the same conclusions as you do about what isthe best answer to an ethical dilemma or that you will succeed inimproving the ethical climate of your group or organization.Nevertheless, you can increase your ethical competence andencourage others to do the same. This book is dedicated to thatend.
Defining TermsBecause this is a book about leadership ethics, we need to clarifywhat both of these terms mean. Leadership is the exercise ofinfluence in a group context.2 Want to know who the leaders are?Look for the people having the greatest impact on the group ororganization. Leaders are change agents engaged in furtheringthe needs, wants, and goals of leaders and followers alike. Theyare found wherever humans associate with one another, whetherin social movements, sports teams, task forces, nonprofitagencies, state legislatures, military units, or corporations.No definition of leadership is complete without distinguishingbetween leading and following. Generally, leaders get the mostpress. The newfound success of a struggling college is a case inpoint. The university president gets most of the credit for turningthe fortunes of the school around but the newfound success isreally the result of the efforts of many followers. Admissionsrepresentatives boost enrollment by recruiting new students;development staff solicit donations for scholarships and newbuildings; facilities personnel maintain the physical plant; facultyteach classes and publish research; and support staff ensure thatregistration, scheduling, graduation, and all other functions arecarried out.In truth, leaders and followers function collaboratively, workingtogether toward shared objectives. They are relational partnerswho play complementary roles.3 Whereas leaders exert a greaterdegree of influence and take more responsibility for the overalldirection of the group, followers are more involved inimplementing plans and doing the work. During the course of aday or week, we typically shift between leader and follower roles—heading up a project team at work, for example, while taking theposition of follower as a student in a night class. As a result, weneed to know how to behave ethically as both leaders andfollowers.
Moving from a follower role to a leadership role brings with it ashift in expectations. Important leader functions includeestablishing direction, organizing, coordinating activities andresources, motivating, and managing conflicts. Important followerfunctions include carrying out important group and organizationaltasks (engineering, social work, teaching, accounting), generatingnew ideas about how to get jobs done, working in teams, andproviding feedback.4Viewing leadership as a role should put to rest the notion thatleaders are born, not made. The fact that nearly all of us willfunction as leaders at some point if we haven’t already doneso means that leadership is not limited to those with theproper genetic background, income level, or education.Ordinary people emerged as leaders during the massshooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas. Crowdmembers shielded spouses and family members from bullets,ushered strangers to safety, provided emergency first aid tothe wounded, and hauled victims to local hospitals in pick-uptrucks. Angela Merkel was a quiet East German scientist whowent on to become Chancellor of the reunited Germany,serving Europe’s most powerful leader (and the world’s mostpowerful female leader) for 13 years. Ruth Bader Ginsburgovercame gender discrimination to become a leadingadvocate for women’s rights and a member of the SupremeCourt. Howard Schultz, from a humble Brooklyn family, wenton to found Starbucks, the world’s largest coffee company.(See Case Study 0.1 at the end of this introduction foranother example of an unlikely leader.)Leadership should not be confused with position, althoughleaders often occupy positions of authority. Those designatedas leaders, such as a disillusioned manager nearingretirement, don’t always exert a great deal of influence. Onthe other hand, those without the benefit of a title on theorganizational chart can have a significant impact. France’sYellow Vest protests, for instance, are led by those earningjust enough to get by—truck drivers, small-business owners,farmers, home aides, independent contractors. Theprotestors 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 wageand lowering taxes.Human leadership differs in important ways from the pattern ofdominance and submission that characterizes animal societies.The dominant female hyena or male chimpanzee rules over thepack or troop through pure physical strength. Each maintainsauthority until some stronger rival (often seeking mates) comesalong. Unlike other animals, which seem to be driven largely byinstinct, humans consciously choose how they want to influenceothers. We can rely on persuasion, rewards, punishments,emotional appeals, rules, and a host of other means to get ourway. Freedom of choice makes ethical considerations animportant part of any discussion of leadership. The term ethicsrefers to judgments about whether human behavior is right orwrong. We may be repulsed by the idea that a male lion will killthe offspring of the previous dominant male when he takes controlof the pride. Yet we cannot label his actions as unethical becausehe is driven by a genetic imperative to start his own bloodline. Wecan and do condemn the actions of leaders who decide to lie,belittle followers, and enrich themselves at the expense of the lessfortunate.Some philosophers distinguish between ethics, which they defineas the systematic study of the principles of right and wrongbehavior, and morals, which they describe as specific standards ofright and wrong (“Thou shall not steal.” “Do unto others as theywould do unto you.”). Just as many scholars appear to use theseterms interchangeably. I will follow the latter course.Scholars have identified a number of different elements of ethicalleadership. For example, integrity, people orientation, fairness,power sharing, concern for sustainability, ethical guidance, roleclarification, moral motives, communication of ethical values,consistent behavior, and altruism.5 (Complete Self-Assessment0.1 to determine how your leader rates on several of thesefactors.) However, the most influential research program groupsthe elements of ethical leadership in to two categories: personalmoral behavior and moral influence.6 Ethical leaders earn thatlabel when they act morally as they carry out their duties and
shape the ethical contexts of their groups, organizations, andsocieties. Both components are essential. Leaders mustdemonstrate such character traits as justice, humility, optimism,courage, and compassion and master the ethical challenges oftheir roles. In addition, they are responsible for the ethicalbehavior of others. They draw attention to ethics, set ethicalstandards, reward those who meet the standards and punishthose who don’t, create just procedures, and make principleddecisions. These dual responsibilities intertwine. Leaders act asrole models for the rest of the organization. How followers behavedepends in large part on the example set by leaders. Conversely,leaders become products of their own creations. Ethical climatespromote the moral development of leaders as well as that offollowers, fostering their character and improving their ability tomake and follow through on ethical choices. Ethical organizationalenvironments are marked by integrity, justice, trust, a concern forhow goals are achieved, and a sense of social responsibility. Theyalso have safeguards that keep both leaders and followers fromengaging in destructive behaviors.We’ll take an in-depth look at what theorists have discoveredabout the dual nature of ethical leadership in Chapter 8. In themeantime, rest assured that you don’t have to sacrifice yourethical standards in order to be a successful leader. Investigatorsreport that ethical leaders are frequently more, not less, effectivethan their unethical colleagues. Ethical leaders are rated as morepromotable and effective; their followers are more committed andsatisfied (and less likely to engage in deviant behavior); and theirorganizations perform better.6
Overview of the BookPart I of this book, “The Shadow Side of Leadership,” examinesthe important topic of leadership’s dark side. Chapter 1 outlinescommon shadows cast by leaders: abuse of power and privilege,mismanagement of information, misplaced and broken loyalties,inconsistency, and irresponsibility. Chapter 2 explores the reasonsleaders often cause more harm than good and then outlinesstrategies for stepping out of the shadows and into the light.After identifying the factors that cause us to cast shadows asleaders, the discussion turns to mastering them. To do so, we willneed to look inward. Part II, “Looking Inward,” focuses on theinner dimension of leadership. Chapter 3 examines the role ofcharacter development in overcoming our internal enemies andfaulty motivations, and Chapter 4 explores the nature of evil,forgiveness, apology, and spirituality.Part III, “Ethical Standards and Strategies,” addresses moraldecision making and provides the theory and tactics we need todevelop our ethical expertise. Chapter 5 surveys a wide range ofethical perspectives that can help us set moral priorities, whileChapter 6 describes the process of ethical decision making aswell as formats that we can use to make better moral choices andfollow through on our decisions. Chapter 7 examines ethicalinfluence and resistance tactics. Chapter 8 introduces theoriesspecifically developed to guide the ethical behavior of leaders.Part IV, “Shaping Ethical Contexts,” looks at ways in whichleaders can shed light in a variety of situations. Chapter 9examines ethical group decision making. Chapter 10 describesthe creation of ethical organizational climates. Chapter 11highlights the ethical challenges of leadership in a global society.Chapter 12 provides an overview of ethical leadership in crisissituations 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 fieldsof study—philosophy, psychology, communication, theology,history, business, neuroscience, sociology, political science, andorganizational behavior—because we need insights from manydifferent disciplines if we are to step out of the shadows. You cananticipate reading about and then practicing a variety of skills,ranging from information gathering to listening and conflictmanagement.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 byleaders.
Case Study 0.1A Girl Takes On the Taliban (and WorldLeaders)One of the world’s most powerful advocates for children’s educationstarted as one of the youngest. Malala Yousafzai began her career as anactivist in 2008, at age 11, in the remote Swat Valley of Pakistan. After theTaliban began attacking girls’ schools in her region, she gave a radiointerview in which she declared, “How dare the Taliban take away mybasic right to education?”1 The next year, she began blogging for theBBC, describing what it was like to live under Taliban rule. Malala wroteunder an assumed name but her identity was revealed, making her atarget for the Taliban. Despite the risk, she continued to speak out aboutthe right of girls and women. Malala and her father, an educator and anti-Taliban activist, received death threats from the militant group. OnOctober 12, 2012, a Taliban gunman boarded the bus she was takinghome from school and shot her in the left side of the head. (Two othergirls were also injured.) Yousafzai was transferred to a Birmingham,England, hospital after initially receiving treatment in a Pakistani militaryfacility. The young advocate suffered no permanent brain damage, thoughpart of her skull had to be removed to relieve brain swelling. She stillsuffers partial paralysis on the left side of her face as well as loss of somehearing in her left ear.The Taliban’s attempt to silence Malala had the opposite result. Morepeople than ever were drawn to her cause. Citizens from around theworld expressed their support for her during her recovery. She gave aspeech to the United Nations (UN) on her 16th birthday and became theyoungest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, at age 17, in 2014. (Sheshared the prize with Indian children’s rights champion Kailash Satyarthi.)Yousafzai and her father created the Malala Fund, which promotes 12years of free education for all the world’s children, particularly girls. (Anestimated 63 million children, over 5 million in Pakistan, don’t receive aneducation and millions of others learn in substandard conditions.) Thefund has received support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundationand Apple Inc. for work in Afghanistan, Brazil, India, Lebanon, Nigeria,Pakistan, and Turkey. In one project, the Malala Fund covered the costsof opening up a school for 200 Syrian girl refugees. In another, itsupported the recruitment and training of teachers in Afghanistan. Thefund helped secure a $2.9 billion commitment for girls’ education fromcountries 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 universaleducation. She faults the United Nations for only seeking to provide anelementary and middle school education to children. She told UNmembers to make 12 years of schooling their goal: “Your dreams were toosmall. 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, qualityeducation to every child on the planet.”3 When she visited the WhiteHouse, she told President Obama to stop drone warfare and to invest ineducation instead. She criticized the president of Nigeria for not doingenough 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 primeminister welcomed her but she was kept under tight security due tothreats from the Taliban. In fact, many Pakistanis resent Malala, arguingthat other children have suffered more than she. According to conspiracytheorists, she is a “stooge” of the West and her shooting was staged bythe CIA. The Taliban has largely abandoned assaults on Pakistanischools after a 2014 attack in the city of Peshawar where gunmenmurdered 140 teachers and children, most of them boys between theages of 12 and 16.
Discussion Probes1. How do you account for the fact that a girl from rural Pakistanbecame a leading spokesperson for worldwide childhood education?2. Can you think of any other examples of leaders, like Malala, whoovercame humble circumstances and significant barriers to becomeleaders?3. What gives Malala Yousafzai the courage to speak boldly to worldleaders?4. Is Malala more effective as an advocate for children’s educationbecause she started so young?5. Is Malala’s goal of universal 12-year education too ambitious?
Notes1. Yousafzai, M., & Lamb, C. (2013). I am Malala: The girl who stood upfor education and was shot by the Taliban. New York, NY: Back BayBooks, 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 toPakistan for first time since Taliban shooting. The Guardian.
SourcesBaker, A. (2013, December 19). Runner-up: Malala Yousafzai, the fighter.Time.comBoone, 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, June10). Economic Times.SELF-ASSESSMENT 0.1 Ethical Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ)
InstructionsThe term unit refers to the team, department, division, or companyfor which your boss is the formal leader, and the term membersrefers to the people in the unit who report directly to your boss.Please indicate how well each of the following statements describesyour current boss by selecting one of the following response choices.Write the number of the choice on the line provided. Leave the itemblank if you do not know the answer.1 = strongly disagree2 = moderately disagree3 = slightly disagree4 = slightly agree5 = moderately agree6 = strongly agreeMy boss1. _____ 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 herdecisions and actions.4. _____ is honest and can be trusted to tell the truth.5. _____ keeps his or her actions consistent with his or her statedvalues (“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 isnot easy.9. _____ acknowledges mistakes and takes responsibility forthem.10. _____ regards honesty and integrity as important personalvalues.11. _____ sets an example of dedication and self-sacrifice for theorganization.12. _____ opposes the use of unethical practices to increaseperformance.13. _____ is fair and objective when evaluating memberperformance and providing rewards.14. _____ puts the needs of others above his/her own self-interest.15. _____ holds members accountable for using ethical practices intheir work.
ScoringThis scale measures your perceptions of your supervisor’s (a)honesty and integrity (including the consistency of actions withvalues), (b) behavior designed to communicate or enforce ethicalstandards, (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 ofLeadershipChapter 1. The Leader’s Light or Shadow 2Chapter 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 sixethical challenges of leadership.Yet I have something in me dangerous, which let thywiseness fear.—WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (HAMLET)We know where light is coming from by looking at theshadows.—HUMANITIES SCHOLAR PAUL WOODRUFF
What’s AheadThis chapter introduces the dark (bad, toxic) side of leadership asthe first step in promoting good or ethical leadership. Themetaphor of light and shadow dramatizes the differences betweenmoral and immoral leaders. Leaders have the power to illuminatethe lives of followers or to cover them in darkness. They cast lightwhen they master ethical challenges of leadership. They castshadows when they (1) abuse power, (2) hoard privileges, (3)mismanage information, (4) act inconsistently, (5) misplace orbetray loyalties, and (6) fail to assume responsibilities.
A Dramatic Difference/The Dark Sideof LeadershipIn an influential essay titled “Leading From Within,” educationalwriter and consultant Parker Palmer introduces a powerfulmetaphor to dramatize the distinction between ethical andunethical leadership. According to Palmer, the difference betweenmoral and immoral leaders is as sharp as the contrast betweenlight and darkness, between heaven and hell:A leader is a person who has an unusual degree ofpower to create the conditions under which other peoplemust live and move and have their being, conditions thatcan be either as illuminating as heaven or as shadowy ashell. A leader must take special responsibility for what’sgoing on inside his or her own self, inside his or herconsciousness, lest the act of leadership create moreharm than good.1For most of us, leadership has a positive connotation. We havebeen fortunate enough to benefit from the guidance of teachers orcoaches, for example, or we admire noteworthy historical leaders.However, Palmer urges us to pay more attention to the shadowside of leadership. Political figures, parents, clergy, and businessexecutives have the potential to cast as much shadow as they dolight. The higher the position, the greater the leader’s discretion orlatitude to do harm.2 Refusing to face the dark side of leadershipmakes abuse more likely. All too often, leaders “do not even knowthey are making a choice, let alone reflect on the process ofchoosing.”3Other scholars have joined Palmer in focusing on the dark ornegative dimension of leadership. Claremont Graduate Universityprofessor Jean Lipman-Blumen uses the term toxic leaders todescribe those who engage in destructive behaviors and who
exhibit dysfunctional personal characteristics.4 These behaviorsand qualities (summarized in Table 1.1) cause significant harm tofollowers and organizations.Harvard professor Barbara Kellerman believes that limiting ourunderstanding of leadership solely to good leadership ignores thereality that a great many leaders engage in destructive behaviors.5Overlooking that fact, Kellerman says, undermines our attempts topromote good leadership:I take it as a given that we promote good leadership notby ignoring bad leadership, nor by presuming that it isimmutable, but rather by attacking it as we would adisease that is always pernicious and sometimesdeadly.6According to Kellerman, bad leaders can be ineffective, unethical,or ineffective and unethical. She identifies seven types of badleaders:Incompetent.These leaders don’t have the motivation or the ability to sustaineffective action. They may lack emotional or academicintelligence, for example, or be careless, distracted, or sloppy.Some cannot function under stress, and their communication anddecisions suffer as a result. Former Hewlett Packard CEO CarlyFiorina failed as a leader because she isolated herself fromemployees, lacked operational skills, and battled board members.Rigid.Rigid leaders may be competent, but they are unyielding, unableto accept new ideas, new information, or changing conditions.General George Armstrong Custer was one such leader. Theheadstrong general refused to listen to his scouts or to wait for therest of his army. Instead, he attacked thousands of Sioux and
Cheyenne warriors with a few hundred troops. Custer and thosewho charged with him were slaughtered.Intemperate.Intemperate leaders lack self-control and are enabled by followerswho don’t want to intervene or can’t. Former Maine governor PaulLePage demonstrates intemperate leadership in action. LePagegained national attention by comparing the Internal RevenueService to the Gestapo, saying he wanted to tell President Obama“to go to hell,” blaming people of color for the opioid crisis, andchallenging a lawmaker to a duel in a vile voice mail message.LePage served two terms as governor despite his outrageousstatements.Callous.The callous leader is uncaring or unkind, ignoring or downplayingthe needs, wants, and wishes of followers. Venezuelan presidentNicolas Maduro personifies the callous leader. He refuses toaccept food shipments from humanitarian organizations even asmany of his citizens slowly starve.Table 1.1 The Behaviors and PersonalCharacteristics of Toxic LeadersTable 1.1 The Behaviors and Personal Characteristics ofToxic LeadersDestructive BehaviorsToxic QualitiesLeaving followers worse offLack of integrityViolating human rightsInsatiable ambitionFeeding followers’ illusions;creating dependenceEnormous egos
Destructive BehaviorsToxic QualitiesPlaying to the basest fears andneeds of followersArroganceStifling criticism; enforcingcomplianceAmorality (inability todiscern right from wrong)Misleading followersAvarice (greed)Subverting ethical organizationalstructures and processesReckless disregard forthe costs of their actionsEngaging in unethical, illegal,and criminal actsCowardice (refusal tomake tough choices)Building totalitarian regimesFailure to understandproblemsFailing to nurture followers,including successorsIncompetence in keyleadership situationsSetting constituents against oneanother Encouraging followers to hate ordestroy others Identifying scapegoats Making themselvesindispensable Ignoring or promotingincompetence, cronyism, andcorruption
Source: Adapted from Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxicleaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—andhow we can survive them. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, pp.19–23.Corrupt.These leaders and (at least some of their followers) lie, cheat, andsteal. They put self-interest ahead of the public interest. Brazil’sex-president Lula da Silva is an example of this type of leader. Atone time one of the most powerful people in Latin America, he isnow serving prison time. He and his wife received over a milliondollars in free home improvements from a construction companyin exchange for contracts with Petrobras, Brazil’s state-run oilcompany.Insular.The insular leader draws a clear boundary between the welfare ofhis or her immediate group or organization and outsiders.Australian senator Fraser Anning expressed insular sentimentswhen he called for a ban on all immigrants of non-Europeandescent. He singled out Muslims in particular, declaring that a voteto ban Muslims would be “the final solution to the immigrationproblem.” His words echoed that of the Nazis, whose plan toeliminate Jews was called “The Final Solution to the JewishQuestion.”Evil.Evil leaders commit atrocities, using their power to inflict severephysical or psychological harm. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is oneexample of an evil leader. He heads ISIS, the Middle Easternterrorist group known for beheading male captives and turningfemale captives into sex slaves for ISIS soldiers. Al-Baghdadi toldhis followers that Muslim believers have the right to enslave allnonbelievers.Lipman-Blumen and Kellerman developed their typologies basedon case studies of prominent leaders. Other investigators focus on
ordinary leaders, particularly in organizational settings. In oneproject, two researchers at Bond University in Australia (alongwith a colleague from the United States) asked employees toexplain why they would label someone as a bad leader, describehow a bad leader made them feel, and describe the impact badleaders had on them and the organization as a whole.7Respondents reported that bad leaders are incompetent (they areunable to use technology, for example, and can’t work withsubordinates or plan strategy) and unethical (they demonstratepoor ethics as well as poor personal and interpersonal behavior).Such leaders made respondents angry and frustrated whilelowering their self-esteem. Individual and collective performancesuffered as a result. Those working under bad leaders reportedfeeling more stress at home. They had trouble sleeping, forinstance, and felt fatigued. Negative emotions toward their leadersconsumed 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 researchersdeveloped a tool to measure destructive organizationalleadership. They discovered that demonstrating just a couple ofbad behaviors was enough to label a leader as destructive, eventhough he or she might also have lots of positive qualities. TheBond scholars identified seven clusters of destructive leaderbehaviors:8Cluster 1: This type of leader makes poor decisions (oftenbased on inadequate information), lies and engages in otherunethical behavior, cannot deal with new technology, andtypically fails to prioritize and delegate.Cluster 2: This type of leader lacks critical skills. She or he isunable to negotiate or persuade and cannot develop ormotivate subordinates.Cluster 3: This type of leader makes good decisions and hasthe necessary leadership skills but is overly controlling andmicromanages followers.Cluster 4: This type of leader can’t deal with conflict but playsfavorites and behaves inconsistently.
Cluster 5: This type of leader isn’t all that bad but isn’t all thatgood either. Leaders in this category don’t seek informationfrom others, don’t change their minds, and don’t do a goodjob of coordinating followers.Cluster 6: This type of leader isolates the group from the restof the organization.Cluster 7: This type of leader creates a situation of significantmisery and despair. Leaders in this group are brutal andbullying, frequently lying and engaging in other unethicalbehavior.Ståle Einarsen and his Norwegian colleagues offer an alternativeclassification of bad leadership based on its negative effects eitheron the organization or on followers. Destructive leaders can beantiorganization, antisubordinates, or both.9 Tyrannical leadersreach organizational goals while abusing followers. Supportive-disloyal leaders care for the welfare of subordinates at theexpense of organizational goals. They may tolerate loafing orstealing, for example. Derailed leaders act against the interests ofboth subordinates and the organization. As they bully, manipulate,deceive, and harass followers, they may also be stealing from theorganization, engaging in fraudulent activities, and doing less thanexpected. Laissez-faire leaders engage in passive and indirectnegative behavior. They occupy leadership positions but don’texercise leadership, therefore hurting followers and theirorganizations. Constructive leaders, on the other hand, care aboutsubordinates and help the organization achieve its goals whileusing resources wisely. Einarsen and his fellow researchers founda high rate of bad leadership in Norwegian organizations, with61% of respondents reporting that their immediate supervisorsengaged in ongoing destructive behavior over the past sixmonths. Laissez-faire behavior was by far the most common formof 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 whetheryour leader engages in destructive leadership behavior.) Thenegative effects of destructive leadership lasted longer than thepositive effects of constructive leadership.11
Evidence that bad leaders can cause significant damagecontinues to grow. In an analysis of the results of 57 studies,investigators found that destructive leader behavior is linked to awide range of negative outcomes.12 Those serving underdestructive leaders have negative attitudes toward their superiors,resist their leaders’ influence attempts, and engage morefrequently in counterproductive work behaviors. In addition, thesefollowers have negative attitudes toward their jobs and theirorganizations. Their personal well-being also suffers as theyexperience negative emotions and stress.In sum, Palmer was right to emphasize the importance of theshadow side of leadership. Followers from around the world havelots of firsthand experience with bad leaders and report that suchleaders cause significant, long-lasting damage. When it comes toleadership, “the bad overcomes the good.”13 It apparently takesonly a few destructive behaviors to overcome a leader’s positivequalities. In addition, the shadows cast by destructive leadersextend beyond the workplace; the home lives of followers aredamaged as well.
The Leader’s ShadowsWhen we function as leaders, we take on a unique set of ethicalburdens in addition to a set of expectations and tasks. Theseinvolve issues of power, privilege, information, consistency, loyalty,and responsibility. How we handle the challenges of leadershipdetermines whether we cause more harm than good or, to returnto Palmer’s metaphor, whether we cast light or shadow. Unlesswe’re careful, we’re likely to cast one or more of the shadowsdescribed in this section. (See the Focus on Followers box formore information on the ethical challenges facing followers.)
The Shadow of PowerPower is the foundation for influence attempts. The more powerwe have, the more likely others are to comply with our wishes.Power comes from a variety of sources. One typology, forexample, divides power into two categories: hard and soft.14 Hardpower uses inducements (bonuses, raises) and threats (arrests,firings) to get people to go along. Soft power is based onattracting others rather than forcing them or inducing them tocomply. Leaders use soft power when they set a worthy example,create an inspiring vision, and build positive relationships withsubordinates. Typically, those without formal authority rely moreheavily on soft power, but even those in formal leadershippositions, such as military officers, try to attract followers by actingas role models and emphasizing the group’s mission. Effectiveleaders combine hard and soft power into smart power to achievetheir goals. For instance, a manager may try to persuade anemployee to follow a new policy while at the same time outliningthe penalties the subordinate will face if he or she does notcomply.The most popular power classification system identifies five powerbases.15 Coercive power is based on penalties or punishmentssuch as physical force, salary reductions, student suspensions, orembargoes against national enemies. Reward power depends onbeing able to deliver something of value to others, whethertangible (bonuses, health insurance, grades) or intangible (praise,trust, cooperation). Legitimate power resides in the position, notthe person. Supervisors, judges, police officers, drill sergeants,instructors, and parents have the right to control our behaviorwithin certain limits. A boss can require us to carry out certaintasks at work, for example, but in most cases, he or she has nosay in what we do in our free time. In contrast to legitimate power,expert power is based on the characteristics of the individualregardless of that person’s official position. Knowledge, skills,education, and certification all build expert power. Referent (rolemodel) power rests on the admiration one person has for another.We’re more likely to do favors for a supervisor we admire or to buya product promoted by our favorite sports hero.
Leaders typically draw on more than one power source. Themanager who is appointed to lead a task force is grantedlegitimate power that enables her to reward or punish. Yet in orderto be successful, she’ll have to demonstrate her knowledge of thetopic, skillfully direct the group process, and earn the respect oftask force members through hard work and commitment to thegroup.The use of each power type has advantages and disadvantages.For instance, the dispensing of rewards is widely accepted inWestern culture but can be counterproductive if the rewardspromote the wrong behaviors (see Chapter 10) or go to the wrongpeople. U.S. workers are more satisfied and productive when theirleaders rely on forms of power that are tied to the person (expertand referent) rather than forms of power that are linked to theposition (coercive, reward, and legitimate).16 In addition, positionalpower is more susceptible to abuse. Coercive tactics have thepotential to do the most damage, threatening the dignity as well asthe physical and mental health of followers. Leaders, then, haveimportant decisions to make about the types of power they useand when. (Complete Self-Assessment 1.2 to determine the typesof power you prefer to use.)Focus on Follower Ethics The Ethical Challenges of FollowershipFollowers, like leaders, face their own set of ethical challenges.Followers walk on the dark side when they fail to meet the moralresponsibilities of their roles. Important ethical challenges confrontedby followers include those described below.The Challenge of Obligation. Followers contribute to a shadowyatmosphere when they fail to fulfill their minimal responsibilities bycoming to work late, taking extended breaks, not carrying outassignments, undermining the authority of their leaders, stealingsupplies, and so on. However, they can also contribute to anunethical climate by taking on too many obligations. Employeesforced to work mandatory overtime and salaried staff at manytechnology and consulting firms work 70 to 80 hours a week, leavinglittle time for family and personal interests. They experience stressand burnout, and their family relationships suffer.
Followers also have ethical duties to outsiders. Carpenters and othertradespeople involved in home construction have an obligation tobuyers to build high-quality houses and to meet deadlines, forexample. Government employees owe it to taxpayers to spend theirmoney wisely by working hard while keeping expenses down.These questions can help us sort out the obligations we owe asfollowers:Am I doing all I reasonably can to carry out my tasks andfurther 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 shouldtake?Am I giving back to the group or organization as much as I amtaking 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? Ifnot, what can I do to bring my work and personal life intobalance?The Challenge of Obedience. Groups and organizations couldn’tfunction if members refused to obey orders or adhere to policies,even the ones they don’t like. As a result, followers have an ethicalduty to obey. However, blindly following authority can drive followersto engage in illegal and immoral activities that they would neverparticipate in on their own. Obeying orders is no excuse for unethicalbehavior. Therefore, deciding when to disobey is critical. To makethis determination, consider the following factors: Does this orderappear to call for unethical behavior? Would I engage in this courseof action if I weren’t ordered to? What are the potentialconsequences for others, and for myself, if these directions arefollowed? Does obedience threaten the mission and health of theorganization as a whole? What steps should I take if I decide todisobey?The Challenge of Cynicism. There is a difference between healthyskepticism, which prevents followers from being exploited, andunhealthy cynicism, which undermines individual and groupperformance. Followers darken the atmosphere when they becomeorganizational cynics. That’s because cynicism destroys commitmentand 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 lesslikely to go beyond their job duties to help their colleagues and theirorganizations. The greater the degree of cynicism, the more effort isdirected toward attacking the organization at the expense ofcompleting the task at hand.The Challenge of Dissent. Expressing disagreement is an importantethical duty of followership. Followers should take issue with policiesand procedures that are inefficient, harmful, or costly and withleaders who harm others or put the organization at risk. Doing soserves the mission of the organization while protecting the rights ofits members and the larger community. Although followers contributeto a shadowy environment when they fail to speak up, they can gotoo far by generating a constant stream of complaints. Ethicalfollowers know when to speak up (not every issue is worthcontesting) and when to wait until a more important issue comesalong. They must also determine whether the problem is significantenough 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, thatsales are down, or that the software doesn’t work as promised maybe verbally abused, demoted, or fired. Organizations and leaders paya high price when followers hide or cover up bad news, denyresponsibility, or shift blame. Leaders can’t correct problems theydon’t know exist. Failure to address serious deficiencies such asaccounting fraud, cost overruns, and product contamination candestroy an organization. Leaders who don’t get feedback about theirineffective habits—micromanaging, poor listening skills,indecisiveness—can’t address those behaviors. When leaders denyaccountability and shift blame, this undermines trust and divertspeople’s focus from solving problems to defending themselves.To avoid contributing to a shadowy environment, followers mustdeliver bad news and accept responsibility for their actions. Theyalso need to pay close attention to how they deliver bad tidings,selecting the right time, place, and message channel. Significantproblems should be brought to the leader’s attention immediately,when he or she is most receptive, and delivered face-to-facewhenever possible, not through e-mail, faxes, and other, lesspersonal channels.Source: Adapted from Johnson, C. E. (2015). Organizational ethics:A practical approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Ch. 9.
Additional SourcesBedian, A. G. (2007). Even if the tower is “ivory,” it isn’t “white”:Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. Academy ofManagement Learning and Education, 6, 9–32.Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizationalcynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 341–352.Hajdin, M. (2005). Employee loyalty: An examination. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 59, 259–280.Peyton Roberts, T. P., & Zigarmi, D. (2014). The impact ofdispositional cynicism on job-specific affect and work intentions.International Journal of Psychology, 49, 381–389.Roloff, M. E., & Paulson, G. D. (2001). Confronting organizationaltransgressions. 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). Employeecynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 19, 429–459.The fact that leadership cannot exist without power makes someAmericans uncomfortable. We admire powerful leaders who actdecisively but can be reluctant to admit that we have and usepower. Sadly, our refusal to face up to the reality of power canmake us more vulnerable to the shadow side of leadership. Cultleader Jim Jones presided over the suicide–murder of 909followers in the jungles of Guyana. Perhaps this tragedy couldhave been avoided if cult members and outside observers hadchallenged Jones’s abuse of power.17 Conversely, ignoring thetopic of power prevents the attainment of worthy objectives,leaving followers in darkness. Consider the case of the communityactivist who wants to build a new shelter for homeless families. Hecan’t help these families unless he skillfully wields power to enlistthe support of local groups, overcome resistance of opponents,raise funds, and secure building permits.
I suspect that we are suspicious of power because we recognizethat power has a corrosive effect on those who possess it. We’veseen how U.S. president Richard Nixon used the power of hisoffice to order illegal acts against his enemies and how Russianpresident Vladimir Putin used military force to take over part of theneighboring country of Ukraine while, at the same time, heallegedly 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 bosswouldn’t grant time off so an employee could be with her dyinggrandmother, saying, “Well she’s not dead yet so I don’t have togrant your leave.” Another called the paramedics when anemployee had a heart attack and then ordered everyone else togo back to work even as the victim was still lying on the floor.Another wouldn’t let an injured employee get treatment for abroken ankle until she had first finished processing invoices. Yetanother berated and humiliated a subordinate who suffered anemotional breakdown and had to be hospitalized. His response? “Ican’t help it if she is overly sensitive.”18 (Case Study 1.1 describesa corporate leader who used his power to cover up sexual abuse.)Unfortunately, abuse of power is an all-too-common fact of life inmodern organizations. A survey commissioned by the WorkplaceBullying Institute found that 1 out of every 5 Americans have beentargets of bullying. In another survey, nearly 75% of respondentshad either been a target or a witness of such behavior. Accordingto one estimate, workplace bullying costs the U.S. economy $360billion in lost productivity every year.19 “Brutal” bosses regularlyengage in the following behaviors, some of which will bediscussed in more detail later in the chapter:20Deceit: lying and giving false or misleading informationConstraint: restricting followers’ activities outside work, suchas telling them whom they can befriend, where they can live,with whom they can live, and the civic activities they canparticipate inCoercion: making inappropriate or excessive threats for notcomplying with the leader’s directivesSelfishness: blaming subordinates and making themscapegoats
Inequity: supplying unequal benefits or punishments basedon favoritism or criteria unrelated to the jobCruelty: harming subordinates in such illegitimate ways asname-calling or public humiliationDisregard: ignoring normal standards of politeness, obviousdisregard for what is happening in the lives of followersDeification: creating a master–servant relationship in whichbosses can do whatever they want because they feel superiorThe cost of the petty tyranny of bad bosses is high. Victims sufferlow self-esteem, psychological distress and poorer health; areless satisfied with their jobs and lives; are less productive; and aremore likely to quit. The work unit as a whole is less trusting andcohesive, reducing collective performance.21 Researchers haveyet to report any positive outcomes of abusive supervision.Instead, studies conducted in a several different countries linkoppressive supervision to depression, emotional exhaustion,counterproductive work behavior, job tension, and feelings ofinjustice.22 Workers respond to tyranny by surrendering theirpersonal beliefs, keeping a low profile, engaging in revengefantasies, taking indirect revenge (i.e., not supporting the boss ata critical moment), challenging the supervisor directly, or bringingin outsiders (such as the human resources department or theboss’s boss) to get help in dealing with the abusive leader.23 Theyalso spend a lot of time bemoaning how they are being treated.The majority of employees in one project reported spending 10 ormore hours every month complaining about abusive and otherkinds of bad bosses or listening to the complaints of fellowworkers.24The greater a leader’s power, the greater the potential for abuse.This prompted Britain’s Lord Acton to observe that “powercorrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The longshadow cast by absolute power, as in the case of North Korea’sKim Jong-Il, can be seen in censorship, repression, torture,imprisonment, murder, and starvation. (Box 1.1 describes anotherleader who ruled by terror.) Businesses and other organizationsfoster centralization of power through top-down structures thatemphasize status differences, loyalty, dependence, fear, and
obedience while celebrating “tough” bosses and businesspractices like hard bargaining and aggressive marketing tactics.25Psychologists offer several explanations for why concentratedpower is so dangerous.26 First, power prompts people to pursuetheir goals without considering the needs of others. They are likelyto justify their actions by claiming that their personal rights andinterests take priority over obligations to others. Second, those inpower protect their positions by attacking those they perceive asthreats. Third, powerful leaders tend to make biased judgments.27Because they generally make little attempt to find out howfollowers think and feel, they’re prone to hold and act on faultystereotypes that justify their authority. Powerful people believe thatthey deserve their high status because powerless people aren’t ascapable as they are. They are also more likely to believe thatothers like them (even when they don’t). Fourth, possessingpower 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 minimalinfluence they have, becoming cautious, defensive, and critical ofothers and new ideas. In extreme cases, they may engage insabotage, such as when one group of fast-food restaurantemployees took out their frustrations by spitting and urinating intothe drinks they served customers.To wield power wisely, leaders have to wrestle with all the issuesoutlined here. They have to consider what types of power theyshould use and when and for what purposes. In particular, theyhave to meet social, not personal needs, when exercising power.Destructive leaders want power over followers to meet their selfishinterests. Ethical leaders desire power in order to work throughfollowers to help the group achieve its collective goals.28 Theyalso have to determine how much power to keep and how muchto give away. Finally, leaders must recognize and resist thedangers posed by possessing too much power while making surethat followers aren’t corrupted by having too little.Fortunately, there is evidence, when it comes to power, that anumber of leaders are casting light rather than shadow. They
recognize that sharing power prevents power abuses andimproves organizational performance. Executives at Zappos,Johnsonville Sausage, Patagonia, food processor Morning Star,and other successful organizations have relinquished much oftheir legitimate, coercive, award, and expert power bases tolower-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 TerrorLeaders ruling through terror cast the darkest shadows. Clinicalpsychologist and leadership scholar Manfred Kets de Vries set out todiscover what makes despotic leaders like Robert Mugabe, KimJong-un, and Bashar al-Assad “tick” by examining the life of ShakaZulu. Between 1817 and 1824, Shaka Zulu conquered much ofsouthern Africa through military genius and ruthless brutality, creatinga kingdom that spread over 100,000 miles. Anyone who opposed hisarmy, including married couples, children, and even dogs, wereslaughtered. The victorious warrior then made himself the center ofabsolute power as king and created his own secret service toeliminate possible enemies. He would randomly select victims forexecution and order the deaths of the elderly and the sick. Shaka’srule ended when he was assassinated by his half-brothers in 1828.Kets de Vries attributes Shaka Zulu’s brutal behavior to a number ofrelated personality disorders that were magnified as he gainedpower. Shaka was a malignant narcissist who fought off feelings oflow self-worth and depression through the belief that he wassomeone special. Narcissism became an addiction once he took totalcommand of the kingdom. He demanded constant adoration andclaimed to be all powerful and invincible. Shaka was paranoid,constantly seeing threats when none existed. He was also asociopath who lacked empathy for others and took sadistic pleasurein such acts as burning elderly women prisoners, putting out eyes,and killing those who offended him by what they wore or how theylooked. His ruthless, unpredictable violence broke the will of hisfollowers who knew that no one was safe from his wrath.Professor Kets de Vries concludes his study by noting that Shakashould serve as a warning to all would-be leaders. All of us have ashadow side that can spring to life when we are given access topower.
[W]e all have a Shaka Zulu in the attic. We all have a darkerside, a violent streak ready to erupt as circumstancesdictate. Shaka is not just a quaint illustration of pervertedleadership of bygone years. He is a reminder of what everyleader, every individual, can become. (p. 166)Source: Kets, de Vries, M. F. R. (2004). Lessons on leadership byterror: Finding Shaka Zulu in the attic. Cheltenham, England: EdwardElgar.
The Shadow of PrivilegeLeaders almost always enjoy greater privileges than followers do.The greater the leader’s power, generally the greater the rewardshe or she receives. Consider the earnings of corporate CEOs, forexample. Top business leaders in the United States are thehighest paid in the world. The average pay for chief executives oflarge U.S. firms skyrocketed to $13.9 million (including salary,bonuses, stock, and stock option grants), up 1000% since the1950s.29 In a recent salary survey, the highest-paid CEOs wereDiscovery Communications David Zaslav ($156.1 million),followed by Google’s Sundar Pichai ($150 million), Michael Friesof Liberty Global ($111.9 million), and Nick Woodman of GoPro($77.4 million). Amazon founder Jeff Bezos became the richestperson 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 Whitacreretired with a $230 million package along with such perks as useof the company jet and payment of his home security and countryclub fees. Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnel, who was forced to stepdown, walked away with over $188 million even though thecompany lost $140 billion under his leadership. CVS CEO TomRyan took home over $185 million after his firm combined withCaremark. As the pay of top leaders soared, the paycheck of theaverage American was left in the dust. The wages of typical U.S.workers have stagnated since the 1970s. The top 1% ofAmericans now averages 40 times more income than the bottom90% of the population.Nonprofit leaders can also abuse the perks that come from theirpositions of influence. According to a report in The Wall StreetJournal, 2,700 nonprofit executives earned over $1 million, upover one third in a three-year period. The highest payingnonprofits were largely in health care, followed by private collegesand universities. Five nonprofits, including the organizationmanaging Harvard University’s endowment, paid executives $10million or more.30
Most of us would agree that leaders deserve more rewards thanfollowers do because leaders assume greater risks andresponsibilities; many would also agree that some leaders getmore than they deserve. Beyond this point, however, our opinionsare likely to diverge. Americans are divided over questions suchas these: How many additional privileges should leaders have?What should be the relative difference in pay and benefitsbetween workers and top management? How do we close thelarge gap between the haves and the have-nots? We will neverreach complete agreement on these issues, but the fact remainsthat privilege is a significant ethical burden associated withleadership. Leaders must give questions of privilege the samecareful consideration as questions of power. The shadow cast bythe abuse of privilege can be as long and dark as that cast by themisuse of power. (Turn to the Leadership Ethics at the Moviescase in the student study site for evidence of the dangers ofprivilege.) Conversely, sharing privilege can cast significant light.Every year, for example, thousands of Americans (often membersof religious congregations) leave their comfortable homes tospend their vacations serving in developing nations. There theybuild schools and homes, dig wells, and provide medical care.Some of the world’s richest people, including Warren Buffet, Billand Melinda Gates, Sheryl Sandburg, and Mark Zuckerberg, havepledged to give the vast majority of their wealth to philanthropiccauses.
The Shadow of Mismanaged InformationLeaders have more access to information than do others in anorganization. They are more likely to participate in decision-making processes, network with managers in other units, reviewpersonnel files, and formulate long-term plans. Knowledge is amixed blessing. Leaders must be in the information loop in orderto carry out their tasks, but possessing knowledge makes lifemore complicated. Do they reveal that they are in the know?When should they release information and to whom? How muchdo they tell? Is it ever right for them to lie?No wonder leaders are tempted to think ignorance is bliss! If allthese challenges weren’t enough, leaders face the very realtemptation to lie. For instance, Ohio State football coach UrbanMeyer publicly denied he knew about domestic violenceallegations against an assistant coach. Later he admitted that hewas aware of the possible abuse but kept the assistant on hisstaff. Managers at the Veterans Administration falsified patientaccess records to disguise the long wait times facing veteransseeking medical treatment.31 At other times, leaders are eager tohide the truth. The Panama Papers, a massive data leak, revealedthat political leaders and wealthy individuals from around theworld are secretly sheltering billions in assets in offshorecompanies. Other leaders don’t want to reveal that their judgmentmight be clouded by conflicts of interest. President Trump refusesto entirely divest himself from his real estate business and reportslittle about income generated by foreign customers. As a result,there are concerns that he might favor countries who stay atTrump hotels and golf clubs when visiting the United States.32The issues surrounding access to information are broader thandeciding whether to lie, to hide the truth, or to tell the truth.Although leaders often decide between lying and truth telling, theyare just as likely to be faced with questions related to the releaseof information. Take the case of a middle manager who haslearned about an upcoming merger that will mean layoffs. Hersuperiors have asked her to keep this information to herself for acouple of weeks until the deal is completed. In the interim,
employees may make financial commitments—such as home andcar purchases—that they would postpone if they knew that majorchanges were in the works. Should the manager voluntarily shareinformation about the merger with such employees despite herorders? What happens when a member of her department asksher to confirm or deny the rumor that the company is about tomerge? (Turn to Case Study 1.2 to see how leaders disagreeabout how much information to release.)Privacy issues raise additional ethical concerns. Ancestry.com,23andMe, and other DNA-testing companies are buildingdatabases that can be accessed by drug companies and lawenforcement. (The suspected Golden State killer was identifiedthrough genetic profiles housed at GEDmatch.) Informationcollected from high school students on college-planning surveys issold to colleges and those marketing educational programs.33Hundreds of thousands of cameras track our movements atautomated teller machines, in parking lots, at stores, and in otherpublic places (and even in not-so-public places, such as highschool bathrooms and hospital rooms). Drones now make itpossible for law enforcement officials and private citizens tosecretly film our homes and backyards from the sky. Ourinteractions with police officers are likely to be recorded now thatbody cameras are becoming standard equipment for many policedepartments. The Transportation Safety Administration employsair marshals to secretly monitor airline passengers who are not onany terrorist database, looking for suspicious behaviors—excessive sweating and nervousness, frequent bathroom visits—that could signal that someone poses a danger.34Employers are also gathering more and more information aboutemployee behavior both on and off the job. Technology allowssupervisors to monitor computer keystrokes and computerscreens, phone calls, website use, voice mail, and e-mail.According to one survey, at least 66% of U.S. companies trackemployee Internet use, 45% log keystrokes, and 43% trackemployee e-mails.35 One digital program tracks every move ofevery waiter and every order at restaurants. Sociometric Solutionsconducts research in the banking, pharmaceutical, health care,and technology industries using sensors embedded in ID badges.
These microphones, location sensors, and accelerometers trackthe communication behaviors of workers—tone of voice, posture,body language, and which employees talk to other employees andfor how long. Employers also monitor worker behavior outside theworkplace. Employees have been fired for posting offensivecomments and pictures on blogs and social networking sites.Employers use personal information on Facebook and other socialnetworking sites to screen out job applicants.Companies have a right to gather information in order to improveperformance and eliminate waste and theft. Organizations arealso liable for the inappropriate behavior of members, such aswhen they send sexist or racist messages using their companies’e-mail systems. Investigators discovered that the restaurantmonitoring not only reduced employee theft but increased revenuesubstantially as staff, knowing they were being observed,encouraged more patrons to order drinks and dessert. Trucksensors enabled UPS to deliver 1.4 million additional packages aday with 1,000 fewer drivers. And monitoring can also lead tobetter working conditions. Bank of America added a 15-minuteshared coffee break after a Sociometric Solutions study revealedthat employees who took breaks together were more productiveand less likely to quit.36 However, efforts to monitor employeebehavior are sometimes done without the knowledge of workersand are inconsistent with organizational values such as trust andcommunity. Invading privacy takes away the right of employees todetermine what they reveal about themselves; unwanted intrusiondevalues their worth as individuals.37In conclusion, leaders cast shadows not only when they lie butalso when they mismanage information and engage in deceptivepractices. Unethical leadersdeny 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 fromreleasing information that others have a legitimate right toknow.Patterns of deception, whether they take the form of outright liesor the hiding or distortion of information, destroy the trust thatbinds leaders and followers together. Consider the popularity ofconspiracy theories, for example. Many Americans are convincedthat the U.S. Air Force is hiding the fact that aliens landed inRoswell, New Mexico. Many also believe that law enforcementofficials are deliberately ignoring evidence that John F. Kennedyand Martin Luther King Jr. were the victims of elaborateassassination plots. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones drew millionsof visitors monthly to his website and radio show before they wereshut down. He accused federal officials of faking mass shootingsand bombings at Oklahoma City, the Boston Marathon, SandyHook Elementary, and Columbine. These theories are farfetched,but they flourish in part because government leaders have createda shadow atmosphere through deceit. Consider all the falsehoodssurrounding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance. Itwasn’t until after the first Gulf War that we learned that our “smartbombs” weren’t really so smart and missed their targets. Thepresident and other cabinet officials overstated the danger posedby Saddam Hussein in order to rally support for the second GulfWar. The military covered up the fact that NFL star Pat Tillmanwas killed by friendly, not enemy, fire.University of California, Davis history professor Kathryn Olmstedargues that many Americans believe that the government is out toget them in large part because government officials havepreviously engaged in secret conspiracies.38 In 1962, for example,the Joint Chiefs of Staff cooked up a plan to get citizens to supporta war on Fidel Castro’s Cuba by sending a drone plane painted tolook like a passenger airliner over the island to be shot down.Fortunately, this plot (dubbed “Operation Northwoods”) never wentinto effect. However, many others were implemented. According toOlmsted,
By the height of the Cold War, government agents hadconsorted with mobsters to kill a foreign leader, droppedhallucinogenic drugs into the drinks of unsuspectingAmericans in random bars, and considered launchingfake terrorist attacks on Americans in the United States.Public officials had denied potentially life-savingtreatment to African American men in medicalexperiments, sold arms to terrorists in return forAmerican hostages, and faked documents to frame pastpresidents for crimes they had not committed. . . . Later,as industrious congressmen and journalists revealedthese actual conspiracies by the government, manyAmericans came to believe that the most outrageousconspiracy theories about the government could beplausible.39Leaders must also consider ethical issues related to the imagethey hope to project to followers. In order to earn their positionsand to achieve their objectives, leaders carefully manage theimpressions they make on others. Impression management canbe compared to a performance on a stage.40 Leader-actorscarefully manage everything from the setting to their words andnonverbal behaviors in order to have the desired effects on theirfollower audiences. For example, presidential staffers make surethat the chief executive is framed by visual images (MountRushmore, the Oval Office, enthusiastic crowds of supporters)that reinforce his (or her) messages, popularity and presidentialstanding. Like politicians, leaders in charge of such high-riskactivities as mountain climbing and whitewater kayaking also workhard to project the desired impressions. In order to appearconfident and competent, they stand up straight, look others in theeye, and use an authoritative tone of voice.Impression management is integral to effective leadershipbecause followers have images of ideal leaders calledprototypes.41 We expect that the mountain climbing guide will beconfident (otherwise, we would cancel the trip!), that the small-group leader will be active in group discussions, and that themilitary 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 asleader and accept her or his influence. Nonetheless, some people(including a number of students) find the concept of impressionmanagement ethically troubling. They particularly value integrityand see such role-playing as insincere because a leader mayhave to disguise his or her true feelings in order to be successful.There is no doubt that impression management can be used toreach immoral ends. Disgraced financier Bernie Madoff, forexample, convinced investors that he was a financial genius evenas he was stealing their money in a gigantic fraud scheme.Careerists who are skilled at promoting themselves at theexpense of others are all too common.42 It would be impossible toeliminate this form of influence, however. For one thing, othersform impressions of us whether we are conscious of that fact ornot. They judge our personality and values by what we wear, forinstance, even if we don’t give much thought to what we put on inthe morning. Most of us use impression management to conveyour identities accurately, not to conceal them or to manipulateothers.When considering the morality of impression management, weneed to consider its end products. Ethical impression managersmeet group wants and needs, not just the needs of the leaders.They spur followers toward highly moral ends. These leaders useimpression management to convey accurate information, to buildpositive interpersonal relationships, and to facilitate gooddecisions. Unethical impression managers produce the oppositeeffects, subverting group wishes and lowering purpose andaspiration. These leaders use dysfunctional impressionmanagement to send deceptive messages, to underminerelationships, and to distort information, which leads to poorconclusions and decisions.43
The Shadow of InconsistencyLeaders deal with a variety of constituencies, each with its ownset of abilities, needs, and interests. In addition, they like somefollowers better than others. Leader–member exchange (LMX)theory is based on the notion that a leader develops a closerrelationship with one group of followers than with others.44Members 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 basicrequirements of their jobs. Their communication with the leader isnot 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 todevelop close relationships with as many of their followers aspossible.Situational variables also complicate leader–follower interactions.Guidelines that work in ordinary times may break down understressful conditions. A professor may state in a syllabus that fiveabsences will result in a student’s flunking the class, for instance.However, she may have to loosen that standard if a flu epidemicstrikes the campus.Diverse followers, varying levels of relationships, and elements ofthe situation make consistency an ethical burden of leadership.Should we, as leaders, treat all followers equally even if some aremore skilled and committed or closer to us than others? Whenshould we bend the rules and for whom? Shadows arise whenleaders appear to act arbitrarily and unfairly when faced withquestions such as these, as in the case of a resident assistantwho enforces dormitory rules for some students but ignoresinfractions committed by friends. Of course, determining whethera leader is casting light or shadow may depend on where youstand as a follower. If you are the star player on your team, youmay feel justified taking it easy during practices. If you are lesstalented, you probably resent the fact that the team’s star doesn’thave to work as hard as you.
Too often, inconsistency arises between what a leader advocatesand how he or she behaves, such as when rabbis and pastorshave affairs at the same time they are encouraging members oftheir congregations to build strong marriages. Managers atBritain’s EDF energy company sparked a union strike afterinstalling meters in employee company cars to track their locationand performance. The issue wasn’t so much the meters as therefusal of managers to put the same tracking devices in their owncompany vehicles. Duncan Selbie, head of Britain’s NationalHealth Service, was criticized for hiring a taxi to travel less than amile after giving a lecture on the importance of exercise(particularly brisk walking).45In recent years, a number of prominent figures seem to havetaken inconsistency to a new level. Former Speaker of the HouseDennis Hastert advocated for stronger punishment for sex crimesand sexual abuse of children while paying hush money to a manhe molested when working as a high school wrestling coach.Comedian Bill Cosby criticized fellow African Americans for nottaking personal responsibility and bad parenting even as he wasallegedly drugging and raping a series of women. (He wasconvicted on three counts of sexual assault.)Issues of inconsistency can also arise in a leader’s relationshipswith those outside the immediate group or organization.Misgivings about the current system of financing political electionsstem from the fact that large donors can buy access to electedofficials and influence their votes. Take the rollback of bankingregulations, for example. Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act in2010 to curb the excesses that caused the global financial crash.Eight years later, the House and Senate eliminated many of theprovisions of Dodd-Frank, reducing regulation of the bankingindustry. Banks and credit unions gave twice as much to senatorssupporting the rollback than to those opposing the bill.46
The Shadow of Misplaced and Broken LoyaltiesLeaders must weigh a host of loyalties or duties when makingchoices. In addition to their duties to employees and stockholders,they must consider their obligations to their families, their localcommunities, their professions, the larger society, and theenvironment. Noteworthy leaders put the needs of the largercommunity above selfish interest. For example, outdoor clothingmanufacturer Timberland receives praise for its commitment tocommunity service and social responsibility. Company leaders payemployees for volunteer service, partner with community groups,and support nonprofit organizations through the sale of selectedproducts. In contrast, those leaders who appear to put their owninterests first (see Case Study 1.3) are worthy of condemnation.Loyalties can be broken as well as misplaced. If anything, weheap more scorn on those who betray our trust than on those whomisplace their loyalties. Many of history’s villains are traitors:Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, Vidkun Quisling (he sold out hisfellow Norwegians to the Nazis), and Tokyo Rose, a U.S. citizenwho broadcast to American troops on behalf of the Japaneseduring World War II. More recent examples of leaders whoviolated the trust of followers include the leaders of LehmanBrothers, who told investors that the firm was strong even as itwas struggling to raise money to stave off bankruptcy during thefinancial crisis, and cyclist Lance Armstrong. Armstrong betrayedhis team sponsors, fans, and fellow cancer survivors by doping(and then vehemently denying he had done so) in order to winseven Tour de France races.Employees are often victimized by corporate betrayal motivatedby the bottom line. Individuals commonly develop deep loyalties totheir coworkers and to their employers. As a consequence, theymay do more than is required in their job descriptions, turn downattractive job offers from other employers, and decide to investtheir savings in company stock.47 Unfortunately, companies andtheir leaders often fail to respond in kind. During economicdownturns, they are quick to slash salaries and benefits and to layoff even the most loyal workers. Even if business is good, they
don’t hesitate to merge with other firms, eliminating positions, or toshut down domestic plants and research facilities in order to movetheir operations overseas, where labor costs are lower.Organizational leaders admit that their organizations aren’t asloyal as they used to be. One survey of senior level NorthAmerican managers found that only 13% believe that theirorganizations are more loyal than they were five years ago.48 Inresponse growing corporate disloyalty, many younger workerslimit the length of their commitment to their employers, with over40% expecting to leave in two years or less.The most egregious cases of betrayal are cases where adultstake advantage of children. Catholic priests in the United States,Brazil, Chile, Australia, Ireland, Germany, and elsewhere usedtheir positions as respected spiritual authorities to gain access toyoung parishioners for sexual gratification.49 Church leaders failedto stop the abusers or themselves engaged in abuse. In far toomany instances, they let offending priests continue to minister andto have contact with children. Often, church officials transferredpedophile priests without warning their new congregations aboutthese men’s troubled pasts. Officials at Michigan State, USAGymnastics, and the United States Olympic Committee turned ablind eye to complaints that team doctor Larry Nassar wassexually molesting young female gymnasts. Over 300 girls andyoung women were victimized.50Philosopher George Fletcher argues that we define ourselvesthrough our loyalties to families, sports franchises, companies,and other groups and organizations.51 Fellow philosopher JosiahRoyce contends that loyalty to the right cause produces admirablecharacter traits like justice, wisdom, and compassion.52 Loyalty isa significant burden placed on leaders. In fact, well-placed loyaltycan make a significant moral statement. Such was the case withPee Wee Reese. The Brooklyn Dodger never wavered in hisloyalty to Jackie Robinson, the first black player in baseball’smajor leagues. In front of one especially hostile crowd inCincinnati, Ohio, Reese put his arm around Robinson’s shouldersin a display of support.53
The Shadow of IrresponsibilityEarlier, we observed that breadth of responsibility is one of thefactors distinguishing between the role of leader and that offollower. 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 theperformance 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 membersduring the off-season or for the excesses of the university’sathletic booster club? Are clothing executives responsible for theactions of their overseas contractors who force workers to labor insweatshops? Do employers owe employees a minimum wagelevel, a certain degree of job security, and safe workingconditions? If military personnel are punished for followingunethical orders, should those who issue those orders receive thesame or harsher penalties?Leaders act irresponsibly when they fail to make reasonableefforts to prevent misdeeds on the part of their followers, ignore ordeny ethical problems, don’t shoulder responsibility for theconsequences of their directives, deny their duties to followers, ortry to deflect blame onto others. We don’t hold coachesresponsible for everything their players do. Nonetheless, we wantthem to encourage their athletes to obey the law and to punishany misbehavior. Most of us expect Gap, Nike, JC Penney,Walmart, and Banana Republic to make every effort to treat theiroverseas labor force fairly, convinced that the companies owetheir workers (even the ones employed by subcontractors) decentwages and working conditions. When an organization’semployees break the law or make mistakes, we want the group’sleader to take accountability. Penny Lawrence, a top Oxfamexecutive, accepted blame for failing to stop sexual misconduct bythe charity’s staff in Chad and Haiti. “I am ashamed that thishappened 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 othersfor 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 opioidcrisis. The firm aggressively marketed OxyContin, encourageddoctors to prescribe the highest amounts of the powerful painkiller,and failed to alert authorities that the drug was being abused andsold on the street. Instead of accepting accountability, Sacklerpushed the blame onto addicts. In a company e-mail he said, “Wehave to hammer on abusers in every way possible. They are theculprits and the problem. They are reckless criminals.”55Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg also deflected blame by hiring apublic relations firm to attack critics of the company.56Many corporate scandals demonstrate what can happen whenboards of directors fail to live up to their responsibilities. Far toomany boards in the past functioned only as rubber stamps. Madeup largely of friends of the CEO and those doing business with thefirm, they were quick to approve executive pay increases andother management proposals. Some board members appearedinterested only in collecting their fees and made little effort tounderstand the operations or finances of the companies they weresupposed to be directing. Other members were well intentionedbut lacked expertise. Now federal regulations require that thechair of a corporation’s audit committee be a financial expert. Thecompensation, audit, and nominating committees must be madeup of people who have no financial ties to the organization. Theserequirements should help prevent future abuses, but only if boardmembers take their responsibilities seriously. (I’ll have more to sayabout effective corporate governance in Chapter 10.)These, then, are some of the common shadows cast by leadersfaced with the ethical challenges of leadership. Identifying theseshadows raises two important questions: (1) Why is it that, whenfaced with the same ethical challenges, some leaders cast lightand others cast shadows? (2) What steps can we take as leadersto cast more light than shadow? In the next chapter, we willexplore the forces that contribute to the shadow side of leadershipand outline ways to meet those challenges.
Implications and ApplicationsUnderstanding the dark (bad, toxic) side of leadership is thefirst step in promoting good or ethical leadership.The contrast between ethical and unethical leadership is asdramatic as the contrast between light and darkness.Toxic or bad leaders engage in destructive behaviors. Theymay be ineffective, unethical, or both. Common types of badleaders include incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous,corrupt, insular, and evil.Certain ethical challenges or dilemmas are inherent in theleadership role. If you choose to become a leader, recognizethat you accept ethical burdens along with new tasks,expectations, and rewards.Followers face their own set of ethical challenges. When fillinga follower role, you will need to determine the extent of yourobligations to the group, decide when to obey or disobey,combat cynicism, offer dissent, and deliver bad news to yourleaders.Power can have a corrosive effect on values and behavior. Youmust determine how much power to accumulate, what forms ofpower to use, and how much power to give to followers.If you abuse power, you will generally overlook the needs offollowers as you take advantage of the perks that come withyour position.Leaders have access to more information than do followers. Inaddition to deciding whether or not to hide or tell the truth, as aleader, you’ll have to determine when to reveal what you knowand to whom, how to gather and use information, and so on.A certain degree of inconsistency is probably inevitable inleadership roles, but you will cast shadows if you are seen asacting arbitrarily and unfairly. You must also attempt to matchyour behavior with your words and values—to “walk your talk.”As a leader, you’ll have to balance your needs and the needs ofyour small group or organization with loyalties or duties tobroader communities. Expect condemnation if you put narrow,selfish concerns first.Leadership brings a broader range of responsibility, butdetermining the limits of accountability may be difficult. You willcast a shadow if you fail to make a reasonable attempt toprevent abuse or to shoulder the blame, deny that you have aduty to followers, or deflect blame onto others.For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment
1. Create an ethics journal. In it, describe the ethical dilemmasyou encounter as a leader and as a follower, how you resolvethem, how you feel about the outcomes, and what you learnthat will transfer to future ethical decisions. You may also wantto include your observations about the moral choices made bypublic figures. Make periodic entries as you continue to readthis text.2. Harvard professor Rosabeth Kanter argues that“powerlessness corrupts and absolute powerlessness corruptsabsolutely.” Do you agree? What are some of the symptoms ofpowerlessness?3. What does your score on the Destructive Leader BehaviorScale (Self-Assessment 1.1) reveal about your leader? Howcan you use this information to become a more effectivefollower? As an alternative, reflect on your Personal PowerProfile (Self-Assessment 1.2). What do your scores revealabout your attitude toward power and the ethical issues youmight face in exercising power? Would you like to change yourpower profile? How can you do so?4. What factors do you consider when determining the extent ofyour loyalty to an individual, a group, or an organization?5. Debate the following propositions in class:The federal government should set limits on executivecompensation.Coaches should be held accountable for the actions oftheir players in the off-season.Corporate leaders have an obligation to be loyal to theiremployees.Married politicians and religious figures who haveextramarital affairs should be forced to resign.Employers have the right to monitor the behavior ofworkers 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 themembers qualified? Does the board fulfill its leadershipresponsibilities? Write up your findings.7. Write a research paper on the privacy issues surroundingdrones, police body cameras, or the use of DNA databases incriminal investigations. Conclude with a set ofrecommendations on how these issues should be resolved.8. Look for examples of unethical leadership behavior in the newsand classify them according to the six shadows. What patternsdo you note? As an alternative, look for examples of ethicalleadership. How do these leaders cast light instead of shadow?9. What is the toughest ethical challenge of being a follower? Howdo you meet that challenge?
Student Study SiteVisit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGEjournal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.
Case Study 1.1Keeping Harvey Weinstein’s Dark SecretsPowerful leaders are not only more tempted to abuse their power; theyhave the means to cover up their abuse when they do. For decades, therewere rumors that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was a sexual predator.In fact, Seth MacFarlane joked with the Best Supporting Actressnominees at the 2013 Oscar nomination ceremony, telling the women,“Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attractedto Harvey Weinstein.”1 Weinstein, the co-founder of Miramax andWeinstein pictures, allegedly would pressure young actresses into sexualencounters in return for casting them in his movies. Victims includedGwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, and Rose McGowan.Weinstein’s abuses came to light in New York Times and New Yorkerarticles. Multiple accusers claim that the producer made constant sexualpropositions, exposed himself, masturbated in front of them, and forcedthem into sex. Weinstein apologized for his behavior and was removedfrom his company.Producer Weinstein used his wealth and influence as a Hollywoodsuperstar to silence his accusers. In some cases, complainants reachednondisclosure agreements (NDAs) where, in return for a cash payment,they agreed to not further pursue or even to discuss their cases. If theydid talk about their settlements, they would have to repay the money theyreceived. In other instances, Weinstein hired private security companiesto dig up dirt about the women to use against them. In the case of modelAmbra Battilana Gutierrez, false information (i.e., charges she was aprostitute) from these investigations was published in the New York Posttabloid. Investigators, some of them former Mossad agents, alsoinvestigated reporters and tried to identify their sources with the goal ofstopping the New Yorker and New York Times stories. The producer alsoenlisted the help of former employees to gather information and to stoppossible press stories.Weinstein’s position as a Hollywood gatekeeper made it hard for hisvictims to speak up. Challenging him could mean being blackballed fromthe movie industry. On the other hand, “Everyone knew if you were in aHarvey movie, chances are you were going to win or be nominated for anOscar.”2 Miramax earned best picture awards for The English Patient,Shakespeare in Love, and Chicago; the studio notched 58 Oscar wins inall, 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 aboutWeinstein) apparently looked the other way because he was a majordonor and recruited other celebrity contributors. Prosecutors may havedecided not to file charges because they received information anddonations from Weinstein’s legal team. Journalists didn’t actively pursueleads because they had book deals and other business dealings withWeinstein. Ronan Farrow, who helped break the story, reports that hereceived 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 aseat at the table.”3The Weinstein scandal prompted California and New York legislators tointroduce legislation banning nondisclosure settlements. Other statescould challenge these settlements given that these agreements mighthide “public hazards.” Zelda Perkins, a former assistant to HarveyWeinstein, decided to speak up despite signing an NDA. (The producerwanted her in the room while he bathed and often tried to pull her into hisbed.) Perkins hopes to draw attention to the harm done by thesesettlements:Unless somebody does this there won’t be a debate about howegregious these agreements are and the amount of duress thatvictims are put under. My entire world fell in because I thoughtthe law was there to protect those who abided by it. I discoveredthat it had nothing to do with right and wrong and everything todo with money and power.4There are victims’ advocates who defend NDAs, however. They believethat some women will be more reluctant to come forward if their cases arepublicized. Victims may fear negative publicity and retaliation; settlementamounts may drop.The Weinstein scandal could mark the beginning of a dramatic change infilm industry culture. In the past, sexual misbehavior was tolerated. Polishdirector Roman Polanski received an academy award for The Pianisteven though he fled the United States after being convicted of having sexwith a 13-year-old. Until recently, major actors would work for reducedrates in Woody Allen films even though Allen had an affair with, and thenmarried, the adopted daughter of ex-partner Mia Farrow and is accused ofmolesting another stepdaughter. The Weinstein revelations set off atsunami of other sexual misconduct complaints in the movie industry,involving Amazon producer Ray Price and actors Kevin Spacey, Dustin
Hoffman, Casey Affleck, Jeremy Piven, and others. Former Weinsteinassistant Perkins hopes that the focus will shift from the producer’smisbehavior to reforming the system: “Money and power enabled, and thelegal system has enabled. Ultimately, the reason Harvey Weinsteinfollowed the route he did is because he was allowed to, and that’s ourfault. As a culture, that’s our fault.”5
Discussion Probes1. How can we keep superstars in any field from abusing their powerand 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 inHollywood culture?4. Do you consider the reputation of actors, directors, and producerswhen deciding which movies or television shows to view? Would yourefuse to go to a movie or watch a television show if you knew thatan important actor, director, or producer was a sexual harasser orpredator?5. How much responsibility do we, as entertainment consumers, havefor empowering the bad behavior of movie and television stars andrecording artists?
Notes1. 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 thenews. PRI.4. Fabio, M. (2017, October 26). The Harvey Weinstein Effect: The end ofnondisclosure agreements in sexual assault cases? Forbes.5. Farrow, R. (2017, November 21). Harvey Weinstein’s secretsettlements. The New Yorker.
SourcesBates, D. (2017, December 7). The complicity files: Devastating reportsays many top people, including the Clintons, knew about Weinstein’spredatory behavior. Irish Daily Mail, pp. 20, 37.Farrow, R. (2017, November 6). Harvey Weinstein’s army of spies. TheNew Yorker.Rottenberg, J., & Kaufman, A. (2017, October 12). The fallout: How theHarvey Weinstein scandal exposed sexual harassment as Hollywood’sdirty secret. Los Angeles Times.Scheiber, N. (2017, November 1). Protecting the disgraced. The NewYork Times, p. B1.
Case Study 1.2Do-It-Yourself GunsIn 2013, Cory Wilson of the group Defense Distributed ignited aprotracted legal battle. After test firing a plastic gun made with a 3-Dprinter, he posted the blueprints for making the gun online. The planswere downloaded 100,000 times before the State Department forcedWilson to remove the blueprints, claiming that he violated U.S. lawforbidding Americans from exporting sensitive military technology. Wilsonthen sued the federal government for infringing on his free speech rights.In 2018, the State Department settled the suit and paid a portion ofWilson’s legal expenses. State department officials withdrew theirobjections because they no longer believed that the blueprints posed asecurity threat.Wilson’s legal victory was short lived. The attorneys general from 19states and Washington, D.C., quickly sought to keep the plans offline.Federal judge Robert Lasnik ruled in their favor by issuing a temporaryrestraining order. In his ruling, Judge Lasnik declared that Wilson’s FirstAmendment free speech rights “are dwarfed by the irreparable harms thestates are likely to suffer if the existing restrictions are withdrawn.”1 Butthe judge’s ruling didn’t stop dissemination of the blueprints. DefenseDistributed made the files available for purchase to customers in statesnot covered by the ban. Wilson urged others who had the plans to submittheir own files to his platform and receive half of the sales price. WhileWilson resigned from Defense Distributed after being charged with havingsex 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 isspeech.”2 They compare computer code to the words in books, arguingthat the Internet is like a library. Banning the blueprints, then, is a form ofcensorship. Utah Senator Mike Lee notes that publishing a design for agun is not the same as possessing such a gun and that plastic guns arealready banned by the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. Others pointout that making a 3-D gun is expensive and time consuming. A good 3-Dprinter can cost $10,000 or more and manufacturing a gun can take hoursor even days. Criminals who want to arm themselves will likely find itmuch cheaper and easier to buy illegal weapons. Then, too, current 3-Dplastic guns are unreliable because the plastic can’t handle the pressuregenerated when firing a bullet: “Without technical expertise on how 3Dprinters work, you’re more likely to end up with an exploding gun than aworking one.”3 Even if the gun fires, it is unlikely to shoot a second time.
Those who oppose the release of the plans point to the dangers of 3-Dguns. Not only are such weapons hard for security devices to detect butthey are untraceable, making it impossible for law enforcement to identifytheir owners. Terrorists could use printers to make weapons to use in theirattacks. Gun printers don’t have to go through the background checksrequired of other gun owners. Bills were introduced in both houses ofCongress to ban 3-D guns nationwide. California Senator DianneFeinstein and three colleagues asked Internet firms to stop hosting 3-Dgun blueprints because “doing so will make all of our communities safer.”43-D weapons are already illegal in Australia, the United Kingdom, andJapan.The longer the legal battle continues, the higher the stakes. That’sbecause printer technology continues to evolve. The cost of 3-D printersis likely to drop, making them more affordable. 3-D guns are becomingincreasingly durable with the use of metal parts and stronger plastic thatenable them to be fired multiple times.
Discussion Probes1. Do you think that computer code is a form of free speech? Why orwhy 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 whynot?4. Is it too late for any ban to be effective?5. What kind of information (if any) should be kept off the Internet?
Notes1. Hsu, T. (2018, August 28). Blueprints for 3-D printed gun must stay offinternet 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
SourcesAre 3D-printed guns legal? (n.d.) CriminalDefense Lawyer.comDoctorow, C. (2013, May 13). 3D printed guns are going to create biglegal precedents. The Guardian.Greenberg, A. (2018, September 25). The 3-D printed gun machine rollson, with or without Cody Wilson. Wired.Larson, E. (2018, August 27). Judge extends 3-D printed gun banpending state challenge. Bloomberg.Lee, M. (2018, August 6). Why I objected to a bill that would ban 3D gundesigns. The Daily Signal.Printed 3D-gun blueprints back online. BBC News.Wade, C. M. (2018, August 14). Gun owners group blasts 3D weaponsban. The Salem News.
Case Study 1.3Looking Out for Number One at the EPAFormer EPA administrator Scott Pruitt may have set the modern record forthe greatest number of scandals by a member of a president’s cabinet.Pruitt served as director of the Environmental Protection Agency duringthe first two years of the Trump administration. He became the subject ofat least 13 civil and criminal investigations during his tenure. Just asoutcry from one scandal began to subside, another would surface. Pruitt’smissteps included– frequently traveling to his home in Oklahoma and around thestate at taxpayer expense, sometimes flying on private planes andmilitary jets– flying first class instead of coach when on commercial flights– spending $20,000 for four-day trip to Morocco to promote naturalgas 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 afranchise. Others were tasked with purchasing a used mattress fromthe Trump International Hotel and picking up snacks and drycleaning for him.– hiring a 24/7 security detail at a cost of $3.5 million a year andthen 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 theEPA while paying very little rent– accepting Rose Bowl tickets from a PR firm representing oil andgas companies– refusing to keep records of official meetings and ordering an aideto alter his calendar records, which is against federal law. He firedthe 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 havefailed as a steward of American taxpayer dollars and of the environment.”1 Both Republican Senators from Iowa (a state that supported Trump inthe 2016 election) publicly criticized the EPA director. Conservative FoxNews commentator Laura Ingraham, referring to Trump’s pledge to drainthe swamp of corruption in Washington, commented, “Pruitt is the swamp.Drain it.”2
Pruitt’s misplaced loyalties apparently drove him to misuse his office. Theformer director continually put his personal interests ahead of hisobligations to his agency, his followers, the American taxpayer, and theenvironment. Highly ambitious, many of his trips to Oklahoma were todrum up support for a possible race for statewide office. According to oneofficial, his foreign travel was designed to bolster his resume to qualifyhim 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.) TheEPA chief’s lavish spending and misuse of personnel reflected a sense ofentitlement. Hiding his schedule was a way to protect himself from publicscrutiny.Pruitt’s ties to the gas and oil industry apparently took precedence overhis agency’s mission, which is protecting the nation’s air, land, and water.Loyalty to friends and staff members from his home state overrode anyobligation to long-term agency employees. He placed two of his businesspartners in high agency positions and gave 50% raises to two aides whocame with him from Oklahoma. In addition, he frequently ignored thefindings and recommendations of career agency scientists and staff.At the same time he was abusing those below him, Pruitt was serving hisambitions by skillfully “managing up.” He regularly praised the president—though he had earlier criticized candidate Trump—and took everyopportunity to keep in touch with the chief executive. In hopes of runninginto the president, for example, he would eat regularly at the White Housemess. (Eventually he was asked to stop coming so often.) He acted as aconfidant to Trump, participating in discussion of topics ranging from tradeagreements to the Russia investigation. He also joined the president incriticizing attorney general Jeff Sessions. Pruitt reportedly was jealous ofSessions and wanted to be appointed attorney general if he didn’t get thesecretary of state position. Most importantly, the EPA director faithfullycarried out President Trump’s directives. As Oklahoma attorney general,he frequently sued the EPA. At the agency, he initiated massive regulatoryrollbacks, including, for instance, lowering mileage requirements for theautomobile industry. Pruitt helped convince Trump to back out of the Parisclimate 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 aidesfor many of his extravagant purchases, including the secure phone booth.He claimed that he did not push for pay raises for the two aides fromOklahoma. He also denied retaliating against those who challenged hisspending on travel and office renovations. Feeling betrayed, most of hisclosest advisors, including the loyal supporters who came with him fromOklahoma, then resigned. According to one former Pruitt loyalist, “He
didn’t have much of anybody left.”3 The disillusioned staffers refused todefend their former boss when they were called upon to testify beforeCongressional committees. Instead, they defended themselves andclearly spelled out what Pruitt had asked them to do. Their damningtestimony, along with the growing bipartisan chorus of critics, apparentlyforced the president (who was reluctant to fire Pruitt despite the mountingscandals) to act. Ever mindful of the importance of demonstrating hisloyalty to those above him, Pruitt wrote the following in his resignationletter:Mr. President, it has always been an honor to serve you in theCabinet as Administrator of the EPA. Truly, your confidence inme has blessed me personally and enabled me to advance youragenda. My desire in service to you has always been to blessyou as you make important decisions for the American people.4
Discussion Probes1. Did Pruitt’s misplaced and broken loyalties lead to his abuse ofpower and privilege or did his desire for power and privilege lead tohis misplaced and broken loyalties?2. What should be the most important obligations of governmentleaders? How do these differ from the obligations of leaders inbusiness and other fields?3. What can we do to ensure that the government officials serve theinterests of taxpayers and the missions of their agencies rather thanthemselves?4. How do you determine if a leader is worthy of your loyalty? How doyou determine when she or he no longer deserves that loyalty?
Notes1. Dennis, B., & Eilperin, J. (2018, April 26). Defending his record toCongress, EPA chief Pruitt shifts spending blame to staff. TheWashington 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 YorkTimes.3. Friedman, L., Lipton, E., & Davenport, C. (2018, July 6). Scott Pruitt’srocky relationship with his aides set the stage for his fall. The New YorkTimes.4. Plott, E. (2018, July 6). Inside Scott Pruitt’s tumultuous final months asEPA administrator. The Atlantic.
SourcesEilperin, 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 scandalsthat 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 Congressabout 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 onPruitt scandals. Reuters.Watkins, E., & Foran, C. (2018, July 5). EPA Scott Pruitt’s long list ofcontroversies. CNN.SELF-ASSESSMENT 1.1 Destructive Leader Behavior ScaleInstructions: Think of a leader, supervisor, or manager you haveworked with in the past five years. Rate this individual on each of thefollowing items. A rating of 1 indicates that this person neverengages in this behavior; a rating of 5 indicates that he or sheengages in this behavior very often.12345Never Very Often1. Avoids addressing important issues2. Denies subordinates things they are entitled to (e.g., lunchbreaks, vacation time)3. Disciplines subordinates a long time after the rule infractionoccurs4. Discounts feedback or advice from subordinates5. Fails to defend subordinates from attacks by others6. Fails to give subordinates credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort7. Falsely accuses or punishes subordinates for something theywere not responsible for
8. Ignores phone calls and/or e-mails9. Inadequately explains performance reviews10. Insults or criticizes subordinates in front of others11. Invades subordinates’ privacy12. Is confrontational when interacting with subordinates13. Says one thing and does another14. Shows no clear standards for administering rewards andpunishments15. Accepts financial kickbacks16. At times, appears to be under the influence of alcohol orrecreational drugs while at work17. Breaks the law while at work18. Falsifies documents19. Lets violations of company policy slide20. Litters the work environment21. Steals company funds22. Steals company property and resources23. Tells people outside the job what a lousy place he or she worksfor24. Uses company property for personal use25. Violates company policy/rules26. Brings inappropriate sexual material to work (e.g., pornography)27. Engages in romantic and/or sexual relationships with othersfrom work28. Hints that sexual favors will result in preferential treatmentScoring: Possible score ranges from 28 to 140. The higher the score,the greater your leader’s destructive behavior. You can alsodetermine the leader’s tendency to engage in three types ofdestructive behavior. Items 1–14 measure subordinate-directedbehavior. Items 15–25 measure organization-directed destructivebehavior. 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 measuringdestructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & OrganizationalStudies, 19, 230–255, p. 241. Used with permission of the publisher.SELF-ASSESSMENT 1.2 Personal Power ProfileInstructions: Below is a list of statements that describe possiblebehaviors of leaders in work organizations toward their followers.Read each statement carefully while thinking about how you prefer toinfluence others. Mark the number that most closely represents howyou feel.
StronglyDisagreeDisagreeNeitherAgreenorDisagreeAgreeStronglyAgreeI prefer toinfluenceothers by 1. increasingtheir pay level.123452. makingthem feelvalued.123453. givingundesirablejobassignments.123454. makingthem feel like Iapprove ofthem.123455. makingthem feel thatthey havecommitmentsto meet.123456. makingthem feelpersonallyaccepted.123457. makingthem feelimportant.12345
StronglyDisagreeDisagreeNeitherAgreenorDisagreeAgreeStronglyAgree8. givingthem goodtechnicalsuggestions.123459. makingthe workdifficult forthem.1234510. sharingmy experienceand/ortraining.1234511. makingthingsunpleasanthere.1234512. makingworkdistasteful.1234513. helpingthem get apay increase.1234514. makingthem feel theyshould satisfyjobrequirements.1234515. providingthem withsound job-related advice.12345
StronglyDisagreeDisagreeNeitherAgreenorDisagreeAgreeStronglyAgree16. providingthem withspecialbenefits.1234517. helpingthem get apromotion.1234518. givingthem thefeeling thatthey haveresponsibilitiesto fulfill.1234519. providingthem withneededtechnicalknowledge.1234520. makingthemrecognize thatthey havetasks toaccomplish.12345Scoring: Record your responses to the 20 questions in thecorresponding numbered blanks below. Total each column, thendivide the result by 4 for each of the five types of influence. RewardCoerciveLegitimateReferentExpert 13528 13914410
RewardCoerciveLegitimateReferentExpert 161118615 171220719Total Divide by4 Interpretation: A score of 4 or 5 on any of the five dimensions ofpower indicates that you prefer to influence others by using thatparticular form of power. A score of 2 or less indicates that you prefernot to employ this particular type of power to influence others. Yourpower profile is not a simple addition of each of the five sources.Some combinations are more synergistic than the simple sum of theirparts. For example, referent power magnifies the impact of otherpower sources because these other influence attempts are comingfrom a respected person. Reward power often increases the impactof referent power because people generally tend to like those whocan give them things. Some power combinations tend to produce theopposite of synergistic effects. Coercive power, for example, oftennegates 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 theFrench and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 74, 561–567. Reprinted with permission.
Notes1. 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 thereeven when you are not: Leading through strategy, structures, andsystems (pp. 173–193). Oxford, England: JAI Press.3. Palmer, p. 200.4. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why wefollow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—and how we cansurvive them. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.5. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how ithappens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress; Kellerman, B. (2008). Bad leadership—and ways to avoidit. 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 empiricalinvestigation of the antecedents, behaviors, and outcomes of badleadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1, 26–43.8. Shaw, J. B., Erickson, A., & Harvey, M. (2011). A method formeasuring destructive leadership and identifying types ofdestructive leaders in organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 22,575–590.9. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007).Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptualmodel. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216.
10. Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielson, M. B., &Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of destructive leadershipbehavior. British Journal of Management, 21, 438–452. For aclosely allied approach, see Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W.,Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the bone: Empiricallydefining and measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, 19, 230–255.11. Skogstad, A., Schanke Aasland, M., Birkeland Nielsen, M.,Hetland, J., Berge Matthiesen, S., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Therelative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannicalleadership on subordinate job satisfaction: Results from twoprospective and representative studies. Zeitschrift furPsychologie, 222, 221–232.12. Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects ofbad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and itsoutcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.13. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of GeneralPsychology, 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). AnnArbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.16. Johnson, C. E., & Hackman, M. Z. (2018). Leadership: Acommunication perspective (7th ed.). Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland, Ch. 5.17. Pfeffer, J. (1992, Winter). Understanding power inorganizations. California Management Review, 34, 29–50.18. Examples taken from Caudron, S. (1995, September 4). Theboss from hell. Industry Week, pp. 12–16; Terez, T. (2001,December). You could just spit: Tales of bad bosses. Workforce,
24–25; Bruzzese (2012, August 16). Employees share stories ofworst bosses ever. QuickBase.19. Townsend, M., & Deprez, E. E. (2018, May 9). Companieshave an aha! moment: Bullies don’t make the best managers.Bloomberg; Comaford, C. (2016, August 27). 75% of workersaffected by bullying—here’s what to do about it. Forbes; Williams,D. K. (2012, September 24). How much do bad bosses costAmerican businesses? Forbes.20. Hornstein, H. A. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey. NewYork, NY: Riverhead.21. Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: Apreliminary examination of antecedents and consequences.Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 126–140;Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteemand 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 empiricalreview. Journal of Management 43, 1940–1965. See also Zhang,Y., & Liao, Z. (2015). Consequences of abusive supervision: Ameta-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.
25. Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Bullying and harassment inthe workplace. In R. E. Kidwell, Jr., & C. L. Martin (Eds.),Managing organizational deviance (pp. 183–203). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.26. Keltner, D., Langner, C. A., & Allison, M. L. (2006). Power andmoral leadership. In D. L. Rhode (Ed.), Moral leadership: Thetheory and practice of power, judgment, and policy (pp. 177–194).San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Kipnis, D. (1972). Does powercorrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33–41;Galinsky, A. D., Guenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). Frompower to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,453–466; Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experienceof power: Examining the effects of power on approach andinhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 83, 1362–1377.27. Bailon, R. R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2000). Why dosuperiors attend to negative stereotypic information about theirsubordinates? 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 onstereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.28. Kaiser, R. B., & Craig, S. B. (2014). Destructive leadership inand of organizations. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook ofleadership and organizations (pp. 260–284). New York, NY:Oxford University Press.29. Information on income disparities is taken from the followingsources: Income inequality in the United States. (2018,September 12). Inequality.org; Berman, N. (2016). 10 of thelargest 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 richestpeople in America. Money; Hembree, D. (2018, May 22). CEOpay skyrockets to 361 times that of the average worker. Forbes.30. Wyland, M. (2017, March 6). Million-dollar compensation fornonprofit CEOS. Nonprofit Quarterly.
31. Lauletta, T. (2018, August 24). Urban Meyers pressconference was a disaster and only highlighted how poorly OhioState handled the situation. Business Insider; Wagner, D. (2014,June 9). VA scandal audit: 120,000 veterans experience longwaits for care. The Arizona Republic.32. Garside, J. (2016, April 3). A world of hidden wealth: Why weare 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 presidentTrump’s hotel in New York, revenue went up this spring—thanksto a visit from big-spending Saudis. The Washington Post.33. Popular DNA-testing companies build databases accessibleby law enforcement, third-party companies. Theblaze; Singer, N.(2018, August 3). For sale: Survey data on millions of high schoolstudents. The New York Times.34. Carter, S. (2014, August 3). A battlefield of drones and privacyin your backyard. Chicago Tribune; Pearce, M. (2014, September27). Growing use of police body cameras raises privacy concerns.Los Angeles Times; Zhang, B. (2018, July 30). The TSA has beensecretly monitoring US airline passengers using air marshals.Business Insider.35. See, for example, the following: Lohr, S. (2014), Unblinkingeyes track employees. The New York Times, p. A1; Rainey, M.(2012, April/May). Fired before you’re hired. INSIGHT intoDiversity, 18–21; Rosenberg, T. (2011, November 24). Anelectronic 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 workplaceprivacy. New York, NY: AMACOM.38. Olmsted, K. S. (2009). Real enemies: Conspiracy theories andAmerican democracy, World War I to 9/11. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.
39. Olmsted, pp. 8–9.40. Brissett, D., & Edgley, C. (1990). The dramaturgicalperspective. In D. Brissett & C. Edgley (Eds.), Life as theater: Adramaturgical sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 1–46). New York, NY:Aldine de Gruyter.41. Brown, D. J., Scott, K. A., & Lewis, H. (2004). Informationprocessing 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. Developmentof leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25years: 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 forshort taxi ride after telling nation to exercise more. The Sun.46. Werner, E., & Paletta, D. (2018, March 4). 10 years afterfinancial crisis, Senate prepared to roll back banking rules. TheWashington 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 loyalemployee? Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 495–511; Rosanas, J.
M., & Velilla, M. (2003). Loyalty and trust as the ethical bases oforganizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 49–59.48. Carter, B. (2018, February 9). Millennial employeeengagement & loyalty statistics: The ultimate collection . AccessPerks.49. Ghosh, B. (2010, March 29). Sins of the fathers. Time, 34–37;Pogatchnik, S. (2010, March 14). Abuse scandals hit CatholicChurch across Europe. The Oregonian, p. A11; Povoledo, E., &Otterman, S. (2018, July 28). Cardinal Theodore McCarrickresigns amid sexual abuse scandal. The New York Times.50. Graham, B. A. (2018, May 16). Michigan State reaches $500msettlement with survivors of Larry Nassar abuse. The Guardian.51. Fletcher, G. (1993). Loyalty: An essay on the morality ofrelationships. 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. NewYork, NY: Fordham University Press.53. Rampersad, A. (1997). Jackie Robinson. New York, NY: AlfredA. Knopf.54. Perez-Pena, R. (2018, February 13). British charity’s executiveresigns 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 ofSheryl Sandberg. The New Republic.
2 Stepping In and Out of theShadows
Learning Objectives> Identify the types of unhealthy leader motivations.> Explain how the “dark triad” of personality traits contributes tounethical 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 unethicalleadership.> Create a definition of ethical competence.> Develop a plan to expand personal ethical competence.Most people are selfish some of the time and somepeople are selfish most of the time.—LEADERSHIP RESEARCHERS ROBERT KAISERAND ROBERT HOGANGoodness is stronger than evil;Love is stronger than hate;Light is stronger than darkness;Life is stronger than death.—SOUTH AFRICAN ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU
What’s AheadIn this chapter, we look at why leaders step into the shadows andhow they can step out of the darkness. Shadow casters include(1) unhealthy motivations, (2) personality disorders, (3) faultythinking caused by mistaken assumptions, (4) failure of moralimagination, (5) moral disengagement, (6) lack of ethicalexpertise, 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 ourethical competence. Ethical development, like other forms ofleader development, incorporates assessment, challenge, andsupport. We can track our progress by adopting the skills andstrategies used by ethical experts.In Chapter 1, we looked at how leaders cast shadows. In thischapter, we look at why they do so. If we can identify the reasonsfor ethical failures (what I’ll call shadow casters), we can then stepout of the darkness they create. With that in mind, we’ll firstexamine common shadow casters. Then we’ll see how developingour ethical competence can equip us to meet these challenges.Remember that human behavior is seldom the product of just onefactor. For example, leaders struggling with insecurities areparticularly vulnerable to external pressures. Faulty decisionmaking and inexperience often go hand in hand; we’re moreprone to make poor moral choices when we haven’t had muchpractice. To cast more light and less shadow, we need to addressall the factors that undermine ethical performance.
Shadow Casters
Unhealthy MotivationsA good deal of the unethical behavior of leaders is driven byunhealthy motivations. Destructive motivations include innermonsters, unmet needs, self-centeredness, and greed.Inner MonstersParker Palmer believes that leaders project shadows out of theirinner darkness. That’s why he urges leaders to pay specialattention to their motivations, lest “the act of leadership createmore harm than good.” Palmer identifies five internal enemies or“monsters” living within leaders that produce unethical behavior.1I’ll include one additional monster to round out the list.Monster 1: Insecurity. Leaders often are deeply insecurepeople who mask their inner doubts through extroversion andby tying their identities to their roles as leaders. Who they areis inextricably bound to what they do. Leaders project theirinsecurities on others when they use followers to serve theirselfish needs.Monster 2: Battleground mentality. Leaders often use militaryimages when carrying out their tasks, speaking of wins andlosses, allies and enemies, and doing battle with thecompetition. For example, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is one leaderwho is ready to declare war on the competition. He is willingto lose millions in order to undercut competitors and captureproduct categories. He suggested that Amazon attack smallpublishing houses in the same way a cheetah attacks a sickgazelle.2 Acting competitively becomes a self-fulfillingprophecy; competition begets competitive responses inreturn. This militaristic approach can be counterproductive.More often than not, cooperation is more productive thancompetition (see Chapter 9). Instead of pitting departmentsagainst each other, for instance, a number of companies usecross-functional project teams and task forces to boostproductivity.
Monster 3: Functional atheism. Functional atheism is aleader’s belief that she or he has the ultimate responsibilityfor everything that happens in a group or an organization. AsPalmer describes it, “It is the unconscious, unexaminedconviction within us that if anything decent is going to happenhere, I am the one who needs to make it happen.”3 Thisshadow destroys both leaders and followers. Symptomsinclude high stress, broken relationships and families,workaholism, burnout, and mindless activity.Monster 4: Fear. Fear of chaos drives many leaders to stifledissent and innovation. They emphasize rules andprocedures instead of creativity and consolidate their powerinstead of sharing it with followers.Monster 5: Denying death. Our culture as a whole denies thereality of death, and leaders, in particular, don’t want to facethe fact that projects and programs should die if they are nolonger useful. Leaders also deny death through their fear ofnegative evaluation and public failure. Those who fail shouldbe given an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, not bepunished. Only a few executives display the wisdom of IBMfounder Thomas Watson. A young executive entered hisoffice after making a $10 million blunder and began theconversation by saying, “I guess you want my resignation.”Watson answered, “You can’t be serious. We’ve just spent$10 million educating you!”4Monster 6: Evil. There are lots of other demons lurking inleaders and followers alike—jealousy, envy, rage—but I wantto single out evil for special consideration, making it the focusof Chapter 4. Palmer doesn’t specifically mention evil as aninternal monster, but it is hard to ignore the fact that somepeople seem driven by a force more powerful than anxiety orfear. Evil may help us answer the question “Why?” whenwe’re confronted with monstrous shadows such as those castby the Holocaust, genocide in Myanmar, and ISIS terroristattacks.
Unmet NeedsPublic administration professor Marcia Lynn Whicker ties themotivation 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 leadersoperate at the highest levels of Maslow’s hierarchy—self-esteemand self-actualization.5 They have the emotional resources andstamina to provide support to their followers. Toxic leaders, on theother hand, experience arrested development due to a sense ofinadequacy. They focus solely on their security needs. Giving toothers is “alien” to them. Instead, they are out to protectthemselves through domination and control. Transitional leadersfall between trustworthy and toxic. They are fixed on meetingsocial needs. They want to belong and will serve theorganization’s objectives only if doing so will meet their personalneeds.Signs of untrustworthy leaders, both toxic and transitional, includethese mals: (1) maladjusted (poor fits with their positions andorganizations), (2) malcontent (continually dissatisfied withthemselves, their circumstances and others), (3) malfunction(personal interests take precedence over those of theorganization, which then begins to suffer), (4) malevolent (producefear in others), (5) malicious (vindictive, wishing to harm otherswho challenge them), and (6) malfeasance (engage in unethical,unprofessional and illegal behavior).
Self-CenterednessSelf-centered leaders are proud of themselves and theiraccomplishments. They lack empathy for others and can’t seeother points of view or learn from followers. They are tooimportant to do “little things” such as making their own coffee orstanding in line, so they hire others to handle these tasks forthem.6 Their focus is on defending their turf and maintaining theirstatus instead of on cooperating with other groups to serve thecommon good. Ego-driven leaders ignore creative ideas andvaluable data that come from outside their circles of influence.Goal blockage helps explain the impact of self-centeredness onbad leadership. If self-centered leaders believe that they can’tachieve money, status, organizational recognition, or other goals,they often respond with deviant and aggressive behavior. Theymight engage in fraud and embezzlement, for instance, ormistreat followers who appear to be keeping them from reachingtheir goals.7 However, success may pose just as great a danger.Successful leaders who reach their objectives often becomecomplacent and lose their focus. They shift their attention toleisure, entertainment, and other self-centered pursuits and fail toprovide adequate supervision. They begin to use resources—information, people, power—to fulfill their personal desires insteadof serving the group. Overconfident, they have the inflated beliefthat they can control the outcomes of a situation even when theycan’t.8Hubris describes the excessive pride of top leaders. The term firstappears in Greek mythology to refer to “a sense of overweeningpride, a defiance of the gods,” which generally ends in death anddestruction.9 The myth of Icarus is the best known of these myths.Icarus’s father fashioned a set of artificial wings out of wax andfeathers so that he and his son could escape the island wherethey were being held captive. Icarus ignored his father’s warningnot to fly too close to the sun. Infatuated with his ability to soarand the adoration of onlookers who mistook him for a god, Icarusrose too high. The wax on his wings melted and he crashed to his
death in the sea. Modern hubristic leaders equate themselves withtheir organizations and resist attempts to step down from power.Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner, for example, had a reputationfor arrogance, engaging in nasty court fights with top executiveshe hired and then fired. He had to be forced to retire and fewmourned his exit.10 CEOs driven by hubris are more likely toengage in unethical behavior because they ignore moralconsiderations when making decisions.11Greed is another hallmark of self-oriented leaders. They aredriven to earn more (no matter how much they are currently paid)and to accumulate additional perks. Greed focuses attention onmaking the numbers—generating more sales, increasingearnings, boosting the stock price, recruiting more students,collecting more donations. In the process of reaching thesefinancial 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 thecollapse of the U.S. housing market, can largely be attributed togreed.12 Mortgage brokers generated higher commissions andprofits by making risky and fraudulent loans. Borrowers often tookon too much credit, buying homes or consumer items theycouldn’t afford. Wall Street banks, eager to make money off of themortgage market, repackaged mortgages and sold them toinvestors as “low-risk” products in the United States, Europe, andelsewhere. AIG and other insurers generated revenue byguaranteeing what turned out to be toxic investments. Thefinancial system nearly collapsed when housing prices droppedand consumers defaulted on their loans, putting lenders,investment bankers, investors, and insurers at risk. Economicobservers worry that the pattern could repeat itself as the U.S.housing market heats up again with soaring prices and lowerdown payment requirements. (Case study 2.1 describes aprominent organization that fell victim to both hubris and greed.)
Personality DisordersA number of psychologists believe that unethical leadership is theproduct of destructive personality traits. They identify three closelyrelated traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—as the “dark triad” behind the dark side of leadership.13 (Box 2.1describes other personality traits that have also been linked to thedarker 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 reflectedin a pond. Like their ancient namesake, modern-day narcissistsare self-absorbed and self-confident. A certain degree ofnarcissism is normal and healthy, giving us faith in our ownabilities and enabling us to recover from setbacks. Moderatenarcissism appears to be a positive trait for leaders. Confident andoutgoing, narcissists often as emerge as leaders. They exudeconfidence, take bold action, and craft inspirational visions fortheir followers.14High 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 seekpositive feedback, lack empathy, and feel entitled to their powerand positions. They also have an unrealistic sense of what theycan accomplish. Narcissistic leaders engage in a wide range ofunethical behaviors. They seek special privileges, demandadmiration and obedience, abuse power for their personal ends,fail to acknowledge the contributions of subordinates, claim morethan their fair share, lash out in anger, are dishonest, ignore thewelfare of others, and have an autocratic leadership style.15A number of psychologists and ordinary citizens believe thatDonald Trump is America’s Narcissist-in-Chief.16 Mr. Trumpclearly likes to be the center of attention and is quick to claimcredit for achievements, real or imagined. When asked to rate hisperformance, he gives himself an A+. (He generally doesn’tapologize or admit mistakes.) The president is quick to lash out atcritics in tweets while embracing those who praise him. Even
working for the White House is risky, as Trump frequently turns onformer friends, colleagues, and supporters like Jeff Sessions, JimMattis, and Rex Tillerson. Mr. Trump frequently rejects the adviceof experts and advisors. For instance, he claimed to know morethan defense and intelligence officials who opposed his decisionto pull troops from the fight against ISIS in Syria. Nevertheless,millions of Americans continue to support the president, believingthat his policies and accomplishments outweigh the risk posed byhis self-absorption. (The Leadership Ethics at the Movies case inthe student study site describes another narcissistic leader.)Machiavellianism, like narcissism, is highly self-centered. RichardChristie and Florence Geis first identified this personality factor in1970. Christie and Geis named this trait after Italian philosopherNiccolò Machiavelli, who argued in The Prince that politicalleaders should maintain a virtuous public image but use whatevermeans necessary—ethical or unethical—to achieve their ends.17Highly Machiavellian individuals are skilled at manipulating othersfor their own ends. They have a better grasp of their abilities andreality than narcissists but, like their narcissistic colleagues,engage in lots of self-promotion, are emotionally cold, and areprone to aggressive behavior. Machiavellian leaders often engagein deception because they want to generate positive impressionswhile they get their way. They may pretend to be concerned aboutothers, for example, or they may assist in a project solely becausethey want to get in good with the boss. Machiavellians often enjoya good deal of personal success—organizational advancement,higher salaries—because they are so skilled at manipulation andat disguising their true intentions. Nonetheless, Machiavellianleaders put their groups in danger. They may be less qualified tolead than others who are not as skilled as they in impressionmanagement. They are more likely to engage in unethicalpractices that put the organization at risk because they want tosucceed at any cost. If followers suspect that their supervisors aremanipulating them, they are less trusting and cooperative, whichcan make the organization less productive.18Psychopathy makes up the third side of the dark triangle.Psychopaths have a total lack of conscience, which distinguishesthem from narcissists and Machiavellians, who are less ruthless
and may experience at least some feelings of guilt and remorsefor their actions.19 Psychopaths are attracted to organizations bytheir desire for power and wealth. Getting to positions of highpower is a game to them, and they are prepared to use any tacticto win. Extroverted, energetic, and charming, they find it easy toenter organizations. Once hired, they lie and manipulate others intheir single-minded pursuit of power and prestige. As a result oftheir surface charm, social abilities, and political skill, they oftenrise to the top of their companies. One study of Australianmanagers found that the percentage of psychopaths rose at everystep up the organizational hierarchy, with the highest percentagefound in senior management.20 Such leaders can undermine theethical decision-making processes and climate of entire groups.The destructive behaviors of psychopaths include the following:Engaging in fraudUnfairly firing employeesClaiming credit for the work of othersUsing the system to their own advantageIncreasing employee workloadsFailing to care for the needs of employeesExploiting employeesCreating conflicts between groups, generating chaosBullying and humiliating workersFocusing on short-term gain (their wealth and power)Disregarding the interests of investorsDamaging the environmentDisrupting organizational communicationPartnering with other psychopathsBox 2.1 Dark Side Personality TraitsRobert and Joyce Hogan designed a widely used survey to measuredark side personality factors beyond narcissism, Machiavellianism,and psychopathy. The Hogan Development Scale (HDS) tests for thefollowing dark side personality traits, each of which is related to apersonality disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental 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
are hardworking and careful but tend to micromanage, find it hard todelegate, and fail to see the big picture.ExcitableMoody and hard to please; intense, short-livedenthusiasm for people, projects, or thingsSample scaleitems:“Yells at people when theymake mistakes.” “Is easily upset.”SkepticalCynical, distrustful, and doubts others’intentionsSample scaleitems:“Needs attention.” “Feels mistreated.”CautiousReluctant to take risks for fear of rejection ornegative evaluationSample scaleitems:“Pessimistic.” “Tense and fearful.”ReservedAloof, detached, and uncommunicative; lackinginterest in or awareness of the feelings ofothersSample scaleitems:“Reserved and formal.” “Withdrawn.”LeisurelyIndependent; ignores requests from others andbecomes irritated if they persistSample scaleitems:“Feels overburdened.” “Holds grudges.”
BoldUnusually self-confident; feels grandiose andentitled; overestimates capabilitiesSample scaleitems:“Takes advantage of others.” “Expects specialconsideration.”MischievousEnjoys risk taking and testing the limits; needsexcitement; manipulative, deceitful, cunning,and exploitive.Sample scaleitems:“Bends the rules.” “Has no regrets.”ColorfulExpressive, animated and dramatic; wants tobe noticed and needs to be the center ofattentionSample scaleitems:“Craves attention.” “Life of the party.”ImaginativeActs and thinks in creative, and sometimes oddor unusual waysSample scaleitems:“Is eccentric.” “Is flighty.”Diligent:Meticulous, precise, and perfectionistic;inflexible about rules and procedures; critical ofothers’ performanceSample scaleitems:“Overly conscientious.” “Resistant to change.”
DutifulEager to please and relies on others for supportand guidance; reluctant to take independentaction or to go against prevailing opinionSample scaleitems:“Is predictable.” “Is indecisive.”The Hogans believe that identifying incompetent or dark leadershipserves a moral purpose. “Bad leaders make life miserable for thosewho must work for them,” the Hogans note. “By developing methodsof identifying bad managers we can help alleviate some of theunnecessary suffering of the working class.”Source: Adapted from Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001) Assessingleadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 9, 40–51. Used by permission.See alsoHarms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leaderdevelopment and the dark side of personality. The LeadershipQuarterly, 22, 495–509.Kaiser, R. B., & Craig, S. B. (2014). Destructive leadership in and oforganizations. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadershipand organizations (pp. 260–284). New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.
Faulty Decision MakingIdentifying dysfunctional motivations and personality traits is agood first step in explaining the shadow side of leadership. Yetwell-meaning, well-adjusted leaders can also cast shadows, as inthe case of Shell UK. In 1995, company officials decided todispose of the Brent Spar, a large floating oil storage buoy in theNorth Sea, by sinking it in deep water.21 This was the leastexpensive option for disposing of the structure, and the Britishgovernment signed off on the project. However, Shell and Britishgovernment leaders failed to give adequate consideration to theenvironmental impact of their proposal. Greenpeace activists, whowere trying to curb the dumping of waste and other contaminantsinto the world’s oceans, argued that deep-water disposal set abad precedent. They worried that scuttling the Brent Spar wouldbe the first of many such sinkings, and Greenpeace memberstwice occupied the Brent Spar in protest. Consumers incontinental Europe began boycotting Shell gas stations, andrepresentatives of the Belgian and German governmentsprotested to British officials. Shell withdrew its plan to sink thebuoy, and it was towed to Norway instead, where it was cut apartand made part of a quay. Shell later noted that this was a definingevent in the company’s history, one that made it more sensitive tooutside groups and possible environmental issues.Blame for many ethical miscues can be placed on the way inwhich decisions are made. Moral reasoning, though focused onissues of right and wrong, has much in common with other formsof decision making. Making a wise ethical choice involves many ofthe same steps as making other important decisions: identifyingthe issue, gathering information, deciding on criteria, weighingoptions, and so on. A breakdown anywhere along the way canderail the process. Problems typically stem from (1) unsoundassumptions and (2) failure of moral imagination.Decision-making experts David Messick and Max Bazermanspeculate that many unethical business decisions aren’t theproducts of greed or callousness but stem instead fromwidespread weaknesses in how people process information and
make decisions. In particular, executives have faulty theoriesabout how the world operates, about other people, and aboutthemselves.22Theories About How the World OperatesThese assumptions have to do with determining theconsequences of choices, judging risks, and identifying causes.Executives generally fail to take into account all the implications oftheir decisions. They overlook low-probability events, fail toconsider all the affected parties, think they can hide their unethicalbehavior from the public, and downplay long-rangeconsequences. In determining risk, decision makers generally failto acknowledge that many events happen by chance or are out oftheir control. America’s involvement in Vietnam, for example, waspredicated on the mistaken assumption that the United Statescould successfully impose its will in the region. Other times,leaders and followers misframe risks, thus minimizing thedangers. For instance, a new drug seems more desirable when itis described as working half of the time rather than as failing halfof the time.The perception of causes is the most important of all our theoriesabout the world because determining responsibility is the first stepto assigning blame or praise. In the United States, we’re quick tocriticize the person when larger systems are at fault. We mayblame salespeople for trying to sell us extended warranties thatare generally a waste of money. However, executives should beblamed for requiring their employees to push these products.Messick and Bazerman also point out that we’re more likely tocriticize someone else for acting immorally than for failing to act.We condemn the executive who steals, but we are less critical ofthe executive who doesn’t disclose the fact that another manageris incompetent.Theories About Other PeopleThese are our organized beliefs about how we differ from they(competitors, suppliers, managers, employees, ethnic groups).
Such beliefs, of which we may not be aware, influence how wetreat other people. Ethnocentrism and stereotyping are particularlydamaging.Ethnocentrism is the tendency to think that our group is betterthan other groups, that our way of doing things is superior totheirs. We then seek out (socialize with, hire) others who look andact like us. Military leaders often fall into the trap of ethnocentrismwhen they underestimate the ability of the enemy to resisthardships. For example, commanders have no trouble believingthat their own citizens will survive repeated bombings but don’tthink that civilian populations in other nations can do the same.Such was the case in World War II. The British thought thatbombing Berlin would break the spirit of the Germans, forgettingthat earlier German air raids on London had failed to drive Britainout of the war. American leaders believed that they could quicklyovercome Iraqi resistance in the second Gulf War. Instead,fighting continued for years.Stereotypes, our beliefs about other groups of people, are closelyrelated to ethnocentrism. These theories (women are weaker thanmen, the mentally challenged can’t do productive work) canproduce a host of unethical outcomes, including sexual and racialdiscrimination. (We’ll take a closer look at ethnocentrism andstereotyping in Chapter 11.)Theories About OurselvesThese faulty theories involve self-perceptions. Leaders need tohave a degree of confidence to make tough decisions, but theirself-images are often seriously distorted. Executives tend to thinkthat they (and their organizations) are superior, are immune todisasters, and can control events. No matter how fair they want tobe, leaders tend to favor themselves when making decisions. Top-level managers argue that they deserve larger offices, moremoney, and stock options because their divisions contribute moreto the success of the organization. Overconfidence is also aproblem for decision makers because it seduces them intothinking that they have all the information they need, so they fail to
learn more. Even when they do seek additional data, they’re likelyto 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 companyproperty because they are vital to the success of the corporation.Over time, they may come to believe that they aren’t subject to thesame rules as everyone else. University of Richmond leadershipstudies professor Terry Price argues that leader immoralitygenerally stems from such mistaken beliefs.23 Leaders know rightfrom wrong but often make exceptions for (justify) their ownactions. They are convinced that their leadership positions exemptthem from following traffic laws or from showing up to meetings ontime, for example.Leaders may justify immoral behavior such as lying or intimidatingfollowers on the grounds that it is the only way to protect thecountry or to save the company. Unethical leaders may alsodecide, with the support of followers, that the rules of moralityapply only to the immediate group and not to outsiders. Excludingothers from moral considerations—from moral membership—justified such unethical practices as slavery and colonization in thepast. In recent times, this logic has been used to justify separatingchildren 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 orshe will overestimate his or her abilities. Powerful leaders areparticularly likely to think they are godlike, believing they areomniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), andinvulnerable (safe from all harm).24 Top leaders can mistakenlyconclude they know everything because they have access tomany different sources of information and followers look to themfor answers. They believe that they can do whatever they wantbecause they have so much power. Surrounded by entourages ofsubservient staff members, these same officials are convincedthat they will be protected from the consequences of their actions.Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd, for example, believedthat he could get away with billing the company for unauthorized
travel expenses for a female employee who may have been hislover.
Failure of Moral ImaginationAccording to many ethicists, moral imagination—recognizingmoral issues and options—is key to ethical behavior and workshand in hand with moral reasoning in the decision-makingprocess.25 Moral imagination consists of three relatedcomponents: (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 leaderwith a vivid moral imagination. He proceeded with thedevelopment of the drug Mectizan, which treats the parasite thatcauses river blindness in Africa and South America, even thoughdeveloping the product would be expensive and there was littlehope that patients in poor countries could pay for it.26 When reliefagencies didn’t step forward to fund and distribute the drug, Merckdeveloped its own distribution systems in poor nations. Lostincome from the drug totaled more than $200 million, but thenumber of victims (who are filled with globs of worms that causeblindness and death) dropped dramatically. In contrast, NASAengineer Roger Boisjoly recognized the ethical problem oflaunching the space shuttle Challenger in cold weather in 1985but failed to generate a creative strategy for preventing thelaunch. He stopped objecting and deferred to management(normal operating procedure). Boisjoly made no effort to gooutside the chain of command to express his concerns to theagency director or to the press. The Challenger exploded soonafter liftoff, killing all seven astronauts aboard. Failure of moralimagination also contributed to the crash of the space shuttleColumbia 17 years later, as lower-level employees once againfailed to go outside the chain of command to express safetyconcerns.Moral imagination facilitates ethical reasoning because it helpsleaders step away from their typical mental scripts or schemasand to recognize the moral elements of events. Unfortunately, ourscripts can leave out the ethical dimension of a situation. Shellofficials failed to take into account the ethical considerations oftheir decision to sink the Brent Spar, for instance. To them, this
was a routine business decision, largely based on cost, that wouldsolve an oil industry problem—how to dispose of outdatedequipment cheaply. Or consider the case of Ford MotorCompany’s failure to recall and repair the gas tanks on the Pintosit manufactured between 1970 and 1976. The gas tank on thissubcompact was located behind the rear axle. It tended to ruptureduring any rear-end collision, even at low speed. When thishappened, sparks could ignite the fuel, engulfing the car in flames.Fixing the problem would have only cost $11 per vehicle, but Fordrefused to act. The firm believed that all small cars were inherentlyunsafe and that customers weren’t interested in safety.Furthermore, Ford managers conducted a cost–benefit analysisand determined that the costs in human life were less than what itwould cost the company to repair the problem.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finally forcedFord to recall the Pinto in 1978, but by that time, the damage hadbeen done. The company lost a major lawsuit brought by a burnvictim. In a trial involving the deaths of three Indiana teens in arear-end crash, Ford became the first major corporation to facecriminal, not civil, charges for manufacturing faulty products. Theautomaker was later acquitted, but its image was severelytarnished.Business professor Dennis Gioia, who served as Ford’s recallcoordinator from 1973 to 1975, blames moral blindness for thecompany’s failure to act.27 Ethical considerations were not part ofthe safety committee’s script. The group made decisions aboutrecalls based on the number of incidents and cost–benefitanalyses. Because there were only a few reports of gas tankexplosions and the expense of fixing all Pinto tanks didn’t seemjustified, members decided not to act. At no point did Gioia and hiscolleagues question the morality of putting a dollar value onhuman life or of allowing customers to die in order to save thecompany money. (Turn to Case Study 2.2, Wrecking the RecCenter, for another example of failed moral imagination.)Moral imagination also enhances moral reasoning by encouragingthe generation of novel alternatives. Recognizing our typicalproblem-solving patterns frees us from their power. We are no
longer locked into one train of thought but are better able togenerate new options. Consider the response of New York Citymayor Michael Bloomberg to the danger of possible violentdemonstrations during the 2004 Republican National Convention.Instead of trying to control the movement of protestors and puttingmore officers on the street (the typical response of mayors),Bloomberg offered peace demonstrators discounts at selecthotels, museums, and restaurants during the week of theconvention.
Moral DisengagementWhile moral decision making has much in common with otherforms of reasoning, it does have unique features. Most important,morality involves determining right and wrong based on personalethical standards. Normally, we feel guilt, shame, and self-condemnation if we violate our moral code by lying when webelieve in truth telling, telling a racist joke when we believe intreating others with dignity, and so on. According to StanfordUniversity social psychologist Albert Bandura, we frequently turnoff or deactivate these self-sanctions through the process of moraldisengagement. Moral disengagement helps account for the factthat individuals can have a clear sense of right and wrong yetengage in immoral activities. “People do not ordinarily engage inreprehensible conduct,” says Bandura, “until they have justified tothemselves the rightness of their actions.”28 As a result, they areable to commit unethical behavior with a clear conscience. Usingthe following mechanisms, they convince themselves that theirimmoral conduct is moral, minimize their role in causing harm, anddevalue the victims of their destructive behavior.29Turning Immoral Conduct Into Moral ConductMoral justification.Moral justification is a process of self-persuasion. Leadersconvince themselves that their harmful behavior is actually moraland beneficial. Team captains justify cheating and dirty play as away of protecting the team members or team honor. Hidingproduct defects is defended as a way to keep sales up and thussave the company and jobs.Euphemistic labelling.Euphemistic language has a sanitizing function, making harmfulbehavior appear more respectable and reducing personalresponsibility. Examples include referring to civilians accidently
killed in war as collateral damage and using the termdisfellowshipped to describe those kicked out of some Christianchurches. Leaders may also try to exonerate themselves byspeaking as if what they did was the product of nameless outsideforces. For instance, instead of saying, “I laid employees off,” theysay, “There were layoffs.” Or they may use language associatedwith legitimate enterprises to lend an aura of respectability toillegitimate ones. Members of the Mafia call themselves“businessmen” instead of criminals, for example, to make theiractivities appear more acceptable.Advantageous comparison.Contrast involves comparing unethical or criminal acts with evenworse activities, thus making them appear more tolerable. Insports, coaches and players excuse their use of bad language bycomparing this offense to more serious violations like fighting withopponents.Minimizing harm.Displacement of responsibility. Individuals are most likely tosanction themselves for bad behavior if they acknowledge theirrole in causing harm. Therefore, they often put the blame onsomeone else so as to minimize their responsibility for doingdamage to others. Followers may claim that they were followingorders when they inflated sales figures, for instance. Leadersoften distance themselves from illegal activities by remaining“intentionally uninformed.” They don’t go looking for evidence ofwrongdoing and, if wrongdoing occurs, dismiss these cases as“isolated incidents” caused by followers who didn’t understandcorporate policies.Diffusion of responsibility.Diffusing or spreading out responsibility also lessens personalaccountability for immoral behavior. In large organizations,division of labor reduces responsibility. For over a decade,employees in many different divisions of General Motors—
engineering, customer service, the legal department—knew abouta faulty ignition switch on the company’s small cars. However,they failed to notify their superiors, to communicate with eachother, to reach out to victims, or to offer a fix to the problem. Overa hundred deaths have been linked to the defective switch.30Disregard or distortion of consequences.Hiding suffering is one way to disregard the consequences ofharmful actions and reduce the likelihood of self-recrimination. Forexample, in drone warfare, plane operators cause death anddestruction thousands of miles away. Such physical separationmakes it easier to kill without remorse. Organizational hierarchiesalso hide destructive consequences, as executives may not seethe outcomes of their choices. They may never visit theiroppressive overseas manufacturing facilities, for instance. Or ifthey order layoffs, they may never come face to face with thedistraught employees they eliminated from the payroll.Devaluing VictimsDehumanization.It is easier to mistreat others if they are seen as less than fullyhuman. In extreme cases, dehumanization leads to rape,genocide, and other acts of atrocity. Viewing outsiders assavages, degenerates, or fiends encourages brutality.Dehumanization can be much more subtle, however. Manysocietal forces, such as urbanization, mobility, and technology,make it hard to relate to others in personal ways. When peopleare strangers, they are more likely to be targeted for mild forms ofexclusion 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 thedispute and each side considers itself faultless. Blaming the victim
is also common. If the victim is to blame, then the victimizer isfreed from guilt. Some sexual harassers, for instance, excuse theirbehavior by saying that certain women invite sexual harassmentby 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 tocheat or to hurt innocent people), but groups and organizationscommonly weaken sanctions for violating personal values. Asnoted above, leaders who engage in unethical acts often declarethat such behavior is essential to achieving worthy goals. Theyhelp displace responsibility when they order followers to engage inillegal activities. When some group members dehumanizeoutsiders, others in the group are more likely to do the same.(Turn to the Focus on Follower Ethics box for a closer look at howleaders encourage followers to disengage.)Using scales like the one found in Self-Assessment 2.2,researchers have discovered a strong link between moraldisengagement and unethical behavior in a variety of settings.31Disengaged children tend to be aggressive and delinquent. Notonly are they more likely to bully and to cyberbully, they have lessempathy for the victims of bullying. Morally disengaged gamersare more likely to torture and kill innocent civilians when playing.Males are more likely to choose “bad guys” as their avatars whengaming. Morally disengaged high school and college athletes aremore prone to antisocial behaviors, such as trying to injureopponents and breaking the rules of the game. At the same time,they are less likely to demonstrate such prosocial behaviors ashelping injured opponents or congratulating them for good play. Inthe work setting, the tendency to morally disengage increases thelikelihood of lying, deception, cheating, stealing, computerhacking, favoring the self at the expense of others, damagingcompany property, using illegal drugs, and making racist remarks.Citizens with a propensity for moral disengagement show highersupport for military aggression and harsh punishment forcriminals.Focus on Follower Ethics Why Good Followers Go Bad (and What toDo About It)
Followers are key to any large-scale criminal enterprise, majorscandal, or significant atrocity. Former Detroit mayor KwameKilpatrick, for example, looted a nonprofit fund for children and netted$9.6 million in an extortion scheme involving city contracts. To run hiscriminal operation, he enlisted the help of family, staff members,private contractors, and vendors. Thirty-four government officialswere convicted along with the mayor. Thousands of Wells Fargoemployees created fake customer accounts to boost corporateearnings. ISIS rebels photographed themselves beheading capturedIraqi soldiers.Since most people claim to have high personal standards, why do somany “good” followers engage in “bad” (illegal, unethical, cruel,inhuman) behavior? Moral disengagement is one answer to thisquestion. Followers appear particularly vulnerable to the influence ofmoral disengagement. They have less power, information, andstatus, which makes them susceptible to the manipulation ofunethical leaders who use the following tactics to persuade them todisengage:DisengagementMechanismLeader TacticCognitive ConstrualEmphasize that criminal activitiesserve moral ends (e.g., a largervision) Make loyalty to the leader andorganization the ultimate moralobligation Frame morally questionable activitiesas socially acceptable Re-label harmful actions as harmlessor beneficialDiffusion/Displacementof ResponsibilityRely on legitimate power to demandobedience Force subordinates to complythrough threats, persuasion,rewards, and punishments
DisengagementMechanismLeader Tactic Create bureaucratic structures whichobscure criminal and unethicaloutcomes Focus on positive benefits ofcompliance (e.g., earning money tosupport family) and not the negativeconsequences (e.g., consumers hurtby the product)Dehumanization ofVictimsEncourage followers to ignorevictims by focusing on profits andother goalsAs followers, we can resist the power of moral disengagement byrecognizing that we are always responsible for our actions. We canresist situational influences, as in the case of the Phoenix VeteransAffairs doctor who alerted authorities of falsified patient waiting listseven though his initial letters were ignored. To build your resistance,be alert to the danger of disengagement and your vulnerability as afollower. Never lose sight of personal your responsibility. Engage inself-questioning to short circuit the mechanisms of moraldisengagement. 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 thiscomparison to excuse my behavior?Mechanism: Displacement of responsibility.Query: Am I responsible for doing harm or damage eventhough I want to put blame on others?Mechanism: Diffusion of responsibility.Query: Am I refusing to take responsibility by trying to share theblame with others?Mechanism: Disregard or distortion of consequences.Query: Am I aware of all the possible harmful consequences ofmy actions?
Mechanism: Dehumanization.Query: Am I treating others as less than fully humanindividuals?Mechanism: Attribution of blame.Query: Am I blaming the other party or a victim to excuse myharmful actions?
SourcesAdapted from Johnson, C. E. (2014). Why “good” followers go “bad”:The power of moral disengagement. Journal of LeadershipEducation, 13(4), 36–50. See also Beu, D. S., & Buckley, M. R.(2004). This is war: How the politically astute achieve crimes ofobedience through the use of moral disengagement. LeadershipQuarterly, 15, 551–568.Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moraldisengagement in decision making: A study of antecedents andoutcomes. 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: Therole of leadership beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42,62–80.
Lack of Ethical ExpertiseLeaders may unintentionally cast shadows because they lack thenecessary knowledge, skills, and experience. Many of us havenever followed a formal, step-by-step approach to solving anethical problem in a group. Or we may not know what ethicalperspectives or frameworks can be applied to ethical dilemmas.When you read and respond to Case Study 2.3, for example, youmay have a clear opinion about whether or not you would supportputting company names and logos on space craft. You may beless clear about the standards you use to reach your conclusion,however. You might use a common ethical guideline (“some thingsshould never be commercialized”; “the public and private sectorsshould remain separate”; “the benefits of branding outweigh thecosts”) but not realize that you have done so.Emotions are critical to ethical decision making and action, aswe’ll see in Chapter 6. And it is possible to blunder into goodethical choices. Nevertheless, we are far more likely to make wisedecisions when we are guided by some widely used ethicalprinciples and standards. These ethical theories help us define theproblem, highlight important elements of the situation, force us tothink systematically, encourage us to view the problem from avariety of perspectives, and strengthen our resolve to actresponsibly.Lack of expertise undermines our confidence to act ethically—ourethical efficacy. Ethical efficacy is the conviction that we have themotivation and skills to make an ethical choice and follow throughon it. Our level of ethical efficacy has a direct impact on our moralbehavior. The lower our sense of ethical efficacy, the less likely wewill engage in such ethical behaviors as helping coworkers,confronting abusive supervisors, and trying to improve the ethicalclimate of our organizations.32
Contextual FactorsNot all shadow casters come from individual forces like unhealthymotivations, faulty decision making, and lack of expertise. Ethicalfailures are the product of group, organizational, and culturalfactors as well. Conformity is a problem for many small groups.Members put a higher priority on group cohesion than on comingup with a well-reasoned choice. They pressure dissenters, shieldthemselves from negative feedback, keep silent when theydisagree, and so on. Alternatively, they may be convinced there isagreement among group members when none exists.33 Membersof these shadowy groups engage in unhealthy communicationpatterns that generate negative emotions while undermining thereasoning process.Organizations can also be shadow lands. For instance, pay daylenders are known for taking advantage of the poor, as are rent-to-own furniture outlets. Although working in such environmentsmakes moral behavior much more difficult, no organization isimmune to ethical failure. Some companies focus solely on resultswithout specifying how those results are to be achieved, leavingemployees in a moral vacuum. Others reward undesirablebehavior or fail to punish those who break the rules. Instead, theirleaders punish employees who question actions and policies.Such was the case at Volkswagen. Managers and workers wereafraid to speak up about a device, installed in 11 million vehicles,that enabled the manufacturer to defeat emissions tests.34 Topmanagers may fire employees who talk about ethical issues sothat they can claim ignorance if followers do act unethically. This“don’t ask, don’t tell” atmosphere forces workers to make ethicalchoices on their own, without the benefit of interaction. Membersof these organizations seldom challenge the questionabledecisions of others and assume that everyone supports theimmoral acts.Socialization, as we’ll see in Chapter 10, can be an important toolfor promoting ethical climate. However, this process can alsoencourage employees to set their personal codes aside.Organizations use orientation sessions, training seminars,
mentors, and other means to help new hires identify with thegroup and absorb the group’s culture. Loyalty to and knowledge ofthe organization are essential. Nonetheless, the socializationprocess may blind members to the consequences of their actions.For example, leaders at Walmart, who are proud of the company’sculture and accomplishments, are often puzzled whenneighborhoods oppose their new supercenters and activistscriticize the company for low wages and poor treatment ofsuppliers. Some organizations may deliberately use thesocialization process to corrupt new members.Cultural differences, like group and organizational forces, alsoencourage leaders to abandon their personal codes of conduct.(We’ll examine this topic in more depth in Chapter 11.) Acorporate manager from the United States may be personallyopposed to bribery. Her company’s ethics code forbids suchpayments, and so does federal law. However, she may bribecustoms officials and government officials in her adopted countryif such payments are an integral part of the national culture andappear to be the only way to achieve her company’s goals.The toxic triangle is one attempt to explain how contextualfactors contribute to the process of destructive leadership.35 In thetoxic triangle, destructive leadership is not only the product oftoxic leaders, but of two additional forces: susceptible followersand conducive environments. Susceptible followers either conformor collude with destructive leaders. Conformers go along becausethey have unmet needs and low self-esteem, identifying with theleader who offers them a sense of direction and community.Conformers may also have an unconditional respect for authorityor fear punishment if they don’t obey. Colluders actively supporttheir leaders out of ambition (hoping to be rewarded) or becausethey believe in the leader’s goals and values. Conduciveenvironments incorporate four factors: instability, perceived threat,cultural values, and the absence of checks and balances andinstitutionalization. Instability and threats (i.e., bankruptcy,terrorism) allow leaders to centralize power in order to restoreorder and deal with the danger. If there are weak values or noinstitutionalized checks on the power of leaders, such as different
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 canundermine the ethical behavior of leaders and followers. However,this picture is incomplete, as we will explore in more depth in thelast section of the text. Leaders aren’t just the victims ofcontextual pressures but are the architects of the unethicalclimates, structures, policies, and procedures that cause groupsand organizations to fail in the first place. Corporate scandals aretypically the direct result of the actions of leaders who not onlyengage in immoral behavior but also encourage subordinates tofollow their example. They are poor role models, pursue profits atall costs, punish dissenters, reward unethical practices, and so on.
Stepping Out of the ShadowsNow that we’ve identified the factors that cause us to castshadows as leaders, we can begin to master them. To do so, wewill need to look inward to address our motivations; improve ourethical decision making; acquire ethical knowledge, strategies,and skills; and resist negative contextual influences as we createhealthy ethical climates. The remainder of this text is designed tohelp you accomplish all of these tasks.I hope you will view your ethical development as part of youroverall development as a leader. According to researchers at theCenter for Creative Leadership (CCL), we can expand ourleadership competence. The skills and knowledge we acquire—including those related to ethics—will make us more effective in awide variety of leadership situations, ranging from business andprofessional organizations to neighborhood groups, clubs, andchurches.36 CCL staff members report that leader development isbased on assessment, challenge, and support. Successfuldevelopmental experiences provide plenty of feedback that letsparticipants know how they are doing and how others areresponding to their leadership strategies. Such feedback can beformal (360-degree feedback, surveys) and informal (feedbackfrom 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 inself-reflection. Simply put, a leader learns to identify gapsbetween current performance and where he or she needs to beand then learns how to close those gaps.The most powerful leadership experiences also stretch orchallenge people. As long as people don’t feel the need tochange, they won’t. Difficult and novel experiences, conflictsituations, and dealing with loss, failure, and disappointment forceleaders outside their comfort zones and give them the opportunityto practice new skills. Each type of challenge teaches a differentlesson, so leaders need a variety of experiences. A formalleadership program can reveal a leader’s ethical blind spots, for
example, and experiencing failure can develop perseverance andresilience.To make the most of feedback and challenges, leaders needsupport. Supportive comments (“I appreciate the effort you’remaking to become a better listener.” “I’m confident that you canhandle this new assignment.”) sustain the leader during thestruggle to improve. The most common source of support is otherpeople (family, coworkers, bosses), but developing leaders canalso draw on organizational cultures and systems. Supportiveorganizations believe in continuous learning and staffdevelopment, provide funds for training, reward progress, and soon.All three elements—assessment, challenge, and support—shouldbe part of your plan to increase your ethical competence. Youneed feedback about how well you handle ethical dilemmas, howothers perceive your personality and character, and how yourdecisions affect followers. You need the challenges and practicethat come from moving into new leadership positions. Seek outopportunities to influence others by engaging in service projects,chairing committees, teaching children, or taking on a supervisoryrole. You also need the support of others to maximize yourdevelopment. Talk with colleagues about ethical choices at work,draw on the insights of important thinkers, and find groups that willsupport your efforts to change.Emeritus Wright State University ethics professor Joseph Petrickbelieves that we should develop three broad types of ethicalcompetencies.37 Cognitive decision-making competenceencompasses all the skills needed to make responsible ethicalchoices, including moral awareness, moral understanding, moralreasoning and dialogue, and the resolution of competingarguments and demands. Affective prebehavioral dispositioncompetence describes the motivation needed to act on ethicalchoices. To match our words with our deeds, we need to bemorally sensitive, empathetic, courageous, tolerant, andimaginative. Context management competence focuses oncreating and shaping moral environments. Essential contextmanagement skills involve managing formal compliance and
ethics systems, overseeing corporate governance, and exercisingglobal citizenship.Donald Menzel, former president of the American Society ofPublic Administration, identifies five important moral competenciesfor those serving in government, which can apply to those in otherprofessions as well.38 First, as leaders, we should be committedto high standards of personal and professional behavior. Second,we ought to understand relevant ethics codes and laws related toour organizations. Third, we have to demonstrate the ability toengage in ethical reasoning when confronted with moraldilemmas. Fourth, we must identify and then act on importantprofessional values. Fifth, we have to demonstrate ourcommitment to promoting ethical practices and behaviors in ourorganizations. In order to demonstrate competence, we need to39– strengthen our knowledge of ethics codes and standards;– strengthen our reasoning skills and the ability to identifydifficult ethical situations;– strengthen our problem-solving skills when a variety ofmoral principles, laws, principles, constituencies and thepublic interest must be considered;– strengthen our ability to advocate for principled decisions;– strengthen our self-awareness and consensus buildingskills to consider other positions and to work together onsolutions;– strengthen our ethics-focused attitudes and commitment.University of Notre Dame psychologists Darcia Narvaez andDaniel Lapsley offer the novice–expert continuum as one way totrack our ethical progress.40 They argue that the more we behavelike moral experts, the greater our level of ethical development.Ethical authorities, like experts in other fields, think differently thannovices. First, they have a broader variety of schemas (mentalframeworks) to draw from, and they know more about the ethicaldomain. Their networks of moral knowledge are more developedand connected than those of beginners. Second, they see theworld differently than novices. While beginners are oftenoverwhelmed by new data, those with expertise can quicklyidentify and act on relevant information, such as what ethical
principles might apply in a given situation. Third, experts havedifferent skill sets. They are better able than novices to define themoral problem and then match the new dilemma with previousethical 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 isappropriate.”41 As a result, they make faster, better moraldecisions.Narvaez and Lapsley argue that to become an ethical expert, youshould learn in a well-structured environment (like a college oruniversity) where correct behaviors are rewarded and where youcan interact with mentors and receive feedback and coaching. Youwill need to master both moral theory and skills (see Box 2.2). Youshould learn how previous experts have dealt with moral problemsand how some choices are better than others. As you gainexperience, you’ll not only get better at solving ethical problemsbut will also be better able to explain your choices. Finally, you willhave to put in the necessary time and focused effort. Ethicalmastery takes hours of practice wrestling with moral dilemmas.Box 2.2 Ethical Skills: A SamplerDarcia Narvaez developed the following list of ethical skills thatshould be incorporated into the training offered in ethical educationprograms. These are also the abilities that we need to develop asleaders and are addressed in this text. Narvaez developed the listafter surveying moral exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr. and virtuetheory, as well as scholarship in morality, moral development,positive psychology, and citizenship. Taken together, these skills helpus function well in a pluralistic democracy while promoting the healthof society as a whole.
Ethical Sensitivity (Recognition of EthicalProblems)Understanding emotional expressionTaking the perspective of othersConnecting to othersResponding to diversityControlling social biasInterpreting situationsCommunicating effectively
Ethical Judgment (Decision Making)Understanding ethical problemsUsing codes and identifying judgment criteriaReasoning generallyReasoning ethicallyUnderstanding consequencesReflecting on process and outcomeCoping and resilience
Ethical Focus (Motivation to ActEthically)Respecting othersCultivating conscienceActing responsiblyHelping othersFinding meaning in lifeValuing traditions and institutionsDeveloping ethical identity and integrity
Ethical Action (Following Through onMoral Decisions)Resolving conflicts and problemsAsserting respectfullyTaking initiative as a leaderImplementing decisionsCultivating couragePerseveringWorking hardSource: 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 thepublisher.It is important to note that making and implementing ethicaldecisions takes communication as well as critical thinking skills,as the list in Box 2.2 illustrates. We must be able to articulate ourreasoning, convince other leaders of the wisdom of our position,and work with others to put the choice into place. For instance, amanager who wants to eliminate discriminatory hiring practiceswill have to listen effectively, gather information, formulate andmake arguments, appeal to moral principles, and buildrelationships. Failure to develop these skills will doom the reformeffort.Implications and ApplicationsUnethical or immoral behavior is the product of a number offactors, both internal and external. You must address all ofthese elements if you want to cast light rather than shadow.Unhealthy motivations that produce immoral behavior includeinternal enemies (insecurity, battleground mentality, functionalatheism, fear, denying death, evil) and selfishness (pride,hubris, greed).The dark triad—narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy—isthree personality disorders linked to the dark side of leadership.Good leaders can and do make bad ethical decisions becauseof defective reasoning.Beware of faulty assumptions about how the world operates,about other people, and about the self. These can lead you to
underestimate risks and overestimate your abilities and value toyour organization. Avoid the temptation to excuse or justifyimmoral behavior based on your leadership position.Exercise moral imagination: Be sensitive to ethical issues, stepoutside your normal way of thinking, and come up with creativesolutions.Be alert to the process of moral disengagement, which involvespersuading yourself that immoral conduct is actually moral,minimizing the harm you cause, and devaluing the victims ofyour destructive actions.Leaders may unintentionally cast shadows because they lackthe necessary knowledge, skills, and experience.Conformity, supportive followers, socialization, culturaldifferences and other contextual pressures encourage leadersto engage in unethical behavior.Make your ethical development part of your larger leadershipdevelopment plan. The three key elements of any developmentstrategy are (1) assessment or feedback that reveals any gapsbetween current and ideal performance, (2) challenging(difficult, new, demanding) experiences, and (3) support in theform of resources and other people.Key ethical competencies involve making responsible ethicaldecisions, being motivated to follow through on moral choices,and shaping the moral environment. Be committed to highstandards of personal and professional behavior, understandrelevant codes and laws, demonstrate ethical reasoning, act onvalues, and promote ethical organizational practices andbehavior.To become more of an ethical expert, learn in a well-structuredenvironment, master moral theory and skills, and devote thenecessary time and effort to the task of ethical improvement.For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment1. In a group, identify unhealthy motivations to add to the listprovided in this chapter.2. Are you working with a narcissistic leader or colleague basedon the results of Self-Assessment 2.1? What steps can youtake to more effectively work with this individual?3. Evaluate a well-publicized ethical decision you consider to befaulty. Determine whether mistaken assumptions and/or lack ofmoral imagination were operating in this situation. Write up youranalysis.
4. Complete Self-Assessment 2.2, the Propensity to MorallyDisengage Scale. What do your results reveal about yourtendency to excuse your unethical behavior? What steps canyou take to avoid this form of faulty thinking?5. Analyze a time when you cast a shadow as a leader. Which ofthe shadow casters led to your unethical behavior? Write upyour analysis.6. Rate your ethical development based on your past experienceand education. Where would you place yourself on thecontinuum between novice and expert? What in yourbackground contributes to your rating?7. How much responsibility do followers have for supportingdestructive leaders? Are they more likely to morally disengagethan leaders? Discuss with a partner.8. Does your employer pressure you to abandon your personalmoral code of ethics? If so, how? What can you do to resistsuch pressure?9. Create a plan for becoming more of an ethical expert. Be surethat it incorporates assessment, challenge, and support. Revisityour plan at the end of the course to determine how effective ithas been.Student Study SiteVisit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGEjournal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.
Case Study 2.1Hubris and Greed at The FirmMcKinsey & Company is the world’s most prestigious and influentialconsulting business. McKinsey consultants (called partners) offer adviceto 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 iscredited with being the driving force behind such modern managementtrends as strategic planning, downsizing, cost cutting, multidivisionalmanagement structure, and high CEO salaries. According to author DuffMcDonald, who chronicled McKinsey’s history, “So pervasive is the firm’sinfluence today that it is hard to imagine the place of business in the worldwithout McKinsey.”1 Its alumni have served as CEOs or high-levelexecutives at Google, American Express, PepsiCo, Boeing, Sears, andAT&T. According to a USA Today survey, McKinsey is the best place towork if you want to become the CEO of a major corporation. (The oddsare 1 out of 690.) In Search of Excellence, The War for Talent and otherbest-selling business books were authored by McKinsey partners.Company employees and alumni take great pride in their association withMcKinsey. They refer to McKinsey, not by name, but as “The Firm.” TheFirm claims to hire only the best and brightest, many of them HarvardMBAs, who must undergo a rigorous “up or out” yearly review. (One fifthof newcomers fail and are released every year.) One senior partner calledthe company’s consultants “the greatest collection of talent the world hasever seen.”2 Convinced of its superior talent and services, McKinseycharges more than other consulting companies. It rarely admits failure,putting the blame, instead, on clients. Said another partner, “It’s almostnever that we fail because we come up with the wrong answer. We failbecause we don’t properly bring along management.”3 Apparentlybusinesses and governments believe that McKinsey’s advice is worth thepremium price even though McKinsey has been behind many of the “mostspectacular corporate and financial debacles of recent decades.”4 It toldAT&T that mobile phones had little future, for example, pushed for thefailed merger of AOL and Time Warner, and encouraged banks to makerisky loans (which contributed to the global recession of 2008). Enron’sJeffrey Skilling was a former McKinsey partner who hired The Firm tocarry out a number of projects at the energy company.Marvin Bower established the company’s values in the 1930s. His rulesincluded these: Put clients before profits, maintain client confidentiality, tell
the truth even if it offends the client, and only do necessary work that thefirm can do well. However, his successors as managing partner (CEO)often put more emphasis on making money, sometimes at the expense ofclients. Between 1994 and 2003, for example, managing partner RajatGupta focused on expansion and cost cutting. He ended “money wastingresearch” and pushed consultants to avoid projects worth less than $1million. Later managing partners tried to reemphasize corporate valuesbut the damage was done. In 2009, former McKinsey director Anil Kumarwas convicted of supplying inside information to a hedge fund manager inreturn for pay offs. In 2011, Rajat Gupta (after he left the firm) wasconvicted of leaking information he obtained while serving on the boardsof Goldman Sachs and Procter & Gamble.McKinsey employees and alumni, while shocked at how Kumar andGupta violated client confidentiality, could console themselves that bothmen acted on their own and not on behalf of the firm. That was not thecase when the company decided to do business with the government ofSouth Africa. McKinsey entered into an agreement with the nation’sunderperforming electricity supplier, Eskom. Needing a local partner tosecure the contracts, McKinsey worked with Trillian, a consulting firmconnected to the powerful Gupta family. In addition, the fee structure,rather than a set amount, was to be based on results, which wouldpotentially generate higher profits but could mean no payout if the firmfailed.The South African partnership and fee structure soon embroiledMcKinsey in the greatest crisis in its history, one that eclipsed the insidertrading scandal. The Guptas are accused of using their connections toSouth Africa’s former president Jacob Zuma and his son to securepolitical appointments and contracts. Critics claim the Gupta family hasengaged in “state capture”—taking over South Africa’s economy andgovernment for their personal benefit. Some of the money paid to Trillianallegedly went to bribe government officials and to line the pockets of theGuptas. The contract was never approved by the South Africangovernment. South Africans—many of them impoverished—wereoutraged at the fee ($117 million) collected by McKinsey from Eskom. Thefinancial condition of the electric company worsened after McKinsey washired and the price of electricity went up.McKinsey’s leaders ignored a number of warning signs when deciding toenter the South African market. Some partners objected to the contractwith Eskom, noting the country’s corruption and that the contract wasawarded without competitive bidding. They worried that Eskom was sotroubled that it couldn’t be fixed. Said one former partner who objected tothe deal, “Trying to a 100 percent at-risk contract at Eskom is trying toplay God. You are really guaranteeing that I can turn around everything,
no problem.”5 Another warned that the South African office would be“slaughtered” for the size of the contract. However, the firm decided to goforward, apparently driven in large part by hubris and greed. SouthAfrican staff overestimated their knowledge of the local political situationand their ability to turn Eskom around. The partners in charge of energyprojects for McKinsey apparently couldn’t resist a contract that had thepotential to be the biggest ever in Africa. According to David Lewis,director of the South African nonprofit Corruption Watch, “For the scale ofthe fee, they were prepared to throw caution to the wind, and maybebecause they thought they couldn’t be touched.”6The scandal seriously damaged the firm’s reputation. It also lost a numberof South African clients, including Coca Cola and petrochemical companySasol Ltd. Social activists picketed McKinsey and the company waspilloried on social media. Current managing partner Kevin Sneaderacknowledges that the trust of South Africans in McKinsey is“understandably, very low.”7 He pledged to address mistakes, includingthe failure of the firm’s governance structure. He also admitted that thecompany had failed to improve Eskom and that the fee was too large.Sneader further noted that McKinsey was “too distant to understand thegrowing anger in South Africa” over state corruption.8 He appointed anew director of the Africa division and replaced much of its staff.McKinsey repaid the 11.7 million it charged Eskom. However, these stepsmay not be enough to satisfy South Africans. South African parliamentaryleaders filed fraud and racketeering charges and urged the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission and Britain’s Serious Fraud Officeto investigate. Corruption Watch’s Lewis echoed the thoughts of manySouth African critics when he declared, “We will not be satisfied withanything other than criminal convictions.”9
Discussion Probes1. When does healthy pride become hubris? How can you tell thedifference?2. What steps should leaders take to make sure that profit doesn’tbecome more important than values?3. How can leaders and organizations keep from becomingoverconfident?4. Given South Africa’s widespread poverty, was McKinsey’s feeunethical?5. What can other leaders and organizations learn from the experienceof The Firm?
Notes1. McDonald, D. (2013). The firm: The story of McKinsey and its secretinfluence on American business. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster.2. Chu, B. (2014, February 7). McKinsey: How does it always get awaywith it? The Independent.3. Chu.4. Chu.5. Bogdanich, W., & Forsythe, M. (2018, June 26). How McKinsey lost itsway in South Africa. The New York Times.6. Bogdanich & Forsythe.7. Bogdanich & Forsythe.8. Burkhardt, P. (2018, July 9). McKinsey apologizes for overchargingSouth African power utility. Bloomberg.9. Brock, J. (2018, July 9). McKinsey overhauls South Africa office aftergraft scandal. Reuters.
SourcesBurkhardt, P., & Bonorchis, R. (2017, September 14). McKinsey andKPMG 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’ssprawling corruption scandal. CNNMoney.Why McKinsey is under attack in South Africa (2017, October 12). TheEconomist.
Case Study 2.2Wrecking the Rec CenterStrong Lives, a regional nonprofit, operates the recreation center for theMinnesota town of Forest Lake. The city subsidizes the center’s operationand residents who join pay a membership fee. The facility houses cardioand weight equipment, a swimming pool and teen center, exerciseclassrooms, and a large community room. Low income residents pay lessfor their memberships, which are subsidized through donations. Thosewith physical and mental disabilities use the equipment weekly. Memberscan take a variety of exercise and health classes and a number ofcommunity groups (Alcoholics Anonymous, ALANON, book clubs, job-seeker groups, mental health support groups, seniors) make regular useof the large meeting room. A survey found strong support for therecreation center, with 80% of the town’s residents approving of currentoperations.When Strong Lives’ 20-year contract with Forest Lake came up forrenewal, the mayor and several city council members objected tocontinuing the partnership. They claimed that too much of the money paidby the city went to support Strong Lives operations in other towns. Theyargued that the town could reduce its costs by contracting with a privatehealth club like Planet Fitness or Gold’s Gym. The council then solicitedbids for the new contract. The winning (lowest) bid came from NorthernHealthy, which operates a network of private health clubs in the upperMidwest. Strong Lives came in second. In order to operate at reducedcost, Northern Healthy would eliminate programs for special needs andlow income residents and would convert the community room intoadditional work out space. Membership rates would increase. Most of thecurrent employees would be replaced and new ones hired at reducedsalaries.Reaction to the council’s decision was fast and furious. Opponentsbombarded council members with e-mails not only protesting themembership fee increase but pointing out that the recreation center wasreally a community activity center and that service to the needy would endif Northern Healthy took over operations. The council held firm, however,defending its decision based on the potential cost savings. Frustrated withthe mayor and those who voted for the new contract, the oppositionlaunched a successful recall drive. The mayor and her supporters wereremoved from office. The new mayor and replacement council memberscancelled the contract with Northern Healthy and renewed the agreementwith Strong Lives.
Discussion Probes1. What are the ethical considerations in this situation?2. How did the mental script of the mayor and council membersprevent them from understanding the moral elements of thissituation?3. How is the decision of the council an example of failed moralimagination?4. What solutions might have addressed the concerns of the councilwithout cancelling the current contract?
Case Study 2.3Brands in SpaceCorporate 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, spaceshuttles, and the International Space Station. Imagine the next Mars roveras 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.1The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) isconsidering selling naming rights to spacecraft, renting space on theInternational Space Station, and allowing astronauts to appear incommercials. NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine formed an advisorycommittee to explore the possibility of boosting the NASA brand throughcorporate sponsorships. Bridenstine hopes to raise money for his agency.Bridenstine also hopes to raise the visibility of NASA and to make spaceactivities a more important part of American culture. He believes thatpromoting astronauts, such as putting them on the covers of cerealboxes, 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 tosee them grow up wanting to a NASA astronaut, or a NASA scientist.”2Astronauts earning endorsement money would be less likely to leave forprivate space companies like SpaceX and Boeing after the public hasspent 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 coveredchocolates.” Current ethics rules prevent government officials, includingastronauts, from using their offices for private gain. Astronauts are evenforbidden from carrying out experiments that might have commercialapplications. NASA allows Target, Old Navy, and other retailers to use itslogo on T-shirts, hats, wallets, backpacks, and other items but makes nomoney off these sales. If the agency changes its policy, it wouldn’t be thefirst to commercialize space. Pizza Hut paid $1 million to put its logo on aRussian rocket and two Russian cosmonauts appeared on QVC toendorse a pen they used to write when weightless. A Canadian astronautsang David Bowie’s song “Space Oddity” while on the space station andthen sold the recording after returning to earth.Critics of commercialization note that selling endorsement rights might notmake a big dent in NASA’s budget because the costs of individualprojects can run billions of dollars. Without an act of Congress, any
money collected would go into the treasury, not to the agency, to pay forother government programs. Congress might cut back on funding if itthinks NASA has income from private sources. Observers worry thatastronauts receiving money from corporations would have to decidebetween 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 RobertPearlman, “Spaceflight has fostered the idea of space being something ofa pristine atmosphere. We leave our problems behind and for somepeople, branding has gone overboard here on Earth.”3 Congressionalrepresentatives may object to additional commercial ties. In response to a1993 proposal to put a billboard in space, then Congressman (nowSenator) Ed Markey quipped,Every sunrise and sunset would beam down the logo of Coke orGM or the Marlboro Man. That would turn our morning andevening skies, often a source of inspiration and comfort, into themoral equivalent of the side of a bus.4
Discussion Probes1. 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 opposenaming spacecraft and permitting product sponsorships? Would youlimit what could be advertised?5. Are there some things and events that should never becommercialized? Why?
Notes1. Grush, L. (2018, September 11). Product placement may help powerNASA’s next big space mission. The Verge.2. Davenport, C. (2018, September 10). Why NASA’s rockets next rocketsmay say Budweiser on the side. The Washington Post.3. Grush.4. Davenport.
SourcesBoyle, A. (2018, August 30). Commercial branding on spacecraft? Fivekey points in NASA’s evolving space vision. GeekWire.Chang, K. (2018, September 12). (Corporate name here) Rocket? NASAasks 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 sellnaming rights for spaceships. The Telegraph.SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.1 Narcissistic Leader ScaleInstructions: Think about one of your leaders who is causing youunhappiness and stress. To determine if this person may bedemonstrating narcissistic tendencies, answer each of the followingquestions.1. Do you often feel that you only exist for the purpose of listeningto 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 ofpride? Do you feel hesitant to give your opinion when you knowyour opinion will be different from hers or his?4. Do you frequently feel that the outcome of your conversationrests 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 fromher 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 isgoing 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 workingrelationship with him or her?11. Do you notice yourself doubting what’s real?12. Do you frequently feel frustrated, angry, or resentful aftercommunicating with this person?13. Do you increasingly experience a mix of feelings, such asanxiety, intimidation, powerlessness, or inadequacy?14. Do you feel set up as a scapegoat?
Scoring: If you are experiencing several of the feelings describedabove, you may be dealing with a leader who has narcissist traits.You can also use this scale to evaluate the possible narcissisticbehaviors of a coworker by substituting “colleague” for “boss.”Source: Germain, N.-L. (2018). Narcissism at work: Personalitydisorders of corporate leaders. London, England: PalgraveMacmillan, p. 89. Used by permission.SELF-ASSESSMENT 2.2 Propensity to Morally Disengage ScaleInstructions: Respond to each item below on a scale of 1 (stronglydisagree) to 7 (strongly agree).1234567Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1. It is okay to spread rumors to defend those you care about.2. Taking something without the owner’s permission is okay aslong 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 questionablethings when they were just doing what an authority figure toldthem to do.5. People can’t be blamed for doing things that are technicallywrong when all their friends are doing it too.6. Taking personal credit for ideas that were not your own is no bigdeal.7. Some people have to be treated roughly because they lackfeelings that can be hurt.8. People who get mistreated have usually done something tobring it on themselves.Scoring: Add up your scores on the eight scale items. Possible totalscore ranges from 8 to 56. The higher the score, the greater yourpropensity for or likelihood of participating in the process of moraldisengagement.Source: Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer,D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagementand unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1–48. Used with permission.
Notes1. 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 ageof Amazon. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.3. Palmer, p. 205.4. Garvin, D. A. (1993, July/August). Building a learningorganization. Harvard Business Review, 78–91.5. Whicker, M. L. (1996). Toxic: leaders: When organizations gobad. Westport, CT: Quorum.6. Nash, L. L. (1990). Good intentions aside: A manager’s guide toresolving ethical problems. Boston, MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress.7. Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013).Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, andfuture research agenda. Journal of Management, 39, 1308–1338.8. Ludwig, D. C., & Longenecker, C. O. (1993). The Bathshebasyndrome: The ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal ofBusiness 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 BusinessEthics, 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.
12. Michaelson, A. (2009). The foreclosure of America: The insidestory of the rise and fall of Countrywide Home Loans, themortgage crisis, and the default of the American dream. NewYork, NY: Berkley Books; Wilmers, R. G. (2009, July 27). Wherethe 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 ofpersonality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563; Furnham, A.,Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad ofpersonality: 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 developmentdeconstructed (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 SocialPsychology Bulletin, 34, 1663–1676; Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D.A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary communication qualities asmediators of the relationship between narcissism and attributionsof leader charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63, 509–537; Grijalva,E., & Harms, P. D. (2014). Narcissism: An integrative synthesisand dominance complementarity model. Academy ofManagement 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 andnonlinear 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 andnarcissism. Journal of Change Management, 9, 165–178; Lubit,R. (2002). The long-term organizational impact of destructivelynarcissistic managers. Academy of Management Executive, 18,
127–183; Maccoby, M. (2003). The productive narcissist. NewYork, NY: Broadway Books; McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D.(2010). The corporate reflecting pool: Antecedents andconsequences of narcissism in executives. In B. Schyns & T.Hansbrough (Eds.), When leadership goes wrong: Destructiveleadership, 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+ onpresidency: “Can I go higher than that?” HillTV; Nutt, A. E. (2016,July 22). Is Donald Trump a textbook narcissist? The WashingtonPost.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 AppliedCommunication 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 modelof Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 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 workbehavior. 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 inglobal business: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs,10, 121–138.20. Boddy, C. R. (2011). Corporate psychopaths: Organisationaldestroyers. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
21. Jourdan, G. (1998). Indirect causes and effects in policychange: The Brent Spar case. Public Administration, 76, 713–770;Zyglidopoulus, S. C. (2002). The social and environmentalresponsibilities of multinationals: Evidence from the Brent Sparcase. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 141–151.22. Messick, D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996, Winter). Ethicalleadership and the psychology of decision making. SloanManagement Review, 37(2), 9–23.23. Price, T. L. (2006). Understanding ethical failures inleadership. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.See also De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). When and whyleaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resourceallocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 35, 553–563.24. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Smart people are not stupid, but theysure can be foolish. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Why smart peoplecan be so stupid (pp. 232–242). New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.25. See Caldwell, D. F., & Moberg, D. (2007). An exploratoryinvestigation of the effect of ethical culture in activating moralimagination. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 193–204; Godwin, L.N. (2015). Examining the impact of moral imagination onorganizational decision making. Business & Society, 54, 254–278;Guroian, V. (1996). Awakening the moral imagination.Intercollegiate Review, 32, 3–13; Johnson, M. (1993). Moralimagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press; Kekes, J. (1991). Moralimagination, freedom, and the humanities. American PhilosophicalQuarterly, 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 oftriumph and disaster and their lessons for us all. New York, NY:Times Books; Werhane, P. H. (1999). Moral imagination andmanagement decision-making. New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.
27. Gioia, D. A. (1992). Pinto fires and personal ethics: A scriptanalysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11,379–389.28. Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in theexercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101–119, p. 103.29. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetrationof inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3,193–209; Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., &Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in theexercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 71, 364–374.30. Korosec, K. (2015, August 24). Ten times more deaths linkedto faulty switch than GM first reported. Fortune.com.31. Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli; Barsky, A.(2011). Investigating the effects of moral disengagement andparticipation on unethical work behavior. Journal of BusinessEthics, 104, 59–75; Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2007).Development and validation of the Moral Disengagement in SportScale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 608–628;Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2008). The MoralDisengagement in Sport Scale—Short. Journal of SportsSciences, 26, 1507–1517; Hartmann, T. (2012). Moraldisengagement 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? Personalitypredictors of morality and ethics in avatar selection for video gameplay. 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: Moraldisengagement and unethical organizational behavior. PersonnelPsychology, 65, 1–48; Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moraldisengagement among bystanders to school bullying. Journal ofSchool Violence, 10, 239–257; Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moraldisengagement in self-reported and peer-nominated school
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 disengagementand motivated forgetting. Harvard Business School WorkingPaper 09-078.32. Mitchell, M. S., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). The managerialrelevance of ethical efficacy. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerialethics: Managing the psychology of morality (pp. 9–108). NewYork, NY: Routledge.33. Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: HoughtonMifflin; Harvey, J. B. (1988). The Abilene paradox and othermeditations 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 susceptiblecircle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructiveleadership. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 897–917.36. McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2010). The Centerfor Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (3rded.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, p. 4.37. Petrick, J. A. (2008). Using the business integrity capacitymodel 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 ethicalcompetence. In T. L. Cooper & D. D. Menzel (Eds.), Achievingethical competence for public service leadership (pp. 3–24).Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe; Menzel, D. C. (2010). Ethics momentsin government: Cases and controversies. Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress.
39. Meine, M. F., & Dunn, T. P. (2013) The search for ethicalcompetency: Do ethics codes matter? Public Integrity, 15, 149–166.40. Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2005). The psychologicalfoundations of everyday morality and moral expertise. In D. K.Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Character psychology andcharacter education (pp. 140–165). Notre Dame, IN: University ofNotre Dame Press.41. Narvaez & Lapsley, p. 151.
Part II Looking InwardChapter 3. The Leader’s Character 70Chapter 4. Combating Evil 108
3 The Leader’s Character
Learning Objectives> Define virtues from a philosophical and psychological perspective.> Argue for the importance of each of the nine ethical leadershipvirtues.> Contrast the two approaches to moral identity.> Demonstrate how character is caught through observing rolemodels.> 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 tocharacter development.The course of any society is largely determined by thequality of its moral leadership.—PSYCHOLOGISTS ANNE COLBY AND WILLIAMDAMONWe are moral beings because we have no choice—oursurvival and our success as social beings depends onvirtue.—POLITICAL SCIENTIST MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
What’s AheadThis 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 ofpositive traits or virtues. We promote our character developmentdirectly by addressing individual virtues or indirectly by finding rolemodels, telling and living collective stories, learning from hardship,establishing effective habits, determining a clear sense ofdirection, and examining our values.
Elements of CharacterIn football, the best defense is often a good offense. When facedwith high-scoring opponents, coaches often design offensivegame plans that run as much time as possible off the clock. Ifthey’re successful, they can rest their defensive players whilekeeping the opposing team’s offensive unit on the sidelines. Bybuilding strong, ethical character, we take a similar proactiveapproach to dealing with our shadow sides. To keep fromprojecting our internal enemies and selfishness on others, weneed to go on the offensive, replacing or managing our unhealthymotivations through the development of positive leadership traitsor 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 formaintaining relationships and for fulfilling organizational andfamilial duties.1 The most important Confucian virtue isbenevolence—treating others with respect and promoting theirdevelopment. 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 ofindividual character. In other words, good people—those of highmoral character—make good moral choices. Aristotledistinguished between intellectual virtues (prudence and wisdomthat provide us with insight) and moral virtues (courage,generosity, justice, wisdom). The exercise of virtues enables us toflourish, to live the best life possible. We are happiest when livingwell—effectively using our capacities to achieve our purpose ashumans.2Despite its longevity, virtue ethics has not always been popularamong scholars. They turned instead to the ethical theories we’lladdress in detail in Chapter 5. Only in recent times have modernphilosophers turned back to the virtue approach in significantnumbers, attracted in part by its usefulness in everyday life. Wemust make a lot of ethical decisions on the spot, with no time to
apply detailed ethical guidelines or rules.3 For example, when afollower tells a sexist or racist joke, do we confront the joker?When a fellow student thinks she made a great presentation (butdidn’t) and asks us for confirmation, do we tell the truth or lie toprotect her feelings? When a foreign official approaches us for abribe, do we pay or not? We will respond in a more ethical mannerif our character is marked by integrity, courage, and other virtues.From a philosophical perspective, virtues have four importantfeatures. First, they are not easily developed or discarded butpersist over time. Second, virtues shape the way leaders see andbehave. Being virtuous makes leaders sensitive to ethical issuesand encourages them to act morally. Third, once developed,virtues are less influenced by the situation. A virtue may beexpressed in different ways, depending on the context (what isprudent in one situation may not be in the next). Yet virtuousleaders will not abandon their principles to please followers.Fourth, virtues help leaders live better (more satisfying, morefulfilled) lives.4Positive psychologists, like philosophers, are also interested invirtue ethics. Positive psychology is based on the premise that it isbetter to identify and promote the strengths of individuals insteadof repairing their weaknesses (which is the approach of traditionalpsychologists).5 Proponents of positive psychology treat virtues asmorally valued personality traits. Under this definition,extraversion would not be considered a virtue because, though apersonality trait, it is not considered ethically desirable orundesirable. Wisdom, on the other hand, would be considered avirtue because it is widely recognized and honored acrosscultures. Positive psychologists identify six broad categories ofcharacter strengths:6Wisdom and knowledge—cognitive strengths entailing theacquisition and use of knowledgeCourage—an emotional strength involving the exercise of willto accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external orinternalHumanity—an interpersonal strength that involve tending toand befriending others
Justice—a civic strength underlying healthy community lifeTemperance—a strength protecting against excessTranscendence—a strength that forges connections to thelarger universe and provides meaningSome of the virtues identified by philosophers and psychologistsappear 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—inthe pages to follow. In addition to describing each virtue and itsimportance to leaders, I’ll suggest ways to practice that strength inorder to develop it.
CourageCourage is being scared to death—and saddling upanyway.—Cowboy actor John WayneCourage is overcoming fear in order to do the right thing.7Courageous leaders acknowledge the dangers they face and theiranxieties. Nonetheless, they move forward despite the risks andcosts. The same is true for courageous followers—see Focus onFollower Ethics: Courageous Followership below. Courage is mostoften associated with acts of physical bravery and heroism, suchas saving a comrade in battle or rescuing a drowning victim.Nevertheless, most courageous acts involve other forms ofdanger, such as when a school principal faces the wrath ofparents for suspending the basketball team’s leading scorerbefore the state tournament or when a manager confronts hisboss about unauthorized spending even though he could lose hisjob for speaking up. Such acts demonstrate moral courage, whichinvolves living out one’s personal values even when the price fordoing so may be high.8 The #MeToo movement, whichencourages women to share their stories of sexual harassment,misconduct, and violence, was started by courageous individualswho refused to keep silent about their experiences. Timemagazine named Ashley Judd, Susan Fowler, Taylor Swift, RoseMcGowan and other “silence breakers” as its 2017 Person of theYear. To speak up, these brave women (and men) from all walksof life—actors, engineers, military personnel, hotel housekeepers,entrepreneurs, journalists—had to overcome feelings of shame,risk their jobs and careers, and endure physical threats andintimidation. (The Harvey Weinstein case in Chapter 1 illustrateshow powerful sexual predators silence their victims.) Millionsaround the world have used the #MeToo hashtag. According toTime’s editor-in-chief, “It became a hash tag, a movement, areckoning, but it began, as great social change nearly alwaysdoes, with individual acts of courage.”9
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 Tolift his family out of bankruptcy, Grant set out to write his memoirs.However, shortly after starting the project, he was diagnosed withan inoperable throat tumor. Grant refused to rest but continuedwriting as his condition worsened. Speaking and eating wereextremely painful and he constantly coughed and vomited. Theformer 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 asan important historical record.Focus on Follower Ethics Courageous FollowershipIra Chaleff, who acts as a management consultant to Congressionaloffices, government agencies, and companies, believes that courageis the most important virtue for followers. Exhibiting courage is easierfor followers if they recognize that their ultimate allegiance is to thepurpose and values of the organization, not to the leader. Chaleffoutlines five dimensions of courageous followership that equipsubordinates to meet the challenges of their role:The Courage to Assume Responsibility. Followers must beaccountable both for themselves and for the organization as a whole.Courageous followers take stock of their skills and attitudes, considerhow willing they are to support and challenge their leaders, managethemselves, seek feedback and personal growth, take care ofthemselves, and care passionately about the organization’s goals.They take initiative to change organizational culture by challengingrules and mindsets and by improving processes.The Courage to Serve. Courageous followers support their leadersthrough hard, often unglamorous work. This labor takes a variety offorms, such as helping leaders conserve their energies for their mostsignificant tasks, organizing communication to and from leaders,controlling access to leaders, shaping leaders’ public images,presenting leaders with options during decision making, preparing forcrises, mediating conflicts between leaders, and promotingperformance reviews for leaders.The Courage to Challenge. Inappropriate behavior damages therelationship between leaders and followers and threatens thepurpose of the organization. Leaders may break the law, scream at
or use demeaning language with employees, display an arrogantattitude, engage in sexual harassment, abuse drugs and alcohol, andmisuse funds. Courageous followers need to confront leaders whoact in a destructive manner. In some situations, just asking questionsabout the wisdom of a policy decision is sufficient to bring aboutchange. In more extreme cases, followers may need to disobeyunethical orders.The Courage to Participate in Transformation. Negative behavior,when unchecked, often results in a leader’s destruction. Leaders whoact destructively may deny that they need to change, or they mayattempt to justify their behavior. They may claim that whatever theydo for themselves (e.g., embezzling, enriching themselves at theexpense of stockholders) ultimately benefits the organization. Tosucceed in modifying their behavior patterns, leaders must admitthey have a problem and acknowledge that they should change.They need to take personal responsibility and visualize the outcomesof the transformation: better health, more productive employees,higher self-esteem, restored relationships. Followers can aid in theprocess of transformation by drawing attention to what needs to bechanged; suggesting resources, including outside facilitators;creating a supportive environment; modeling openness to changeand empathy; helping contain abusive behavior; and providingpositive reinforcement for positive new behaviors.The Courage to Leave. When leaders are unwilling to change,courageous followers may take principled action by resigning fromthe organization. Departure is justified when a leader’s behaviorsclash with his or her self-proclaimed values or the values of thegroup or when the leader degrades or endangers others. Sometimesleaving is not enough. In the event of serious ethical violations,followers must bring the leader’s misbehavior to the attention of thepublic by going to the authorities or the press.Source: Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up toand for our leaders (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.People must have courage if they are to function as ethicalleaders. Ethical leaders recognize that moral action is risky butcontinue to model ethical behavior despite the danger. Theyrefuse to set their values aside to go along with the group, to keepsilent when customers may be hurt, or to lie to investors. Theystrive to create ethical environments even when faced withopposition from their superiors and subordinates. They continue tocarry out the organization’s mission even in the face of dangers
and uncertainty. They are also willing blow the whistle—to gooutside the organization to bring misbehavior to the attention ofthe public and government officials.Practicing Courage11Identify times when you did and did not demonstrate courageand what you learned from those experiencesGradually build up your courage by tackling low-levelchallenges and then moving on to more difficult ones.Train in advance for high-threat situations.Seek out courageous mentors.
GritI have always maintained that, excepting fools, men[women] did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal andhard work; and I still think this is an eminently importantdifference.—Charles DarwinGrit describes the motivation to pursue long-term goals withsustained effort. Gritty individuals keep working while others loseinterest due to disappointment or boredom. Grit has two facets:perseverance and passion. The gritty person sees achievementas a marathon, not a sprint. She or he has zeal for the task, whichproduces a high level of engagement in the work.12When it comes to success, grit is more important than talent.Talent leads to faster skill improvement but there is noimprovement without practice. The skills developed through effortmust be applied through additional sustained effort in order toproduce achievement. Grit has been linked to a variety of positiveoutcomes, including, for example, higher grade point averagesamong 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 ofgrittiness.)Grit is important for leaders who often direct groups pursuingworthy long-term goals. They keep the group on track in the faceof adversity, serving as role models for followers. WilliamWilberforce, for example, worked for 40 years to abolish slavery inBritain. He had to overcome resistance from powerful economicinterests and political opposition as well as public apathy andridicule. Raphael Lemkin spent much of the first half of the 20thcentury trying to criminalize mass murder targeting ethnic,religious and national groups. The League of Nations and otherauthorities rejected his arguments prior to World War II, believing
that national sovereignty prevented other countries fromintervening when governments killed groups of their own citizens.Lemkin eventually prevailed. Not only did he introduce the termgenocide, he convinced the United Nations to adopt the GenocideConvention resolution in 1948. This resolution made genocide acrime punishable under international law.13Practicing GritPursue 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.
TemperanceTo use things, therefore, and take pleasure in them as faras possible—not, of course, to the point where we aredisgusted with them, for there is no pleasure in that—thisis the part of a wise man[woman].—Dutch philosopher Baruch SpinozaModeration is key to practicing temperance, which is the ability tocontrol emotions and pleasure.14 The temperate person canremain calm despite provocation. She or he takes the middleground between self-disgust/self-denial and self-indulgence. Thatmeans enjoying life’s pleasures but not being controlled by them—for example, enjoying food without falling into gluttony, drinkingbut not becoming addicted to alcohol, enjoying sex withoutbecoming trapped by desire. Temperance also means knowingone’s limits and living within one’s means.Unfortunately, a great many leaders are intemperate. They areunable to control their anger and rail at subordinates, appear tohave an insatiable desire for money and power, and fall victim totheir need for pleasure. French economist Dominique StraussKahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund, lost his joband his marriage because he was unable to control his sexualurges, participating in a series of upscale sex parties. Intemperateleaders may overreach by trying to know and control all that goeson in their organizations. They also set unrealistically high goalsfor themselves and their followers and fail to live within theirbudgets, no matter how inflated their salaries. Carlos Ghosn, whomade $17 million a year as head of the car-making alliance ofNissan, Renault, and Mitsubishi, is charged with misusingcompany funds. He allegedly spent Renault’s money to pay for hiswife’s Marie Antoinette–themed birthday party at France’s Palaceof Versailles.Practicing Temperance
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 onfleeting feelings.Identify an emotion you would like to restrain or express moreeffectively. 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 withinthose constraints.
Wisdom and Prudence (Practical Wisdom)The Doors of Wisdom are never shut.—American founding father Benjamin FranklinWisdom draws upon knowledge and experience to promote thecommon good over both the short term and the long term. Thisvirtue is particularly important to leaders, who make decisions thatdetermine the collective fate of their groups and organizations.Wise organizational leaders engage in six practices.15 First, theyare skilled at thinking. They are smart, drawing from a broad baseof knowledge to engage in complex decision making. Second,wise leaders demonstrate high emotional capacity. They areempathetic and sensitive, recognizing differences and respectingthem. Third, wise leaders are highly collaborative. Theseindividuals work well with others and seek their benefit. Fourth,wise leaders are engaged with their organizations and theirworlds. They are proactive, constantly experimenting, formingnetworks, and adapting to changing circumstances. Fifth, wiseleaders are reflective, demonstrating depth. They are keenlyaware of their values, needs, and emotions and have a soundsense of self. Sixth, wise leaders are aspiring. Well intentioned,they pursue principled objectives and hope to make themselvestheir organizations and their world better places. Queen ElizabethII is recognized as one wise world leader. The queen has servedsince 1952 and reflected on wisdom in her annual Christmasaddress. “Some cultures believe a long life brings wisdom,” saidthe monarch (92 at the time). “Perhaps part of that wisdom is torecognize some of life’s baffling paradoxes, such as the wayhuman beings have a huge propensity for good and yet a capacityfor evil.”16Prudence is a form of wisdom that enables individuals to discernor select the best course of action in a given situation.17 ThomasAquinas argued that this virtue governs the others, determiningwhen and how the other qualities should be used. For example,
prudence reveals what situations call for courage or compassionand helps us determine how to act justly. Foresight and cautionare important elements of practical wisdom. Prudent leaders keepin mind the long-term consequences of their choices. As a result,they are cautious, trying not to overextend themselves and theirorganizations or to take unnecessary risks. Billionaire investorWarren Buffett is one example of a prudent leader. Buffett, thehead of Berkshire Hathaway, sticks to a basic investment strategy,searching for undervalued companies that he can hold for at least10 years. His lifestyle is modest as well (he still lives in the homehe bought for $31,500 and earns $100,000 a year). When Buffettand his wife die, 99% of their estate will go to a charitablefoundation.Practicing Wisdom and PrudenceBe 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 organizationalchanges.Base decisions on data.Always think long term—consider how your choices andactions will stand the test of time.
JusticeJustice is sweet and musical; but injustice is harsh anddiscordant.—Writer Henry David ThoreauJustice has two components. The first is a sense of obligation tothe common good. The second is the fair and equal treatment ofothers.18 A just person feels a sense of duty and strives to do hisor her part as a member of the team, whether that team is a smallgroup, an organization, or society as a whole. A just personsupports equitable rules and laws. In addition, those who aredriven by justice believe that all people deserve the same rights,whatever their skills or status.Although justice is a significant virtue for everyone, regardless ofher or his role, it takes on added importance for leaders. To begin,leaders who don’t carry out their duties put the group ororganization at risk. Furthermore, leaders have a moral obligationto consider the needs and interests of the entire group and to takethe needs of the larger community into account. The rules andregulations they implement should be fair and should benefiteveryone. In fact, employees often complain about injustice, andtheir performance suffers when they believe they are beingtreated unfairly.19 Leaders also need to guarantee to followers thesame rights they enjoy. They should set personal biases asidewhen making choices by judging others objectively and treatingthem accordingly. Leaders also have a responsibility to try tocorrect injustice and inequality caused by others. New JerseySenator Corey Booker is one leader who demonstrates a strongsense of duty as well as a commitment to justice. As mayor ofNewark, Booker was quick to help fellow citizens. He helpedshovel snow after blizzards and rescued two residents from aburning building, suffering second degree burns on his hands. Assenator, Booker argues that health care is a civil right and that thecriminal justice system unfairly punishes minorities. (You can
determine your level of courage, temperance, prudence, andjustice by completing Self-Assessment 3.2.)Practicing JusticeLook for ways to go above and beyond the minimalrequirements of your leader or follower role.Set up equitable hiring, promotion, and compensationprocesses in your organization.Make fairness a criterion for every ethical decision you make.Consider everyone (both inside and outside the group) whowill be impacted by your decisions.Work to guarantee the rights of all followers; addressinequalities.
OptimismHope is not the conviction that something will turn outwell, but the certainty that something makes sense,regardless of how it turns out.—Former Czech Republic president Václav HavelOptimists expect positive outcomes in the future even if they arecurrently experiencing disappointments and difficulties.20 They aremore confident than pessimists, who expect that things will turnout poorly. People who are hopeful about the future are morelikely to persist in the face of adversity. When faced with stressand defeat, optimists acknowledge the reality of the situation andtake steps to improve. Their pessimistic colleagues, on the otherhand, try to escape problems through wishful thinking,distractions, and other means.Optimism is an essential quality for leaders. As we’ll see later inthe chapter, nearly every leader experiences hardships. Thosewho learn and grow from these experiences will develop theircharacter and go on to greater challenges. Those who ignoreunpleasant realities stunt their ethical growth and may find theircareers at an end. At the same time, leaders need to helpfollowers deal constructively with setbacks, encouraging them topersist. Followers are more likely to rally behind optimists whoappear confident and outline a positive image or vision of thegroup’s future. Starbucks founder Howard Schultz had to balancerealism and optimism when he returned as CEO of the companyin 2007. Sales and quality were down and the company’s shareprice dropped in half. Schultz made a number of painful cuts instaff and stores but continually shared his faith that the companywould rebound stronger than ever. And it did. By 2011, thenumber of stores had expanded, the stock reached an all-timehigh, and Schultz was named Fortune’s CEO of the year.21Practicing Optimism
Change your thinking. Rewrite pessimistic thoughts into moreoptimistic ones. For example, instead of saying “I am afailure,” say, “I may have failed this time but I can practice andimprove.”Set realistic goals that you can attain.Ask “What can I learn from this experience?” when facingsetbacks.Limit the amount of time you spend reflecting on your failures.Welcome each day as a gift.
IntegrityIntegrity lies at the very heart of understanding whatleadership is.—Business professors Joseph Badaracco and RichardEllsworthIntegrity is wholeness or completeness. Leaders possessing thistrait are true to themselves, reflecting consistency between whatthey say publicly and how they think and act privately. They liveout their values and keep their promises. In other words, theypractice what they preach. They are also honest in their dealingswith others.22 Vanguard mutual fund founder Jack Bogle isremembered for his integrity. He set up his funds to benefitinvestors, not fund managers, brokerage houses, and financialadvisors. Investors own his funds, which charge extremely lowfees. In an industry where leaders are measured by the size oftheir wealth, Bogle was proud not to be a billionaire, which hewould have been if his company had kept ownership of its funds.He wanted instead to ensure that those who needed the moneymost benefitted the most from their investments.23Nothing undermines a leader’s moral authority more quickly thanlack of integrity. Followers watch the behavior of leaders closely,and one untrustworthy act can undermine a pattern of crediblebehavior. Trust is broken, and cynicism spreads. In anorganizational setting, common “trust busters” include inconsistentmessages and behavior, inconsistent rules and procedures,blaming, dishonesty, secrecy, and unjust rewards.24 (I’ll have moreto say about trust in Chapter 10.)Practicing IntegrityMake the truth a moral imperative; seek to be truthful in allsituations.
Publicly admit your mistakes and encourage others to do thesame.Imagine yourself as a person of integrity and try to behave inways that lead to this hoped-for self.Foster trust through transparency, consistency, and concernfor followers.
HumilityThere is nothing noble in being superior to your fellowman. True nobility is being superior to your former self.—Novelist Ernest HemingwayThe failure of many CEOs makes a strong argument forencouraging leaders to be humble. Take the case of TuringPharmaceutical founder Martin Shkreli. He became known as the“bad boy” of pharmaceuticals after his company raised the price ofa drug for HIV patients over 5,000%. Shkreli called congressionalinvestigators looking into the price hike “imbeciles.” During his trialfor securities fraud, he referred to federal prosecutors as “juniorvarsity,” calling the trial a “witch hunt” and predicting that thegovernment would have to apologize to him after the verdict.Shrekli’s arrogance cost him dearly. He was removed as TuringCEO and convicted of lying to investors.25Management professors J. Andrew Morris, Celeste Brotheridge,and John Urbanski believe that true humility strikes a balancebetween having an overly low and having an overly high opinionof the self.26 It does not consist of low self-esteem, as manypeople 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 hisown strengths and limitations. The second element is openness,which is a product of knowing one’s weaknesses. Possessinghumility means being open to new ideas and knowledge. The thirdcomponent is transcendence. Humble leaders acknowledge thatthere is a power greater than the self. This prevents them fromdeveloping an inflated view of their importance while increasingtheir appreciation for the worth and contributions of others.Humility has a powerful impact on ethical behavior. Humbleleaders are less likely to be corrupted by power, claim excessiveprivileges, engage in fraud, abuse followers, and pursue selfish
goals. They are more willing to serve others instead, putting theneeds of followers first while acting as role models. Humilityencourages leaders to build supportive relationships with followersthat foster collaboration and trust. Because they know theirlimitations and are open to input, humble leaders are more willingto take advice that can keep them and their organizations out oftrouble. Even the world’s largest tech companies are learning theimportance of humble leadership, as Case Study 3.2 illustrates.Despite its importance, developing humility may be harder thanever. In the past, leaders were taught to acknowledge theirweaknesses and to downplay their accomplishments. Forexample, the first President Bush consistently took the word “I” outof his speeches. (When he didn’t, his mother would call andcomplain, “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 HumilityComplete self-assessments that provide you with data aboutyour 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).
Compassion (Kindness, Generosity, Love)All happiness in the world comes from serving others; allsorrow in the world comes from acting selfishly.—Leadership expert Margaret WheatleyCompassion and related concepts such as concern, care,kindness, generosity, and love all refer to an orientation that putsothers ahead of the self.28 Those with compassion value othersregardless of whether they get anything in return from them.Compassion is an important element of altruism, an ethicalperspective addressed in more detail in Chapter 5. An orientationtoward others rather than the self separates ethical leaders fromtheir unethical colleagues.29 Ethical leaders recognize that theyserve the purposes of the group. They seek power and exerciseinfluence on behalf of followers. Further, they recognize that theyhave an obligation to outsiders. Their circle of concern extendsbeyond their immediate group. In contrast, unethical leaders puttheir own self-interests first. They are more likely to control andmanipulate followers and subvert the goals of the collective whiletreating outsiders with disdain. In extreme cases, this self-orientation can lead to widespread death and destruction.Eunice Shriver Kennedy provides an outstanding model ofcompassionate leadership.30 Born into the wealthy and powerfulKennedy family, which included her brother John, who becamepresident of the United States, and her brothers Robert and Ted,who became senators, she used her money and political clout onbehalf of those with mental limitations. When John Kennedybecame president, she convinced him to set up a committee tostudy developmental disabilities, which led to the creation of theNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Shestarted a camp for the intellectually disabled at her estate andcofounded the Special Olympics. The first Special Olympics meethad 1,000 contestants. Now, 4.9 million athletes in 172 countriestake part. Shriver’s efforts played a major role in changing public
attitudes toward those facing Down syndrome, mental retardation,and other intellectual challenges. They used to be viewed asoutcasts and warehoused in mental facilities. Shriver encouragedAmericans to see that, with adequate training, those withintellectual limitations could live productive lives and contribute tosociety. (See Box 3.1 for more information on the development ofcompassionate leaders.)Box 3.1 The Journey to Humanitarian LeadershipHumanitarian leaders spearhead efforts to feed the homeless, fightsex trafficking, educate street children, bring medical care to poorrural villages, and so on. Researchers Frank LaFasto and CarlLarson wondered why some individuals “take charge of helpingpeople in need” while most of us do not. They conducted interviewswith 31 humanitarian leaders ranging from age 16 to 88 from avariety of educational and social backgrounds. The investigatorsfound that, despite their differences, their subjects followed acommon path. Seven choice points marked this journey to helpingothers.Choice 1: Leveraging Life Experiences. Humanitarianleaders reflect on their life stories. They develop empathy forthe needs of others through (1) role models (parents, teachers,religious leaders, friends) and positive values, such as caringfor the poor or serving others; (2) a troubling awareness abouta societal problem like sex abuse or lack of clean water; or (3)traumatic personal experiences, such as the death of parents ora cancer diagnosis.Choice 2: Having a Sense of Fairness. Humanitarians areconvinced that the world is divided into those who are fortunateand those who are not. The disadvantaged are victims ofcircumstance and are therefore worthy of help. To make theworld fairer, the humanitarian leader believes in providingopportunities for those who have been denied such access byfate.Choice 3: Believing That We Can Matter. Those out to assistothers aren’t overwhelmed by the need. Instead, they focus onhelping individuals. Meeting the needs of one person is the firststep to addressing the broader problem—whether that ispoverty, substandard housing, or disease. Humanitarianleaders believe that they have something to offer and knowwhat they can and cannot do to contribute. They try to make thefuture better for those in need.
Choice 4: Being Open to Opportunity. Compassionateleaders are inclined to say yes to possibilities instead ofautomatically saying no. They have an external focus. They areattuned to the needs of others, and their impulse is to respondbecause they have a clear sense of life’s direction. Unlike manypeople, humanitarian leaders align their actions with theirconvictions.Choice 5: Taking the First Small Step. Every leaderinterviewed by LaFasto and Larson reported a pivotal ordefining moment when he or she first responded to the impulseto help. Humanitarian leaders don’t let the size of the problemdiscourage them; rather, they do something, no matter howsmall. While they don’t know where their efforts will lead, theystill make the commitment to act. Take the case of RyanHreljac. Ryan started his humanitarian career as a six-year-oldby trying to raise $70 to provide one well for a village in adeveloping nation. This small step led to the creation of theRyan’s Well Foundation, which has provided sanitation andclean water for over three quarters of a million people aroundthe world.Choice 6: Persevering. Those who tackle difficult socialproblems can expect to encounter a great deal of frustration.But they believe in what they are doing and are convinced thatreaching their goals is worth the cost. Humanitarian leaders arealso adaptable, often turning obstacles into opportunities. Iffunding sources dry up, they find new, more stable ones, forexample. They maintain their positive focus by taking heart inshort-term victories and remaining convinced they can make adifference.Choice 7: Leading the Way. The passion of humanitarianleaders draws others to their causes. Their enthusiasm, energy,and optimism are contagious. Others join in, and movementsare born.LaFasto and Larson conclude that we all have the potential tobecome humanitarian leaders. However, to start down the path tosocially responsible leadership, we must first answer yes to thisquestion: Do I feel a sense of responsibility for helping others?Source: LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2012). The humanitarian leader ineach of us: Seven choices that shape a socially responsible life.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Practicing Compassion
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.
Forming a Moral IdentityIdentifying important leadership virtues is only a start. We thenneed to embed these qualities into our self-concepts and behavior—to develop what moral psychologists call moral identity. 31Investigators treat moral identity as both a trait and as a state.Trait theorists argue that ethical commitments are central to thosewith strong moral identity. Such individuals define themselves interms of moral principles and virtues and act consistentlyregardless of the situation. They are motivated to take moralaction because they want to act in harmony with their self-definitions.For those with a highly developed sense of moral identity, tobetray their ethical values is to betray themselves. Martin Luther isas an example of someone who refused to put his standardsaside. When called to defend his radical religious beliefs in front ofCatholic authorities at the Diet of Worms, Luther declared, “Here Istand; I can do no other.” Pope Francis is a contemporary leaderwith high moral identity. He turns down many papal perks toremain true to his commitment to the poor and to a humblelifestyle. He lives in a modest bungalow instead of the papalapartment, takes his meals with Cardinals and visitors (taking anyavailable 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, wehave a variety of selves or identities we activate depending on thecontext.32 At school, our student self-identity is most important, forexample, while our employee identity is more salient at work.These scholars are interested in how elements of the situationprime or activate our moral identity. When our moral identities areactivated, we are more concerned about behaving ethically, makebetter moral choices, engage in more prosocial and fewerantisocial behaviors, and are less likely to excuse our moralfailings. Organizations can promote the development of moralidentity by (1) providing opportunities to practice virtues, (2)creating positive moral climates where cooperative relationshipscan flourish, (3) making space for moral discussion and reflection,
(4) continuously emphasizing values and mission, and (5)encouraging ongoing involvement in the local community.Both the trait and state approaches provide important insights intothe development of moral identity. Our ultimate goal should be tomake moral commitments central to our sense of self, to act in avirtuous manner regardless of the situation. At the same time,situational variables play an important role in helping us developour moral identities. Whatever roles we play, we needopportunities to practice virtues, the encouragement of others,and the support of positive moral climates.Developing ethical character or moral identity is far from easy, ofcourse. At times, our personal demons will overcome even ourbest efforts to keep them at bay, and we will fail to live up to ourideals. We’re likely to make progress in some areas while laggingin others. We may be courageous yet arrogant, reverent yetpessimistic, optimistic yet unjust. We may be compassionate tofamily members but cold toward our neighbors. No wonder someprominent leaders reflect both moral strength and weakness.Martin Luther King Jr. showed great courage and persistence inleading the civil rights movement but engaged in extramaritalrelationships. Franklin Roosevelt was revered by many of hiscontemporaries but had a long-standing affair with Lucy Mercer. Infact, Mercer (not Eleanor Roosevelt) was present when he died.Pope Francis has been criticized for not removing bishopsaccused of covering up clergy sex abuse. (Turn to Case Study 3.2for another example of someone who demonstrated bothcharacter strengths and weaknesses.)The poor personal behavior of political, entertainment, andbusiness leaders has sparked debate about personal and publicmorality. One camp argues that the two cannot be separated.Another camp makes a clear distinction between the public arenaand private life. According to this second group, we can bedisgusted by the private behavior of entertainment figures whohave multiple affairs and marriages but enjoy their films, televisionshows, and music. We disapprove of politicians who engage inextramarital affairs (e.g., Bill Clinton, Donald Trump) but vote forthem anyway based on their performance in office.
I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between these extremes.We should expect contradictions in the character of leaders, notbe surprised by them. Private lapses don’t always lead to lapsesin public judgment. On the other hand, it seems artificial tocompartmentalize private and public ethics. Private tendenciescan and do cross over into public decisions. Arizona Statebusiness ethics professor Marianne Jennings points out that manyfallen corporate leaders (e.g., Richard Scrushy [HealthSouth],Dennis Kozlowski [Tyco], Scott Sullivan [WorldCom], BernieEbbers [WorldCom]) cheated on their wives or divorced them tomarry much younger women.33 She suggests that executives whoare dishonest with the most important people in their lives—theirspouses—are likely to be dishonest with others who aren’t assignificant: suppliers, customers, and stockholders. Furthermore,conducting an affair distracts a leader from his or her duties andprovides a poor role model for followers. That’s why the Boeingboard fired CEO Harry Stonecipher when members discoveredthat he was having an affair with a high-ranking employee.34
Character BuildingIn the previous section, I offered some suggestions for fosteringindividual virtues. These are direct approaches to characterdevelopment. However, more often than not, virtues developindirectly, as the by-product of other activities. In this final sectionof the chapter, I’ll introduce a variety of indirect approaches orfactors that encourage the development of leadership virtues.These include identifying role models, hearing stories and livingshared stories, learning from hardship, cultivating good habits,creating a personal mission statement, and clarifying values. TheLeadership Ethics at the Movies case describes one leader whodemonstrated significant character development.
Finding Role ModelsCharacter appears to be caught as well as taught. We often learnwhat it means to be virtuous by observing and imitating exemplaryleaders, a process based on the brain’s ability to mimic the actionsof others and to understand the reasons behind their behaviors.That makes role models crucial to developing high moralcharacter.35 Eunice Kennedy Shriver is one such role model;William Wilberforce is another.Heroic role models are particularly important to characterdevelopment. Heroes demonstrate courage in action and inspireus to follow their example. Honoring heroes seems to be “auniversal feature of human culture,” dating back to ancient cavepaintings. Oral societies celebrated heroes through epic poems,legends and myths. Modern societies continue this traditionthrough novels, television shows, films, and video games.36Concordia University (Canada) philosophy professor Travis Smithargues that even comic book heroes can teach us about ethics. Itis the character or quality of superheroes, not their superpowers,that makes them heroic. We can learn from their examples—theirbad as well as their good qualities—because they are similar to,yet different from ordinary humans. The Hulk, Spiderman, CaptainAmerica, Thor, and other superheroes wrestle with such commonethical challenges as self-control, personal responsibility, livingwith dignity, and serving the community.37 (One superhero is thesubject of the Leadership at the Movies case in Chapter 5.)Heroes, both real and fictional, voluntarily help others in need andtheir efforts serve a worthy purpose (e.g., protecting lives,improving product quality, fighting discrimination, protectingworker safety). Risk sets heroism apart from other forms ofaltruism. Heroic figures always face danger, whether physical(death, injury) or social (ostracism, loss of job) danger. We’ll takea closer look at how to foster our heroism in Chapter 11.
Hearing Stories/Living Shared StoriesFictional stories, whether told through movies, television shows,songs, video games, books, poems, blogs, plays, or YouTubevideos, are more than just mere entertainment. Instead, theyfoster character development in several ways. First, fiction actslike a flight simulator. Pilots train in simulators that provide themwith opportunities to practice maneuvers and responses toemergencies without ever leaving the ground. In the same way,fiction gives us opportunities to practice moral reflection andjudgment in complex situations before we encounter them in reallife. Our brains respond in much the same way to fictional eventsas they do to events we actually experience.38Second, fiction introduces us to additional moral role models.These fictional exemplars illustrate the vices we want to avoid aswell 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 justiceprevails in such highly popular book and movie franchises as StarWars, 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 justworld.40Fourth, fiction is highly effective in changing or reinforcing ourmoral beliefs and attitudes, largely because we aren’t aware that itis doing so. The more absorbed we are in the story, the morelikely we are to shift our attitudes toward the moral argumentsmade in the story (e.g., evil people deserve punishment, sexoutside of marriage is acceptable if the parties are in love, war isjustified).41 Of course, that fact suggests we choose our storiescarefully; we need able to step back from the narrative to evaluatethe moral(s) it communicates.Fifth, fictional narrative helps us understand our possibilities andlimits. We can try to deny the reality of death, the fact that we’re
aging, and that there are factors outside our control. However,stories force us to confront these issues. They also explorecommon human themes, such as freedom of choice, moralresponsibility, conflict between individual and society, conflictbetween individual conscience and society’s rules, and self-understanding.42Sixth, fiction writers help us escape our old ways of thinking andacting. Their best works expand our emotional capacity, enablingus to respond more fully to the needs of others. In one study, forinstance, fiction readers scored higher on social awareness andempathy than those reading nonfiction.43The stories told by our communities, like fictional narratives, alsoplay an important role in character development. Virtues are morelikely to take root when nurtured by families, schools,governments, and religious bodies. These collectives impartvalues and encourage self-discipline, caring, and other virtuesthrough the telling of narratives or stories. Shared narratives bothexplain and persuade. They provide a framework forunderstanding the world and, at the same time, challenge us toact in specified ways. For example, one of the most remarkablefeatures of the American political system is the orderly transitionof power from president to president. George Washington set thisprecedent by voluntarily stepping down as the country’s firstleader. His story, told in classrooms, books, and films, helpsexplain why the current electoral system functions smoothly.Furthermore, modern presidents and presidential candidatesfollow 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 establishedin part from living up to the roles we play in the stories we tell.According to virtue ethicist Alasdair MacIntyre, “I can only answerthe 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 Worthynarratives bring out the best in us, encouraging us to suppress ourinner demons and to cast light instead of shadow. For instance, Iam more likely to welcome refugees if I believe that helping
strangers is part of the tradition or narrative of my cultural,religious, or national group. If I work for a company known for itsintegrity, I will more likely tell the truth when promoting the firm’sproducts.
Learning From HardshipHardship and suffering also play a role in developing character.The leaders we admire the most are often those who haveendured the greatest hardships. Nelson Mandela, Václav Havel,and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn served extended prison terms, forinstance. Sandra Day O’Connor had to overcome physicalhardship and sexism to become one of the most influentialSupreme Court justices of the past century. O’Connor started lifeon a cattle ranch in Arizona without electricity and running water.She graduated third in her class from Stanford law school, butmajor West Coast law firms refused to hire her or only offered hersecretarial positions. She finally landed a job at a countyattorney’s office by offering to work for free. (Case Study 3.3describes other famous leaders who faced and grew throughsignificant hardships.)Trainers at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) haveidentified hardship as one of the factors contributing to leadershipdevelopment. Leaders (as we noted in the last chapter) developthe fastest when they encounter situations that stretch orchallenge them. Hardships, along with novelty, difficult goals, andconflict, challenge people. CCL staffers Russ Moxley and MaryLynn Pulley believe that hardships differ from other challengingexperiences because they are unplanned, are experienced in anintensely personal way, and involve loss.45Research conducted by the CCL reveals that leaders experiencefive common categories of hardship events. Each type of hardshipcan drive home important lessons.Business mistakes and failures: Examples of this type ofhardship event include losing an important client, failedproducts and programs, broken relationships, andbankruptcies. These experiences help leaders build strongerworking relationships, recognize their limitations, and profitfrom their mistakes.Career setbacks: Missed promotions, unsatisfying jobs,demotions, and firings make up this hardship category.
Leaders faced with these events lose control over theircareers, their sense of self-efficacy or competence, and theirprofessional identity. Career setbacks function as wake-upcalls, providing feedback about weaknesses. They encourageleaders to take more responsibility for managing their careersand to identify the type of work that is most meaningful tothem.Personal trauma: Examples of personal trauma includedivorce, cancer, death, and difficult children. Theseexperiences, which are a natural part of life, drive home thepoint that leaders (who are used to being in charge) can’t runthe world around them. As a result, they may strike a betterbalance between work and home responsibilities, learn howto accept help from others, and endure in the face ofadversity.Problem employees: Troubled workers include those whosteal, defraud, can’t perform, or perform well only part of thetime. In dealing with problem employees, leaders often losethe illusion that they can turn these people around. They mayalso learn how important it is to hold followers to consistentlyhigh standards and become more skilled at confrontingsubordinates about problematic behavior.Downsizing: Downsizing has much in common with careersetbacks, but in this type of hardship, leaders lose their jobsthrough no fault of their own. Downsizing can help leadersdevelop coping skills and force them to take stock of theirlives and careers. Those carrying out the layoffs can alsolearn from the experience by developing greater empathy forthe feelings of followers.Being exposed to a hardship is no guarantee that you’ll learn fromthe experience. Some ambitious leaders never get over beingpassed over for a promotion, for instance, and become embitteredand cynical. Benefiting from adversity takes adaptive capacity.46Accomplished leaders experience just as many crises aseveryone else but are able to learn important principles and skillsfrom their struggles. This knowledge enabled them to move on tomore complex challenges.
Successful leaders see hard times as positive high points of theirlives. In contrast, less successful leaders are defeated anddiscouraged by similar events. To put it another way, effectiveleaders tell a different story than their ineffective counterparts.They identify hardships as stepping-stones, not as insurmountableobstacles. We, too, can enlarge our adaptive capacity by payingclose attention to our personal narratives, defining difficultmoments in our lives as learning opportunities rather than aspermanent obstacles. To see how you can learn from a specificfailure, take the following steps:1. Identify a significant failure from your professional or personallife and summarize the failure in a sentence (be sure to usethe word failure).2. Describe how you felt and thought about the failureimmediately after it happened.3. Move forward in time to identify any positive outcomes thatcame out of the failure, including skills you acquired, lessonsyou 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 andwhether you are any more mature now than you were beforethe failure event.47
Developing HabitsOne of the ways in which we build character is by doing wellthrough our habits. Habits are repeated routines or practicesdesigned to foster virtuous behavior. Examples of good habitsinclude working hard, telling the truth, giving to charity, standingup to peer pressure, and always turning in original work for schoolassignments. Every time we engage in one of these habits, itleaves a trace or residue. Over time, these residual effectsbecome part of our personality and are integrated into ourcharacter. Aristotle sums up the process this way: “Men [andwomen] become builders by building, and lyre-players by playingthe lyre, so too we become just be doing just acts, temperate bydoing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.”48 Habits alsohelp us become more competent at demonstrating virtues.Business consultant Stephen Covey developed the most popularlist of positive habits. Not only did he author the best-selling bookThe Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, but thousands ofbusinesses, nonprofit groups, and government agencies haveparticipated in workshops offered by FranklinCovey.49 In his bestseller, Covey argues that effectiveness is based on such characterprinciples as integrity, fairness, service, excellence, and growth.The habits are the tools that enable leaders and followers todevelop these characteristics. Covey defines a habit as acombination of knowledge (what to do and why to do it), skill (howto do it), and motivation (wanting to do it). Leadershipdevelopment is an “inside-out” process that starts within theleader and then moves outward to affect others. The seven habitsof effective and ethical leaders are described below. (The habits ofineffective and unethical leaders are described in Box 3.2.)Habit 1: Be proactive. Proactive leaders realize that they canchoose how they respond to events. When faced with careersetbacks, they try to grow from these experiences instead offeeling victimized by them. Proactive people also take theinitiative by opting to attack problems instead of acceptingdefeat. Their language reflects their willingness to acceptrather than avoid responsibility. A proactive leader makes
statements such as “Let’s examine our options.” and “I cancreate a strategic plan.” A reactive leader, in contrast, makescomments such as “The organization won’t go along with thatidea,” “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 onthe notion that “all things are created twice.” First, we get amental picture of what we want to accomplish, and then wefollow through on our plans. If we’re unhappy with the currentdirection of our lives, we can generate new mental imagesand goals, a process Covey calls rescripting. Creatingpersonal and organizational mission statements is one way toidentify the results we want and thus control the type of lifewe create. (I’ll talk more about how to create a missionstatement in the next section.) Covey urges leaders to centertheir lives on inner principles such as fairness and humandignity rather than on such external factors as family, money,friends, or work.Habit 3: Put first things first. A leader’s time should beorganized around priorities. Too many leaders spend theirdays coping with emergencies, mistakenly believing thaturgent means important. Meetings, deadlines, andinterruptions place immediate demands on their time, butother, less pressing activities, such as relationship buildingand planning, are more important in the long run. Effectiveleaders carve out time for significant activities by identifyingtheir most important roles, selecting their goals, creatingschedules that enable them to reach their objectives, andmodifying plans when necessary. They also know how todelegate tasks and have the courage to say no to requeststhat don’t fit their priorities.Habit 4: Think win–win. Those with a win–win perspectivetake a cooperative approach to communication, convincedthat the best solution benefits both parties. The win–win habitis based on these dimensions: character (integrity, maturity,and a belief that the needs of everyone can be met), trustingrelationships committed to mutual benefit, performance orpartnership agreements that spell out conditions andresponsibilities, organizational systems that fairly distributerewards, and principled negotiation processes in which both
sides generate possible solutions and then select the one thatworks best.Habit 5: Seek first to understand, then to be understood.Ethical leaders put aside their personal concerns to engage inempathetic listening. They seek to understand, not toevaluate, advise, or interpret. Empathetic listening is anexcellent way to build a trusting relationship. Covey uses themetaphor of the emotional bank account to illustrate how trustdevelops. Principled leaders make deposits in the emotionalbank account by showing kindness and courtesy, keepingcommitments, paying attention to small details, and seekingto understand. These strong relational reserves help preventmisunderstandings and make it easier to resolve anyproblems that do arise.Habit 6: Synergize. Synergy creates a solution that is greaterthan the sum of its parts and uses right-brain thinking togenerate a third, previously undiscovered alternative.Synergistic, creative solutions are generated in trustingrelationships—those with full emotional bank accounts—where participants value their differences.Habit 7: Sharpen the saw. “Sharpening the saw” refers to thecontinual renewal of the physical, mental, social or emotional,and spiritual dimensions of the self. Healthy leaders care fortheir bodies through exercise, good nutrition, and stressmanagement. They encourage their mental development byreading good literature and writing thoughtful letters andjournal entries. They create meaningful relationships withothers and nurture their inner or spiritual values through studyor meditation and time in nature. Continual renewal,combined with the use of the first six habits, creates anupward spiral of character improvement.Box 3.2 The Seven Habits of Highly Unsuccessful ExecutivesDartmouth College professor Sidney Finkelstein wondered whyhighly competent CEOs could make terrible mistakes and then,instead of correcting their errors, make them worse. To answer thisquestion, he and his research team studied 51 companies in theUnited States, Japan, Britain, South Korea, Germany, and Australia.Each of the firms experienced a major business failure resulting in
the loss, in most cases, of hundreds of millions of dollars. Some ofthe firms went out of business. Quaker Oats, Mattel, Saatchi andSaatchi, Wang Laboratories, General Motors, Samsung, Sony, andSchwinn were among the corporations included in the sample.Finkelstein and his team found that spectacular failure often goeshand in hand with spectacular success:We’re talking about people whose failures were breathtakinglygigantic, who have taken huge, world-renowned business operationsand made them almost worthless. They have caused thousands ofpeople to lose their jobs and thousands of investors to lose theirinvestments. They’ve managed to destroy hundreds of millions oreven billions of dollars of value. Their destructive effect is so beyondthe range of ordinary human beings that it’s on a scale normallyassociated only with earthquakes and hurricanes.The personal qualities that make this awesome scale of destructionpossible are all the more fascinating because they are regularlyfound in conjunction with truly admirable qualities. After all, hardlyanyone gets a chance to destroy so much value without alsodemonstrating a potential to create it. (p. 213)Understanding the qualities that lead to executive failure can keepthem from occurring in the first place, according to Finkelstein.Drawing a sharp contrast to the habits of highly effective people, heidentifies the following as The Seven Habits of SpectacularlyUnsuccessful 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 asdominating their environments.Failed leaders mistakenly believe that they can control events aroundthem. They overestimate their abilities while downplaying the factthat luck and circumstances often determine success or failure.These execs assume that they are responsible for the company’spast accomplishments and, instead of responding to changingconditions, mistakenly believe they can impose their will on the largerbusiness environment. Convinced of their own importance,unsuccessful CEOs often intimidate subordinates through angryoutbursts. At the same time, they believe that their companies don’thave to meet the needs of consumers since their firms offer superiorproducts and services.Habit #2: They identify so completely with the company thatthere is no clear boundary between their personal interests andthe corporation’s interest.
Executives should identify with their businesses but problems arisewhen they overidentify with their organizations. Instead of caring forand protecting their firms, they see them as extensions ofthemselves. When a company becomes the “private empire” of theCEO, it is all too easy for the top executive to use companyresources to fulfil personal wishes. He or she is prone to take largerisks, viewing the firm’s money as his or her own. In the “darkest”manifestation of this habit, leaders use corporate funds for personalwishes—to pay for multimillion dollar home renovations, to give tofavorite charities, to host lavish birthday parties. Unsuccessfulexecutives also become too invested in their projects. To end aproject is seen as a betrayal of the self. Personal enemies becomeenemies 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 decisionswithout consulting others. They only gather additional information if itsupports their initial decision. Control freaks, they want to have thefinal say on everything and trust no one. Decisiveness appeals tofollowers who want leaders who seem to know what they are doing.Nevertheless, nobody can have all the answers in a rapidly changingbusiness environment. Failing to listen and consider other optionscontributed 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 everyfollower will enthusiastically support their visions. They eliminateanyone who might have doubts or express a different viewpoint.Either they fire dissenters or banish them to distant corporateoutposts where they will have little influence. In so doing, theseleaders eliminate the possibility of correcting any problems thatemerge.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 throughtelevision, blog and radio interviews, public speeches, magazinestories and commercials. They devote less and less attention to theirmanagerial duties and don’t want to be bothered with the details ofdaily operations. Performance suffers as a result. Image consciousCEOs, who appear confident and charismatic, can create unrealisticexpectations as they promote their visions. They go to great lengths
to maintain the appearance of success through extravagantspending, and in some cases, accounting fraud.Habit #6: They underestimate major obstacles.Confident CEOs tend to treat difficulties, even major hurdles, asminor 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 areparticularly vulnerable to this habit, as are leaders who are mastersat solving technical problems. Technical experts mistakenly thinkthey easily overcome business problems. Once committed to newventures, unsuccessful executives refuse to scale back in the face ofdefeat. Instead, they commit more resources to a failing effort.Habit #7: They stubbornly rely on what worked for them in thepast.Failed CEOs rely on what has worked for them in the past eventhough the world has changed. Most have one or two definingmoments that helped propel them to the top of the corporation. Whenfaced with a crisis, CEOs revert back to the behavior that led toearlier success in these key moments, even when that behavior—cutting costs, introducing a new product line, buying anothercompany—won’t work in current conditions.Source: Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail and whatyou can learn from their mistakes. New York, NY: Portfolio. See alsoJackson, E. (2012, February 9). The seven habits of unsuccessfulCEOs hall of shame. Fortune.
Developing Personal Mission StatementsDeveloping a mission statement is the best way to keep the endor destination in mind (Covey’s second habit). In recognition ofthat fact, many management, life, and wellness coachingprograms ask participants to create personal mission statements.Jack Groppel, the developer of the Corporate Athlete executivedevelopment program, summarizes the role of personal missionstatements this way: “A mission statement becomes the NorthStar for people. It becomes how you make decisions, how youlead, and how you create boundaries.”50 He argues that missionstatements are more effective than resolutions (“I want to loseweight.” “I want to get better grades.”) because they identify theunderlying sources of behavior and what individuals findmotivating. Consider why you want to lose weight, for example.Losing weight to look better is less motivating than losing weightso you can have enough energy to go on hikes with yoursignificant other or to play team sports with friends.To get started writing a personal mission statement, consider thefollowing 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, andapply ethical principles to make significant difference” (DeniseMorrison, Campbell Soup); “To be a teacher, and to be known forinspiring my students to be more than they thought they could be”(Oprah Winfrey); “To have fun in [my] journey through life andlearn from [my] mistakes” (Richard Branson, Virgin Group).51
Once you write your mission statement, share it with others (youare more likely to follow through if you do so). Don’t be afraid tochange your mission statement as you change and grow.
Identifying ValuesIf a mission statement identifies our final destination, then ourvalues serve as a moral compass to guide us on our journey.Values provide a frame of reference, helping us to set prioritiesand to distinguish between right and wrong. Worthy values workwith our mission statements to develop virtues. We are more likelyto act with courage, demonstrate grit, control our impulses, be justand compassionate, and remain true to ourselves if we have aclear sense of direction and identify a set of guiding principles forour lives. To identify or clarify the values you hold, you cangenerate a list from scratch. However, most people identify theirvalues from lists like those described below.Organizational psychologist Edgar Schein identifies eight valuesorientations he calls career anchors.52 A career anchor is a criticalpart of a person’s self-image, so important that he or she wouldnever give it up. Career anchors act like boat anchors. Those whotry jobs that “just don’t feel right” are pulled back to roles that fitthem better. People can be categorized based on how theyorganize themselves around the following orientations. Prototypesare examples of occupations that fit into each category.Theoretical/Functional: Technically anchored individuals seekto exercise and develop their skills. They are specialists whowant to be paid commiserate with their work. However, theyare not interested in promotions but put more value on beingrecognized by their peers for their abilities. Prototypes:engineers, financial analystsGeneral Managerial Competence: Those drawn tomanagement are generalists. They demonstrate a widevariety 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 leadersAutonomy/Independence: These people want to do thingstheir own way. They chafe at organizational rules and mayturn down jobs and promotions in order to maintain theirindependence. They value portable recognition—awards,
prizes, letters of recommendation—that they can take fromjob to job. Prototypes: salespersons, consultants, freelancewritersSecurity/Stability: Predictability is key to those seeking safetyand security. They gravitate to organizations that avoid layoffsand provide good benefits and retirement plans. Unlikeautonomous individuals, they are willing to be told what to doin return for security. Prototypes: government and civil serviceemployeesEntrepreneurial Creativity: Entrepreneurs are driven to createnew products and businesses or to take over and improveexisting organizations. They value ownership beyond all elseand accumulate wealth to demonstrate what they haveaccomplished. Prototypes: small business owners, techcompany foundersSense of Service/Dedication to a Cause: These individualsenter occupations so that they can live out their values. Theirdesire to improve the world overrides their desire todemonstrate particular skills. They put a high priority onserving a cause and helping others. Prototypes: nurses,human resource specialists, social workersPure Challenge: Challenge-anchored people valueovercoming obstacles, solving problems, and winning overopponents. If not continually tested, they get bored andirritable; promotion and pay fail to motivate them. Prototypes:Navy SEALS, professional athletesLifestyle: Lifestyle individuals want to integrate their careerswith 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 areattracted 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 atfamily-friendly companiesSchein argued that employees have one primary career anchorbut subsequent researchers found that we can have more thanone values orientation, as in the case of the military officer whopursues challenge while serving her or his country.53 Manyteachers want to serve but also value having summers and
vacation breaks to spend with their families. Identifying yourprimary career anchor(s) is a good way to avoid situations thatcould cause you ethical discomfort. If lifestyle is critical to yourself-image, you will feel guilty if your job requires that you spendmuch of your time traveling, away from your spouse and children.If you desire to serve a cause, you may be uncomfortable workingfor a business that puts profits first.Duane Brown and R. Kelly Crace developed a widely used valuessystem called the Life Values Inventory, which you can takeonline.54 They outline the following as important values that arekey to self-fulfillment and motivation. You can use them to helpyou 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 owndirection)Loyalty to family or group (following traditions andexpectations)Privacy (time alone)Responsibility (dependability, trustworthiness)Scientific understanding (employing scientific principles inproblem solving)Spirituality (spiritual beliefs, connection to something greaterthan the self)There are two cautions to keep in mind when identifying yourvalues. First, don’t put too much importance on materialisticvalues like wealth, possessions, status, fame, and personalimage. Those driven by these external values generally have alower quality of life. They tend to suffer from depression andanxiety, experience more negative emotions, are morenarcissistic, have more physical problems like headaches and
backaches, are at a greater risk for drug and alcohol abuse, havemore difficulty establishing lasting relationships, and suffer lowself-esteem. Materialistic individuals are also more likely to lie andmanipulate others while ignoring community and environmentalconcerns. As employees, they report more burnout and jobsatisfaction. Instead of seeking wealth and material possessions,focus on intrinsic values which are naturally satisfying andpromote psychological well-being. These include values related toself-acceptance/personal growth (choosing what do, followingyour curiosity), relatedness/intimacy (expressing love, formingintimate relationships), and community feeling/helpfulness(making other people’s lives better, making the world a betterplace).55Second, values, though critical, have to be translated into action.Consider Enron, for example. The firm had a lofty set of ideals butleaders ignored these values as they engaged in fraud anddeception. Further, our greatest struggles come from choosingbetween two good values. Many corporate leaders value bothgood customer service and high product quality, but what do theydo when reaching one of these goals means sacrificing the other?Pushing to get a product shipped to satisfy a customer may forcethe manufacturing division into cutting corners in order to meet thedeadline. Resolving dilemmas such as these takes more thanvalue clarification; we also need some standards for determiningethical priorities. With that in mind, I will identify ethical decision-making principles in Chapters 5 and 6. But first we need toconfront one final shadow caster—evil—in Chapter 4.Implications and ApplicationsCharacter is integral to effective leadership, often making thedifference between success and failure.Virtues are positive leadership qualities or traits that help usmanage our shadow sides.As a leader, seek to develop your (1) courage (overcoming fearin order to do the right thing), (2) grit (pursuing long term goalswith perseverance and passion), (3) temperance (self-control),(4) wisdom (drawing on knowledge and experience to pursuethe common good) and prudence (practical wisdom), (5) justice(obligation to the common good, treating others equally and
fairly), (6) optimism (expectation of positive outcomes in thefuture), (7) integrity (wholeness, completeness, consistency),(8) humility (self-awareness, openness, a sense oftranscendence), and (9) compassion (kindness, generosity,love).Create a moral identity that embeds virtues into your decisionsand behavior, making moral commitments central to your self-definition.Strive for consistency but don’t be surprised by contradictions inyour character or in the character of others. Become moretolerant of yourself and other leaders. At the same time,recognize that a leader’s private behavior often influences hisor her public decisions.Indirect approaches that build character include identifying rolemodels, telling and living out shared stories, learning fromhardship, cultivating habits, creating a personal missionstatement, and clarifying values.Never underestimate the power of a good example. Be on thelookout for real and fictional ethical role models to imitate.Fictional stories give you an opportunity to practice moralreflection and judgment while reinforcing positive values.Communal stories encourage you to live up to the role you playin the shared narrative.Hardships are an inevitable part of life and leadership. Thesense of loss associated with these events can provideimportant feedback, spur self-inspection, encourage you todevelop 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 prepareyou for future leadership responsibilities.Positive habits are designed to foster virtuous behavior. Eachtime we engage in a good habit, it leaves a trace or residue.Over time, these residual effects become integrated into ourcharacter. The most popular list of habits includes the following:seek to be proactive, begin with the end in mind, organizearound priorities, strive for cooperation, listen forunderstanding, develop synergistic solutions, and engage incontinual self-renewal.Having an ultimate destination will encourage you to stay onyour ethical track. Develop a personal mission statement thatreflects your strengths and passions. Use your values as amoral compass to keep you from losing your way. Avoid valuesthat focus on material possessions and financial success; focusinstead intrinsic values which are naturally satisfying andpromote your well-being.
For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment1. 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? Tryto reach a consensus on this question in a group.3. What does your score on Self-Assessment 3.1 reveal aboutyour level of grittiness? How can you improve your ability tofollow through on long-term goals and projects? As analternative, have someone rate you on Self-Assessment 3.2 orrate one of your leaders. What do the results say about yourcharacter or the character of your leader?4. What steps can you take to develop a more positive outlookabout future events?5. Brainstorm a list of moral heroes. What does it take to qualifyfor your list?6. How can you strengthen your courage?7. Reflect on the ways in which a particular shared narrative hasshaped your worldview and behavior. Write up yourconclusions.8. How has fiction shaped your character development? Whatnovels, films, and shows have had the greatest impact? Why?9. Interview a leader you admire. Determine the hardship(s) sheor 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 peopleand develop a plan for addressing your weaknesses. Explorethe habits further through reading and training seminars.11. Develop a personal mission statement using the guidelinesprovided in the chapter. As an alternative, collect the personalmission statements of well-known contemporary leaders.12. Identify your primary career anchor. How has this anchorinfluenced your decisions about where to go to school, yourmajor, and your future plans?Student Study SiteVisit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGEjournal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.
Case Study 3.1Tech Industry Leaders: From Brash toBoringCEOs of major technology companies are known for being arrogant andoutspoken. Apple’s Steve Jobs was an autocratic micromanager whofrequently terrorized his employees and dismissed his critics. FormerMicrosoft CEO Steve Ballmer has a personality described as “big, brash,and bullish.” Uber founder Travis Kalnick’s combative businessphilosophy generated a flurry of lawsuits from drivers, municipalities, andcompetitors.In recent years, a new type of tech CEO is emerging, one that breaks thestereotype of the dynamic, dominant tech genius. “Arrogance is out andhumility is in,” says one observer.1 New York Times tech columnistFarhad 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 thango into a rage when they occur. He has made Apple a more pleasantplace to work. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella puts empathy andcompassion 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 listenerswho are willing to work with others.The change to kinder, gentler, humbler leadership is due in large part tothe changing role of technology. When personal computers, iPhones, theInternet, tablets, ride sharing apps, and other forms of technology werenew, dominant personalities helped convince consumers to embracethem. According to Manjoo, “the most beloved founders possess anuncanny genius for selling the world on ideas that look useless, pointlessor impossible before we all realize we can never live without them.”3 Anenthusiastic press was quick to welcome the latest products. Now techcompanies, which have become some of the world’s largest and mostpowerful firms, are coming under attack for acting as monopolies,violating privacy rights, hosting fake news and hate speech, biasingsearch results, allowing interference in elections and so on. Technologyleaders routinely appear before Congressional hearings to defend theirpractices and the European Union has instituted much stricter digitalprivacy regulations. According to the founder and chief executive of start-up software Gusto, “Tech is now such a huge and dominant industry. Thefly-by-the-seat-of-your pants mind-set is just not viable when you have a
trillion-dollar market capitalization or if you have more influence thanmany governments around the world.”4 The press has become muchmore critical, no longer believing assurances that the latest device willmake the world a better place.While there are still some high-profile tech CEOs still around, they toomay be forced to tone down or be replaced. Consider Elon Musk of Teslaand SpaceX, for example. Viewed as a creative, charismatic genius, Muskhas come under fire for his erratic behavior, including sending aggressivetweets and apparently smoking pot during a videotaped interview. TheSecurities and Exchange Commission made Musk step down as the chairof the Tesla board after he falsely claimed he had enough financing totake the company private. (Musk neglected to tell the rest of Tesla boardof his plans.) The SEC also demanded that Tesla add two moreindependent directors to its board to exert further control of the company’sfounder, including his communication on Twitter.
Discussion Probes1. Do you agree that large tech companies need a humble style ofleadership now that they have grown so large and powerful?2. What does “boring” leadership mean to you? What are theadvantages 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? WillElon Musk and other dominant leaders have to change?5. Why are the public, governments, and the press more scepticalabout 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?
Notes1. Crenshaw, C. (2018, September 14). PR for the “new” technologyCEO. Crenshaw Communications.2. Manjoo, F. (2018, September 12). The metamorphosis of Silicon ValleyC.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 inSilicon Valley. Quartz.Source: Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2015, September 28). The bestmanagers are boring managers. Harvard Business Review.
Case Study 3.2Saving the Mountain Gorilla: The Dark Sideof Dian FosseyMountain gorillas are one of the world’s most spectacular animal species.Thousands of tourists travel to Rwanda every year to view thesecreatures up close in the wild. Many report that coming into contact withthese 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 thetireless efforts of Dian Fossey. In 1967, Fossey convinced archaeologistand anthropologist Louis Leakey to send her to the Congo to study theapes. Leakey, who discovered fossils of the earliest pre-humans in EastAfrica, wanted to investigate animals that share the most in common withhumans—chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas. Under his direction,Jane Goodall studied chimpanzees, Birute Galdikas researchedorangutans, and Fossey observed the great apes. Fossey was an unlikelycandidate for any research position, let alone one as demanding astracking gorillas in Africa. Quiet and self-conscious about her height,Dian’s grades kept her from entering veterinary school so she became anoccupational therapist working with disabled children in Louisville. Fosseyhad no formal training in research methods and her experience in Africawas limited to one guided tour around the continent.What Fossey lacked in training and experience she more than made upfor in pure grit. She spent weeks climbing steep mountainsides despiteher fear of heights (and her chain smoking habit) to first locate and thenbecome accepted into several gorilla troops. After war broke out in theCongo, Fossey moved her operations to a high meadow camp inRwanda. From there, she and her trackers would climb through stickymud and wet vegetation (it rained nearly every day) to locate and observethe animals. She would spend the daylight hours taking notes and thenreturn to her isolated cabin to type them up while sitting in wet clothes.Fossey brought international attention to the mountain gorillas throughNational Geographic articles and videos, television appearances, lecturetours, and her book Gorillas in the Mist. She became the first person tohave extended physical contact with the apes. Babies would sit on her lapand adults would sit next to her and touch her hair. Her mountain campbecame the Karisoke Research Center housing graduate students.As Fossey’s international fame grew, so did her shadow side. Dian madeno attempt to understand the local residents (calling Africans the
derogatory term wogs) and never learned much of their language. Shetreated her African staff with disdain, continually accusing them of takingadvantage of her. She would routinely fire one tracker who wasn’tobedient enough and then rehire him the next day. Her graduate studentswere also subject to her whims. Fossey would order them around, forcingthem to stay in their cabins when they weren’t out in the field. They had totake their meals alone and communicate only by notes. She expectedthem to work as hard as she did, never taking a break. She couldn’tunderstand why they might want to leave the gloomy, isolated camp todescend the mountain to visit town.Fossey’s behavior took an even darker turn after poachers killed anddecapitated her favorite gorilla, Digit. Fossey declared war on thepoachers, torturing and humiliating them when they were captured andbrought to her. Punishment included whipping them around their genitalsand covering them with ape dung before sending them to jail. Fossey alsobattled cattle farmers who encroached on their mountain preserve (anational park), zoos who wanted gorilla babies and government officialswho provided the infants in return for cash, and tourist groups that wouldarrive unannounced on “her mountain.” She would kill cows and shoot atcattle farmers and groups of tourists there to see the apes. Preservationof the mountain gorilla took precedence over the needs of the Rwandanswho lived in dire poverty and looked to supplement their diets andincomes by trapping animals.Observers noted the change that had taken place in the shy Americanwho followed her dream to study animals in the wild. According tobiographer Harold Hayes,It was clear to many people that Fossey’s feelings toward thegorillas had gone far beyond professional dedication to theirsurvival. The preservation of the gorilla had become herobsession, the expression of all Fossey’s deepest emotions andfears.She seemed possessed—by love and inexhaustible rage. Theromance of Dian Fossey, the American woman who came toAfrica and stayed, was turning dark. (p. 295)The longer Fossey battled poachers and locals, the more danger shefaced. In 1985, someone broke into her cabin and murdered her with amachete. A U.S. graduate student and tracker were convicted of thecrime but most observers believe she was killed by a poacher or anotherone of her many Rwandan enemies.
Fossey’s legacy lives on through the Dian Fossey Foundation, whichcontinues to operate the Karisoke Institute and guard against poachersand human intrusion on gorilla habitat. The number of mountain gorillas isgrowing. (The populations of all other species of apes are declining.)While Dian often warred against her neighbors, the Foundation works withlocal residents. The organization trains African conservationists andprovides education, water, and medical care to area communities,believing that this is the key to preserving the apes that live nearby. Theimportance of community outreach is reflected in the group’s slogan“Helping people. Helping gorillas.”
Discussion Probes1. How would you describe Fossey’s character? Why did her characterapparently change over time?2. Can virtues become vices if taken too far? Did that happen in thecase 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 harmfulobsession?6. Do animal species deserve the same respect as humans? How dowe balance the needs of humans and animals?Sources: Apted, M. (1988). Gorillas in the mist [Motion picture]. UnitedStates: Universal Pictures; Hayes, H. T. P. (1990). The dark romance ofDian Fossey. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; National GeographicSociety. (2017). Dian Fossey: Secrets in the mist [DVD]. Available fromwww.foxconnect.com; The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International:https://gorillafund.org
Case Study 3.3Forging Character Through HardshipBritish explorer Ernst Shackleton, Abraham Lincoln, abolitionist FrederickDouglass, German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and science writerRachel Carson would appear to have nothing in common. With theexception of Lincoln and Douglass, their paths never crossed. They camefrom different eras, countries, and backgrounds and pursued differentobjectives. Explorer Ernest Shackleton wanted to bring back his crewalive from a disastrous arctic expedition of 1915–1917. Lincoln set out tosave the union. Escaped slave Frederick Douglass worked to end slaveryand bring the vote to blacks following the Civil War. Dietrich Bonhoefferopposed Hitler. Author Rachel Carson challenged the chemical industryand helped launch the environmental movement in her 1962 book SilentSpring.Despite their apparent differences, Harvard business historian NancyKoehn identifies several threads that bind these figures together. Tobegin, they were all leaders who had a significant impact on their timesand on the years that followed. Further, as leaders they were made notborn. Though they had energy, ambition, and intelligence, there was noguarantee that any of them would shape their worlds. Lincoln was anunschooled farm boy, Douglass spent the first years of his life as theproperty of whites, and Carson grew up in a house without plumbing. Butthey were willing to work on themselves. Lincoln taught himself the lawwhile delivering mail, for example, while Douglass bribed street kids toteach him to read. Carson taught herself how to write for a popularaudience. Each embraced a purpose larger than him or herself and ledout of a sense of empathy and compassion. Shackleton made sure thephysical and emotional needs of his crewmembers came before his ownneeds. Bonhoeffer engaged in small acts of service and kindness to hisseminary students and later visited those who were imprisoned by theNazis. Lincoln ended his second inaugural address by declaringWith malice toward none, with charity for all; with firmness in theright, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finishthe work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care forhim who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and hisorphan.Hardship, more than any other thread, defines this group of leaders. Eachwent through a series of challenges. Shackleton lost his ship, wasstranded on pack ice, and had to sail 800 miles on a small dinghy to
rescue his crew. Lincoln oversaw the slaughter of his fellow citizens andthe loss of a son, all while being vilified by the press and much of thepublic when the Civil War appeared unwinnable. Douglass was pursuedby bounty hunters and faced death threats. Bonhoeffer was imprisonedfor two years by the Gestapo and then executed. Carson wrote her mostinfluential work during the latter stages of breast cancer.Each of the five leaders faced hardships with courage, deciding to take “asingle step forward into the turbulence and then taking the next step afterthat” (p. 441). They tried to learn lessons from the crises and grew fromthese experiences. For example, Bonhoeffer, who came from the mostprivileged background of the five leaders, developed the fortitude to resistGestapo interrogation, comfort his fellow prisoners and come up with anew vision of Christianity while in jail. All five learned to slow down, tothink carefully, and to assess the bigger picture. (Lincoln was known forwriting telegrams and letters, putting them in a drawer and then neversending them.) They kept pursing their goals but were able to adapt theirstrategies. Douglass broke from fellow abolitionist William Lloyd Garrisonin the 1850s to start a newspaper and employ new strategies for attackingslavery. Shackleton did everything he could—establishing routines,celebrations, walking, sailing—to keep his mission and men alive. Carsonshifted her focus from writing about the natural world to defending it.Koehn’s five leaders were frequently disappointed but never abandonedtheir causes. The author notes that we have much to learn from theirsteadfastness in the face of catastrophe:But these individuals didn’t give up. They tried to walk withintegrity, 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)
Discussion Probes1. What tells us more about a leader’s character—his or her successesor failures?2. Why do some people “step into” crisis while others retreat? How canwe 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 successfullyweathered and learned from crises?5. How have hardships helped to shape your character?Source: Koehn, N. (2017). Forged in crisis: The power of courageousleadership in turbulent times. New York, NY: Scribner.SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.1 Grit ScaleInstructionsPlease indicate how well the following statements describe you. Behonest—there are no right or wrong answers.1. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me fromprevious ones. Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all2. Setbacks don’t discourage me. Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all3. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for ashort time but later lost interest. Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all4. I am a hard worker. Very much like me Mostly like me
Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all5. 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 all6. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that takemore than a few months to complete. Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all7. I finish whatever I begin. Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at all8. I am diligent. Very much like me Mostly like me Somewhat like me Not much like me Not like me at allScoring:For questions 2, 4, 7, and 8 assign the following points: 5 = Verymuch like me, 4 = Mostly like me, 3 = Somewhat like me, 2 = Notmuch like me, 1 = Not like me at all.For questions 1, 3, 5, and 6 assign the following points: 1 = Verymuch like me, 2 = Mostly like me, 3 = Somewhat like me, 4 = Notmuch like me, 5 = Not like me at all.Add up all the points and divide by 8. The maximum score on thisscale 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 andvalidation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 91, 166–174. Used by permission.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 3.2 The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire(LVQ)Instructions: Ask someone else to rate you on the following items orselect one of your leaders and rate that individual. Scale: 1 = not atall, 2 = once in a while, 3 = sometimes, 4 = fairly often, 5 =frequently, if not always. Reverse scoring where indicated. You willgenerate a score for each individual virtue and a total perceivedcharacter score.1. Does as he or she ought to do in a given situation2. Does not carefully consider all the information available beforemaking an important decision that impacts others3. Boldly jumps into a situation without considering theconsequences of his/her actions4. Does not seek out information from a variety of sources so thebest decision can be made5. Considers a problem from all angles and reaches the bestdecision for all parties involved6. Would rather risk his or her job than to do something that wasunjust7. May have difficulty standing up for his or her beliefs amongfriends who do not share the same views8. Fails to make the morally best decision in a given situation9. May hesitate to enforce ethical standards when dealing with aclose friend10. Ignores his or her “inner voice” when deciding how to proceed11. Seems to be overly concerned with his or her personal power12. Is not overly concerned with his or her own accomplishments13. Wishes to know everything that is going on in the organizationto the extent that he or she micromanages14. Gives credit to others when credit is due15. Demonstrates respect for all people16. May take credit for the accomplishments of others17. Respects the rights and integrity of others18. Would make promotion decisions based on a candidate’s merit19. Does not treat others as he or she would like to be treatedPrudence 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
Temperance Justice11. _______ (Reverse) 14. _______12. _______ 15. _______13. _______ (Reverse) 16. _______ (Reverse) 17. ______________ out of 15 18. _______ 19. _______ (Reverse) _______ out of 30Total _______ out of 95Source: Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010).Virtue-based measurement of ethical leadership: The LeadershipVirtues Questionnaire. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice andResearch, 62(4), 235–250.
Notes1. 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. Journalof Business Ethics, 67, 341–357; Kenny, A. (2004). Ancientphilosophy (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 Oxfordhandbook 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). NewYork, NY: Praeger; Timmons, M. (2002). Moral theory: Anintroduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.5. Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.). (2002). Apsychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions aboutfuture 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., VanTongeren, 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 strengthsand virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.7. Comte-Sponville, A. (2001). A small treatise on the greatvirtues: The uses of philosophy in everyday life. New York, NY:Metropolitan; Peterson & Seligman.8. Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage. New York, NY: WilliamMorrow; Lopez, S. J., Rasmussen, H. N., Skorupski, W. P.,Koetting, K., Petersen, S. E., & Yang, Y. (2010). Folkconceptualizations of courage. In C. L. S. Pury & S. J. Lopez(Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on anancient virtue (pp. 23–45). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological 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: Modernresearch 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 fromsources cited in the chapter as well as from Kilburg, R. R. (2012).Virtuous leaders: Strategy, character, and influence in the 21stcentury. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;Sosik, J. J. (2015). Leading with character: Stories of valor andvirtue 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 andperseverance. 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; VonCulin, 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;13. Waller, J. (2016). Confronting evil: Engaging our responsibilityto 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 ethicalleadership: The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 235–250.15. Intezari, A., & Pauleen, D. J. (2013). Students of wisdom. InW. 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 developingorganizational 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). QueenElizabeth 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 personalvirtue. Social Theory & Practice, 25, 361–384; Solomon, R. C.(1990). A passion for justice: Emotions and the origins of thesocial contract. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.19. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justicein organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 86, 278–321; Viswesvaran, C., &Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizationaljustice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudesand behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 193–203.
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 Starbucksfought for its life without losing its soul. New York, NY: Rodale.22. Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity andleadership: A multi-level conceptual framework. LeadershipQuarterly, 20, 405–420; Simons, T. L. (2002). Behavioral integrity:The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds asa research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35.23. Sommer, J. (2019, January 16). Vanguard’s Jack Bogle wasn’ta 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 ofManagement Review, 23, 547–566.25. Merie, R. (2017, August 4). Martin Shkreli is found guilty ofthree of eight securities fraud charges. The Washington Post;McCory, K. (2017, August 4). “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreliconvicted 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 ofleader humility. Human Relations, 58, 1323–1350. See alsoBrooks, D. (2015). The road to character. New York, NY: RandomHouse; 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 anddirections for future research. Journal of Social and ClinicalPsychology, 19, 70–82.27. Brooks.28. Peterson & Seligman.
29. Howell, J., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismaticleadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of ManagementExecutive, 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, August12). The Olympian force behind a revolution. The WashingtonPost, p. A07.31. Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. InW. 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 andcharacter education (pp. 67–100). Notre Dame, IN: Notre DamePress; Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source ofmoral 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 charactereducation (pp. 30–52). New York, NY: Routledge.32. Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2009). Moral identity in businesssituations: A social-cognitive framework for understanding moralfunctioning. 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 moraljudgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empiricalexamination of the moral individual. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92(6), 1610–1624; Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman,D. (2008). Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identityresearch and its implications for business ethics. Business EthicsQuarterly, 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 bindingmoral foundations. Psychological Science, 25, 1554–1562;
Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as afoundation 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 afteradmitting affair. The New York Times, p. A1.35. Devine, T., Seuk, J. H., & Wilson, A. (2001). Cultivating heartand character: Educating for life’s most essential goals. ChapelHill, NC: Character Development; Van Slyke, J. A. (2014). Moralpsychology, neuroscience, and virtue. In K. Timpe & C. A. Boyd(Eds.), Virtues and their vices (459–479). Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.36. Becker, S. W., & Eagly, A. H. (2004). The heroism of womenand 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 storiesmake us human. New York, NY: Mariner Books.40. Appel, M. (2008). Fictional narratives cultivate just-worldbeliefs. 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 versusnon-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the
simulation of fictional social worlds. Journal of Research inPersonality, 40, 694–712.44. MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nded.). 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 CreativeLeadership 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 becomea great leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.47. Dotlich, D. L., Noel, J. L., & Walker, N. (2008). Learning forleadership: 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 effectivepeople. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.50. Parker-Pope, T. (2015, January 6). In with the new missionstatement. The New York Times, p. D4.51. Vozza, S. (2014, February 25). Personal mission statement of5 famous CEOs (and why you should write one too). FastCompany.52. Schein, E. H. (1993). Career anchors: Discovering your realvalues (rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.53. Feldman, D. C., & Bolino, M. C. (1996). Careers withincareers: Reconceptualizing the nature of career anchors and theirconsequences. Human Resource Management Review 6, 80–
112; Tan, H.-H., & Quek, B.-C. (2001). An exploratory study on thecareer anchors of educators in Singapore. The Journal ofPsychology, 135(5), 527–545.54. Crace, R. K., & Brown, D. (1992). The Life Values Inventory.Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Available athttp://www.lifevalues.org55. 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 valueorientation for businesses. In J. R. Deckop (Ed), Human resourcemanagement ethics (pp. 283–306). Charlotte, NC: InformationAge.
4 Combating Evil
Learning Objectives> Differentiate between the six faces of evil.> Outline strategies for combatting evil based on each of its sixfaces.> Describe the four stages of the forgiveness process.> Explain how forgiveness can be an important weapon in the fightagainst 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 ofevil.The power of choosing good or evil is within the reach ofall.—ANCIENT THEOLOGIAN AND PHILOSOPHERORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIAWithout forgiveness, there is no future.—SOUTH AFRICAN ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU
What’s AheadIn this chapter, we wrestle with the most dangerous of allunhealthy shadow casters: evil. The first section surveys some ofthe forms or faces of evil. The second section examines the roleof forgiveness, both giving and seeking, in breaking cycles of evil.The third section probes the relationship between spirituality andleadership, highlighting how spiritual practices can equip us todeal 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 televisionprogram contains scenes that might be disturbing to some viewersor read a sticker at the local coffee shop warning those withallergies that some of the pastries contain nut products. Perhapstext chapters dealing with controversial topics should also comewith a label: “Warning: Readers May Disagree With MaterialCovered in This Chapter.” Such a warning would certainly apply tothis chapter. I’ll be adressing three topics—evil, forgiveness, andspirituality—that spark a good deal of debate. I will explain why Ibelieve each is worthy of a leader’s attention. You may or may notagree. But before you dismiss any or all of these topics, I hopeyou will weigh what scholars say about each one. The For FurtherExploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment Exercises ask youto draw and reflect on your own conclusions about the existenceof evil, the extent of forgiveness, and the role of spirituality inleadership and the work place.
The Faces of EvilSome forms of shadow behavior are far darker than others. Termslike bad or unethical or criminal seem inadequate to describe suchacts as mass shootings, mass rapes, genocide, governmentsanctioned starvation and torture. As a result, a great number ofphilosophers, social scientists, political scientists, and theologiansuse the term evil to describe such events. The concept of evil isnot universally embraced, however. Some reject evil as moralisticor religious as well as outdated; it doesn’t fit well into the modernscientific age. Others note that the evil label can become aweapon to use against our enemies, as when President GeorgeW. Bush declared Iran, Iran, and North Korea as an “Axis of Evil.”Some belief systems, like Buddhism, reject the notion of evilaltogether. Nevertheless, evil has been studied for centuries;many different cultures consider evil to be an integral part ofhuman existence.1Contemporary Western definitions of evil treat evil as extremedestructiveness.2 Evil inflicts pain and suffering, deprives innocentpeople of their humanity, and creates feelings of hopelessnessand despair. Evildoers do excessive harm, going well beyondwhat is needed to achieve their objectives. The ultimate product ofevil is death. Evil destroys self-esteem, physical and emotionalwell-being, relationships, communities, and nations.We can’t combat this powerful force until we first understand ouropponent. Important insights into the nature of evil by looking atthe various forms or faces it displays. In this section, I’ll introducefive perspectives on evil. In the next section, I’ll talk about howunderstanding these perspectives can help us better deal with thispowerful, destructive force.
Evil as Dreadful PleasureUniversity of Maryland political science professor C. Fred Alforddefines evil as a combination of dread and pleasure. Alfordrecruited 60 respondents of a variety of ages and backgrounds totalk about their experiences with evil. He discovered that peopleexperience evil as a deep sense of uneasiness, “the dread ofbeing human, vulnerable, alone in the universe and doomed todie.”3 They do evil when, instead of coming to grips with theirinner darkness, they try to get rid of it by making others feel“dreadful.” Inflicting this pain is enjoyable. Part of the pleasurecomes from their being in charge, of being the victimizers insteadof the victims.Evil can also be a product of chronic boredom.4 Boredom ariseswhen people lose their sense of meaning and purpose. They nolonger enjoy life and try to fill the emptiness they feel inside.Ordinary distractions such as television, movies, surfing theInternet, social media, shopping, and sports don’t fill the void, sopeople turn to evil instead. Evil is an attractive alternative becauseit engages the full energy and attention of perpetrators. Forexample, a serial killer has to plan his crimes, locate victims, keephis actions secret, and outsmart law enforcement.
Evil as IdealismA great deal of the world’s evil is committed by people who areconvinced they are doing good. Driven by idealism, they feelobligated to hurt others. In fact, it “becomes one’s sacredobligation to do so.”5 Hindus in India lynch their beef-eatingMoslem neighbors. North Korean leaders imprison and executethose who offend the nation and its supreme leader. ISIS fightersbehead those who stand in the way of the formation of an Islamicstate.In idealistic evil, good ends justify oppressive, violent means.What is normally considered morally wrong—torture, executions—is acceptable. Participants overcome their scruples to participatein evil acts, as in the case of the Soviet Communist partymembers who put aside their pity when confiscating food fromRussian peasants in the 1920s, starving millions. (Turn to CaseStudy 4.1 for another example of evildoers who were convincedthat their heinous crimes were justified because they served aworthy cause.)According to Florida State professor Roy Baumeister, idealisticevil provides adherents with a license to hate. Opponents appearto be standing in the way of good and hence are evil. Therefore,true believers have a positive duty to hate them. Terrorists use thelicense to hate to justify killing innocent people by running overpedestrians, and bombing mosques, markets and other publicvenues. To them, anyone who is not on their side is considered anenemy. Religious wars are often more vicious becauseparticipants believe that extreme evil requires the use of extremecounter measures.Idealistic evil is a group phenomenon. The group defines thecause or ideal; group members validate the beliefs and actions ofeach other. It is far easier to engage in violence, for example,when others agree with these acts and encourage their use. Thegroup becomes the moral authority. Individuals may questionthemselves but do so in order to determine if they fit into thegroup’s belief and value structure. Thus, in the past, members of
many communist cells judged each other based on how well theyconformed to party beliefs. But they never questioned if the partyline was moral. In some groups, focus shifts from pursuing aworthy ideal to maintaining the group itself. Anyone who leavesthe group is considered a traitor, a greater threat than externalenemies. Members turn to violence and repression to preserveand promote the group.
Evil as ExclusionIn moral exclusion, group members draw a mental circle.6 Thoseinside the circle (the moral community or scope of justice) aretreated with respect, are considered deserving of sacrifice fromother members, and get their fair share of resources. If thosewithin the circle are harmed, other group members come to theirrescue. Those outside the circle, on the other hand, are seen asundeserving or expendable. As a result, “harming them appearsacceptable, appropriate, or just.”7Mild forms of exclusion are part of daily life and include, forexample, making sexist comments, applying double standardswhen judging the behavior of different groups, and makingunflattering comparisons to appear superior to others. (Mildexclusion can also include ignoring or allowing such behaviors.)However, moral exclusion can also take extreme forms, resultingin such evils as human rights violations, torture, murder, andgenocide. For instance, during World War II, Japanese soldiersviewed the Chinese with contempt. Murdering them was like“squashing a bug or murdering a hog.”8 This mind-set allowedJapanese soldiers to rape, torture, and slaughter civilians in theChinese city of Nanking (now known as Nanjing), killing anestimated 300,000 residents. Prior to prisoner abuse at AbuGhraib, jailers were told that Iraqi prisoners “are like dogs and ifyou allow them to believe at any point that they are more than adog then you’ve lost control of them.”9 Other examples of evilexclusion include the Russian oppression of Chechen rebels,genocide in Guatemala, Serbian atrocities, attacks on villages inthe Darfur region of Sudan, and the expulsion of the Rohingyanpeople from Myanmar (see Case Study 4.2).10 Box 4.1 presents alist of the symptoms of moral exclusion.Box 4.1 Symptoms of Moral ExclusionSymptomDescription
SymptomDescriptionDoublestandardsHaving different norms for different groupsConcealingeffects ofharmfuloutcomesDisregarding, ignoring, distorting, orminimizing injurious outcomes that othersexperienceReducing moralstandardsAsserting that one’s harmful behavior isproper while denying one’s lesser concernfor othersUtilizingeuphemismsMaking and sanitizing harmful behavior andoutcomesBiasedevaluation ofgroupsMaking unflattering between-groupcomparisons that bolster one’s own groupat the expense of othersCondescensionand derogationRegarding others with disdainDehumanizationDenying others’ rights, entitlements,humanity, and dignityFear ofcontaminationPerceiving contact or alliances with otherstakeholders as posing a threat to oneselfNormalizationand glorificationof violenceGlorifying and normalizing violence as aneffective, legitimate, or even sublime formof human behavior while denying thepotential of violence to damage people, theenvironment, relationships, andconstructive conflict resolution processesVictim blamingPlacing blame on those who are harmedDeindividuationBelieving one’s contribution to socialproblems is undetectable
SymptomDescriptionDiffusingresponsibilityDenying personal responsibility for harmsby seeing them as the result of collectiverather than individual decisions and actionsDisplacingresponsibilityIdentifying others, such as subordinates orsupervisors, as responsible for harmsinflicted on victimsSource: Opotow, S., Gerson, J., & Woodside, S. (2005). From moralexclusion to moral inclusion: Theory for teaching peace. Theory IntoPractice 44, 303–318, p. 307. Used with permission.Dispute resolution expert Susan Opotow believes that moralexclusion progresses through the following five states orelements, which reinforce one another and can become a viciouscycle that ends in death and destruction.111. Conflicts of interest are salient. Moral exclusion is often set inmotion during zero-sum conflicts where one group wins at theexpense of the others. As tensions increase, membersdistance themselves from their opponents, focusing ondifferences based on company, job function, religion,education, hometown, ethnic background, social status, skincolor, and other factors. Competition for resources can evenset adults against children. Under the Communist regime inRomania, families were forced to have four children whenthere was little to eat. As a result, survival took priority overthe welfare of children, who were seen as competition forfood; many children were placed in orphanages. OneRomanian cab driver summed up the attitude of many of hiscountrymen this way: “With so many decent people strugglingto get along, why do you bother with the kids? They are notgood; they are trash.”12 Only recently have Romanian citizensbegun to address the problem of neglected children.2. Group categorizations are salient. The characteristics ofcompeting groups are given negative labels, helping to dividethe world into those who deserve empathy and assistanceand those who don’t. These derogatory labels excuse unfair
treatment and negative consequences. In much of Europe,for example, Romanies (often called Gypsies) are describedas “lazy,” “dirty,” and “thieves.”133. Moral justifications are prominent. Hurting outsiders isjustified and even celebrated as a way to strike a blowagainst a corrupt enemy. These exclusionary moral claimscan be identified by their self-serving nature. They justifydoing harm and reinforce moral boundaries by denigratingoutsiders. Serbs in the former Yugoslavia believed that theyhad to establish their own nation state, free of other ethnicgroups, so that they could flourish. First, Serbian authoritiesdismissed Muslims and Croats from their jobs and kept themfrom opening businesses and sending their children toschool. Then, with their humanity denied, they weremassacred and sent to concentration camps.144. Unjust procedures are described as expedient. The damagedone by moral exclusion is often disguised because itadministered through technical or rational means (see thediscussion of evil as bureaucracy below). Unjust proceduresoften hurt the very people they are supposed to benefit. Forexample, government bureaucrats in the United States andAustralia claimed to be helping native peoples even as theystole their lands and tried to eradicate their cultures.5. Harmful outcomes occur. Exclusion has damaging physicaland psychological effects. Members of excluded groups maysuffer physical harm like abuse, sickness, and death. At thesame time, they suffer from a loss of self-esteem and identityas they internalize the negative judgments of the dominantgroup. Perpetrators also pay a high price. They have tospend significant energy and resources to deal with conflicts,excuse their behavior, and maintain group boundaries.Excluders also suffer psychologically, as the harm they causethreatens to overshadow any good they do. This was thecase under apartheid in South Africa, where Afrikaners couldnot overcome the stain of racism.
Evil as BureaucracyThe 20th century was the bloodiest period in history. An estimated200 million people died as the direct or indirect result of wars,genocide, and other violence.15 According to public administrationprofessors Guy Adams and Danny Balfour, the combination ofscience and technology made the 1900s so destructive.16Scientific and technological developments—tanks, airplanes,chemical warfare, nuclear weapons—made killing highly efficient.At the same time, belief in technological progress encouragedgovernment officials to take a rational approach to problems. Theintegration of these factors produced administrative evil. Inadministrative evil, organizational members commit heinouscrimes while carrying out their daily tasks as “good,” “responsible”professionals.Adams and Balfour argue that the true nature of administrativeevil is masked or hidden from participants. Hiding evil is easier inthe modern organization because, first of all, many people are notcomfortable with the term evil. Second, large organizations diffuseindividual responsibility and compartmentalize work. Individualemployees don’t feel individually accountable for their acts orrealize how their behaviors contribute to evil. Third, professionalsfocused solely on carrying out their duties find it easier torepackage evil, destructive actions as good, a process calledmoral inversion. In administrative evil, officials are rarely asked toengage in evil; instead, they inflict pain and suffering while fulfillingtheir job responsibilities. Often, the damage is done to whatAdams and Balfour call “surplus populations,” those groups—ethnic minorities, the poor, immigrants—that are marginalized bysociety.The Holocaust provides the most vivid example of administrativeevil in action. Extermination camps (designed to eliminate Jews,Gypsies, and other “surplus populations”) in Germany would nothave been possible without the willing cooperation of thousands ofcivil servants engaged in such functions as collecting taxes,running municipal governments, and managing the country’ssocial security system. These duties may seem morally neutral,
but in carrying them out, public officials condemned millions todeath. Government authorities defined who was undesirable andthen seized their assets. Administrators managed the ghettos,built concentration camp latrines, and employed slave labor. Eventhe railway authority did its part. The Gestapo had to pay for eachprisoner shipped by rail to the death camps. Railroad officialsbilled the SS at third-class passenger rates (one way) for adultprisoners, with discounts for children. Guards were chargedround-trip fares.Adams and Balfour believe that administrative evil emerges overtime. When wrongdoing first occurs, no one individual seesenough of the big picture to recognize the violation because ofcompartmentalization and diffusion of responsibility. The longerthe wrongdoing goes on, the harder it is to stop as membersbecome more invested in the activity; repeating the behaviorlegitimizes it. At this point, reversing course takes strong, decisiveaction. When members finally recognize the evil, their feelings ofguilt and shame (and concern for organizational liability) give thema strong incentive to deny the wrongdoing or to engage in moralinversion.
Evil as a ChoiceAny discussion of good and evil must consider the role of humanchoice. Just how much freedom we have is a matter of debate,but a number of scholars argue that we become good or evilthrough a series of small, incremental decisions. In other words,we never remain neutral but are always moving toward one poleor another. Medieval scholar C. S. Lewis draws on the image of aroad to illustrate this point.17 On a journey, we decide whichdirection to take every time we come to a fork in the road. We facea similar series of decisions throughout our lives. We can’t correcta poor decision by continuing on but must go back to the forkwhere 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 ouroptions:Each step in life which increases my self-confidence, myintegrity, my courage, my conviction also increases mycapacity to choose the desirable alternative, untileventually it becomes more difficult to choose theundesirable rather than the desirable action. On the otherhand, each act of surrender and cowardice weakens me,opens the path for more acts of surrender, and eventuallyfreedom is lost. Between the extreme when I can nolonger do a wrong act and the other extreme when I havelost my freedom to right action, there are innumerabledegrees of freedom of choice. In the practice of life, thedegree of freedom to choose is different at any givenmoment. If the degree of freedom to choose the good isgreat, it needs less effort to choose the good. If it issmall, it takes a great effort, help from others, andfavorable circumstances.18
Fromm uses the story of the Israelites’ exodus from ancient Egyptto illustrate what happens when leaders make a series of evilchoices. Moses repeatedly asks Pharaoh to let his people go, butthe Egyptian ruler turns down every request. Eventually his heartis hardened, and he and his army are destroyed. (Turn to the“Focus on Follower Ethics” box below for a closer look at thechoices facing those who observe evil.)Focus on Follower Ethics Choosing to Become an Active BystanderBystanders play a critical role in promoting or stopping evil. Harmfulbystanders, such as the white South Africans who participated in therepression of blacks during apartheid, actively support evildoers.Complicit bystanders don’t intend to support perpetrators but theiractions give the impression that they do. U.S. companies conductingbusiness in South Africa during the apartheid era would beconsidered complicit bystanders. They were out to make money, notto support injustice and persecution. Nonetheless, by choosing toignore these activities they appeared to condone them.In contrast to harmful and complicit witnesses, active bystanderschoose to intervene to end wrongdoing. Children act as activebystanders when they stop schoolyard bullies. Adults are activebystanders when they shelter the targets of persecution, provide firstaid for the victims of terrorist attacks, and lobby their governments toend torture. Governments function as active bystanders when theysend peacekeeping forces to end conflicts.Becoming an active bystander is not easy. Far too many people walkon 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 aboutthe plight of refugees on the television news. However, you canincrease the likelihood that you will choose to intervene if you– pay close attention what you see. Recognizing the need isthe first step to action. Don’t automatically turn away (which istempting to do) but attend to the situation. Have confidence inyour ability to judge if assistance is needed.– act in spite of ambiguity. The need for help is not alwaysclear. The person lying on the curb may be drunk, not hurt. Acouple’s angry argument may not be a sign of domesticviolence. However, reaching out to help is preferable thanignoring the situation. Even if intervention isn’t needed, therecipient will likely be grateful that you responded.
– 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 yourimagination to take the role of victims wherever they are. Seekmore information of the fate of distant groups who are thetargets of terrorism, ethnic cleansing and genocide.– see the humanity in the “other.” Don’t exclude members ofother groups. Don’t blame victims who are suffering because ofwhat others have done to them.– join with others. Overcome the belief that one person can’tmake a difference by joining groups and movements. Protest,write letters, raise money, lobby, and so on.– make choices about how to respond. Rather than beingcaught up in personal goals or feeling overwhelmed by theworld’s needs, find one cause to invest in. At the same time, beready to respond to emergencies around the world.– support institutions that prevent evil. Encouragegovernments to intervene to stop persecution and violence.Support schools that take steps to address bullying and trainchildren to be peacemakers.Source: Staub, E. (2015). The roots of goodness & resistance to evil:Inclusive caring, moral courage, altruism born of suffering, activebystandership, and heroism. Oxford, England: Oxford UniversityPress.
Evil as OrdinaryThe evil-as-ordinary perspective focuses on the situational factorsthat cause otherwise ordinary or normal people to becomeevildoers. Although it may be comforting to think that evildoersmust be heartless psychopaths or deranged killers, we know thatin many cases, perpetrators look and act a lot like the rest of us.Social philosopher Hannah Arendt pointed this out in her analysisof the trial of Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann in 1961.19 Eichmannwas responsible for the deportation of millions of Jews toconcentration and extermination camps. What struck Arendt washow ordinary Eichmann seemed. Half a dozen psychiatristsexamined him and certified him as “normal.” Arendt used thephrase the “banality of evil” when describing Eichmann to pointout that the sources of evil are not mysterious or demonic butcommonplace. If that is the case, then any one of us can commitheinous crimes. The Rwandan genocide supports Arendt’s thesis.Thousands of ordinary Rwandan Hutus literally went next door oracross the street to hack and beat their Tutsi neighbors to deathwith machetes and other farm implements. Interviews with onegroup of young killers revealed a chilling routine. They would havea 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 whistleblew, and then relax with beer and food after a hard day’s work.20Social psychologists have identified a number of situationalfactors that can turn otherwise “nice” people into torturers andmurderers.21 James Waller believes that humans, by virtue of theirevolutionary heritage, have the potential to participate masskillings and other forms of extraordinary evil. A propensity forviolence, strong group attachment, and bias against outsidersenabled our hunter–gatherer ancestors to successfully competewith other groups for scarce resources. These tendencies remainpart of our genetic heritage and, under the right conditions, canprompt people to commit atrocities. The factors that encourageindividuals to become killers are cultural, psychological, andsocial.
Cultural factorsObedience, conformity, tradition, safety, order, and othercollectivistic values overwhelm individual freedom andpromote hostility to other groups.Authority orientation encourages leaders to enjoy theirpositions and power while, at the same time, encouragingfollowers to obey leaders who abuse their power.Social dominance honors and reinforces hierarchies basedon military rank, heredity, wealth, and power.Psychological factorsUs–them thinking privileges in-groups at the expense of outgroups.Moral disengagement places others outside the circle ofconcern through justifying immoral acts, dehumanizingvictims, and using euphemistic terms for evil.Blaming the victims excuses cruelty by claiming that targetsdeserve or brought on their suffering.Social FactorsProfessional socialization promotes cruelty through threeorganizational 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 crueltybecomes part of the individual’s identity.Group identification promotes intergroup conflict andrepresses conscience.Binding group factors, such as conformity, peer pressure, andaffection, encourage members to participate in collective evildoing.Pscyhologist Phillip Zimbardo discovered firsthand how thesituation can promote unethical behavior through his famousStanford Prison Experiment.22 In this study, he created a mockprison in the basement of the building housing StanfordUniversity’s psychology department and randomly assigned
student volunteers as prisoners and guards. It didn’t take long forboth groups to get caught up in their roles. Soon, the prisonersrevolted and the guards retaliated. The jailers strip-searchedprisoners, forced them into prolonged exercise, put them intosolitary confinement, denied them bathroom privileges (they hadto urinate and defecate in their cells), and made them clean toiletsby hand. Two prisoners suffered significant emotional trauma andhad 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 emptycell at the local police station to ensure more security and he gotangry when the police refused his request.Zimbardo went on to analyze the role of situational variables inreal-life cases of evil, such as the widespread torture of politicalopponents in Brazil and prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraibprison. According to Zimbardo, ordinary people, such as themilitary guards at Abu Ghraib, are motivated to do evil when theyfeel peer pressure to participate in such acts, obey authority,remain anonymous, are given permission to engage in antisocialbehavior, and dehumanize others (treat them as less than fullyhuman). Evil is likely to continue when others fail to intervene tostop it. (The film profiled in the “Leadership Ethics at the Movies”box on the website features an ordinary, “good” person whomorphs into an evildoer.)
Facing EvilEach of the perspectives just described provides insights into howwe as leaders can come to grips with evil. The dreadful pleasureapproach highlights both the origins of evil and the attraction ofdoing evil, forcing us to examine our motivations. We need to askourselves: Am I projecting my insecurities onto others? Am Ipunishing a subordinate because of her or his poor performanceor because exercising coercive power makes me feel strong? AmI making a legitimate request or merely demonstrating that I havethe authority to control another person? Am I tempted to harmothers just to fill the emptiness I feel inside?Evil as idealism calls for close examination of the causes weserve and the means we employ to further those causes. Are theyworthy of our support? Are they being used to justify harm toothers? There is no license to hate, no matter how worthy thecause. Resist the temptation to use pursuit of a noble ideal as anexcuse for wrongdoing. Don’t engage in any action in a group thatyou would avoid on your own. Never hesitate to question thegroup’s mission and tactics. Beware of putting the survival of thegroup above the worthy objectives it is supposed to seek.Evil as exclusion highlights the dangers of putting other groupsoutside our circle of concern. However, combating moral exclusionis difficult because it often subtle and hard to detect. Further,group members often deny or ignore their exclusionary behaviorto protect themselves from guilt or anxiety.23 Being alert to thesymptoms outlined in Box 4.1 is a good place to start. Payparticularly close attention to the language used by groupmembers. Negative labels, critical comments, unfair comparisons,and other verbal strategies narrow the scope of justice. Biasedspeech also paves the way for more extreme behaviors. Adoptinga pluralistic perspective can help leaders deter moral exclusion ateach stage of its development.24 Pluralism acknowledges thelegitimacy of a variety of groups. This approach sees conflicts notas win–lose battles but as opportunities to integrate the interestsof all parties. Members of pluralistic groups enlarge the definition
of the moral community by viewing all persons as worthy ofjustice. Pluralism encourages group members to be skeptical ofself-serving claims and moral justifications for destructive acts, todevelop fair procedures for distributing resources, and to supportdissenters.The administrative evil perspective introduces a new type of evil,one based on technology and logic. In today’s world, evil hasincreased capacity for destruction. The impacts of evil, oncecontained by distance and technological limitations, can nowextend to the entire world. Further, the face of evil may be maskedor hidden from those who participate in it. Combating this form ofevil begins with acknowledging that evil exists. Second, we shouldperiodically step back to look at the big picture. For example,when carrying out our duties, we need to ask the following: Whatis the organization’s ultimate goal? Does my role contribute togood or ill? What are the long-term consequences of my actions,beyond short-term effectiveness and efficiency? Am I excusing mybad behavior by calling it justified? Third, be alert to even smallethical missteps, lest they be repeated and develop intodestructive patterns. Fourth, recognize the danger of hidingbehind professionalism, which tempts us to set aside our moralstandards in order to obey authority. We are ultimately responsiblefor our decisions. Claiming that we were “just following orders” isno excuse. Finally, remember that the ultimate goal ofadministrators and managers is protecting the well-being ofpeople, particularly society’s most vulnerable members. (SeeCase Study 4.3 to see how one group of administrators lost sightof this obligation.)Evil as a choice puts the ethical burden squarely on ourshoulders. Group and organizational pressures may contribute toour wrongdoing, but we are the ones who make the decisions toparticipate in evil acts. Furthermore, the choices we make now willlimit our options in the future. Every moral decision, no matter howinsignificant it seems at the time, has lasting consequences.The final perspective, evil as ordinary, is a sobering reminder thatwe all have the potential to become evildoers. Not only do weneed to resist cultural, psychological, and situational influences
that can turn us into brutes (see Box 4.2 “Resisting SituationalPressures to Do Evil”), but also, as leaders, we should eliminateconditions that promote evil behavior in our subordinates.Box 4.2 Resisting Situational Pressures to Do Evil: A 10-StepProgramPhilip Zimbardo offers the following 10-step program designed tohelp us resist situational forces that promote evildoing.“I made a mistake!” Admit your mistakes. (Say “I’m sorry.” “Iapologize.” “Forgive me.”) Vow to learn from your errors andmove on. Don’t stay the course if you are engaged in animmoral activity.“I am mindful.” Don’t rely on scripts from the past. They canblind you to the tactics of influencers and key elements of thesituation. Instead, pay close attention to (be mindful of) the hereand now. In addition, think critically. Ask for evidence, imaginefuture consequences, and reject simple solutions to complexproblems. Encourage others to do the same.“I am responsible.” Maintaining personal accountabilityincreases your resistance to conformity pressures. Take chargeof your decisions and actions rather than spreadingresponsibility to your group, coworkers, or military unit.Remember that claiming “everyone else was doing it” is nodefense in a court of law.“I am me, the best I can be.” Don’t let others take away yourindividuality, 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 yourrespect and those who are leading others astray or promotingtheir own interests. Critically evaluate and disobey destructiveleaders.“I want group acceptance but value my independence.” Groupacceptance is a powerful force but shouldn’t overpower yoursense of right and wrong. Resist social pressure by steppingout of the group, getting other opinions, and finding new groupsmore 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,
noting the way that the frame is designed to shape yourthoughts and emotions.“I will balance my time perspective.” Living in the presentincreases the power of situational influences that promote evil.You are less likely to go along with abusive behavior if youconsider the long-term consequences of such actions andremember the values and standards you developed in the past.“I will not sacrifice personal or civic freedoms for the illusion ofsecurity.” Reject any offer that involves sacrificing even smallfreedoms 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 adistant illusion.“I can oppose unjust systems.” Join with others to resistsystems that promote evil. Try to bring about change, blow thewhistle on corruption, get away from the group or organization,resist groupthink, draw on the resources of outsiders, and soon.Source: Adapted from Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect:Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: RandomHouse, pp. 451–456.
Making a Case for Forgiveness
Breaking the Cycle of EvilA growing number of social scientists believe that forgivinginstead of retaliating can prevent or break cycles of evil. In a cycleof evil, aggressive acts provoke retaliation followed by moreaggression. When these destructive patterns characterizerelations 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 dramaticacts of reconciliation, however. As president of Egypt, AnwarSadat engaged in one such conciliatory gesture when he traveledto Jerusalem to further the peace process with Israel. Pope JohnPaul II went to the jail cell of his would-be assassin to offerforgiveness. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandelaprevented a bloodbath in South Africa by creating the Truth andReconciliation Commission. This body, made up of both blacksand whites, investigated crimes committed during the apartheidera and allowed offenders to confess their guilt and ask forpardon. Similar commissions were created after incidents ofwidespread torture and murder in Argentina, Uruguay, Peru,Guatemala, Rwanda, and elsewhere. In the United States, theNavaho Nation brings criminal offenders and victims together torestore community relationships.Like evil, the concept of forgiving evil doers is controversial.25Skeptics assert that (1) guilty parties will get off withoutacknowledging they have done wrong or paying for their crimes,(2) forgiveness is a sign of weakness, (3) forgiveness isimpossible in some situations, (4) forgiveness can’t be offereduntil the offender asks for it, and (5) no leader has the right to offerforgiveness on behalf of other victims. Each of these concerns isvalid. However, I believe that they can be answered in large partby understanding the forgiveness process and by identifying someof the benefits that come from extending mercy to others.
The Forgiveness ProcessThere are many misconceptions about what it means to forgiveanother person or group of people. According to Robert Enright,professor of educational psychology and president of theInternational Forgiveness Institute at the University of Wisconsin,forgiveness is not the following:26Forgetting past wrongs to “move on”Excusing or condoning bad, damaging behaviorReconciling or coming together again (Forgiveness opens theway to reconciliation, but the person being forgiven mustchange or desire to reconcile.)Reducing the severity of offensesOffering a legal pardonPretending to forgive in order to wield power over anotherpersonIgnoring the offenderDropping our anger and becoming emotionally neutralEnright and his colleagues define forgiveness as “a willingness toabandon one’s right to resentment, negative judgment, andindifferent behavior toward one who unjustly injured us, whilefostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity, andeven love toward him or her.”27 This definition recognizes that thewronged party has been unjustly treated (slandered, betrayed,imprisoned); the offended person willingly chooses forgivenessregardless of the offender’s response; forgiving involves emotions,thoughts, and behavior; and forgiveness is a process that takesplace over time. (Measure your likelihood to forgive others bycompleting Self-Assessment 4.1.)Enright and his fellow researchers offer a four-stage model to helppeople forgive. In the first phase, uncovering, a victim may initiallydeny that a problem exists. However, when the person doesacknowledge the hurt, he or she may experience intense feelingsof anger, shame, and betrayal. The victim invests a lot of psychicenergy in rehashing the offense and comparing his or her
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 recognizesthat he or she is paying a high price for dwelling on the injury,considers the possibility of forgiveness, and commits himself orherself to forgiving.Forgiveness is accomplished in the third stage, work. Thewronged party tries to understand (not condone) the victimizer’sbackground and motivation. He or she may experience empathyand compassion for the offender. Absorbing pain is the key to thisstage. The forgiver decides to endure suffering rather than pass iton, thereby breaking the cycle of evil. Viewed in this light,forgiveness is a gift of mercy to the wrongdoer. In one powerfulexample of forgiveness, families of some of the black victims ofthe Charleston South Carolina church shooting declared that thatthey forgave the white supremacist who gunned them down.28The fourth and final phase, deepening, consists of the outcomesof forgiving. A forgiver may find deeper meaning in suffering,realize his or her own need for forgiveness, and come to a greaterappreciation for support groups—friends, congregations,classmates. In the end, the person offering forgiveness maydevelop a new purpose in life and find peace.Those who forgive are released from resentments and experienceless stress, depression, and anxiety. They find it easier to focus(which can lead to higher grades among students) and enjoyhigher self-esteem. Overall, they enjoy a higher sense of well-being. By releasing their grudges, forgivers experience betterphysical health. Reducing anger, hostility, and hopelessnesslowers the risk of heart attack and high blood pressure whileincreasing the body’s resistance to disease. Acting mercifullytoward transgressors can also help to maintain relationshipsamong friends and family members.29The social scientific study of forgiveness is continuing, and resultsare extremely encouraging. Forgiving does appear to absorb ordefuse evil. If this is the case, then as leaders, we should practice
forgiveness when we are treated unjustly by followers,supervisors, peers, or outsiders. At times, however, we will needto go further and follow the examples of Sadat and Mandela byoffering forgiveness on behalf of followers in the hope ofreconciling with a long-standing enemy.Donald Shriver uses the metaphor of a cable to explain howwarring groups can overcome their mutual hatred and bindtogether to restore fractured relationships.30 This cable is madeup of four strands. The first strand is moral truth. Forgivenessstarts with recalling the past and rendering a moral judgment.Both parties need to agree that one or both engaged in behaviorthat was wrong (see the discussion of political apologies below)and unjust and caused injury. Refusal to admit the truth makesreconciliation impossible. That is why South Africa’s Truth andReconciliation Commission began the process of national healingafter 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. Inthese contexts, victims have an opportunity to describe the harmthey have suffered; offenders are accountable to those they haveharmed.31The second strand of the cable is forbearance—that is, rejectingrevenge in favor of restraint. Moral indignation often fuels newcrimes as offended parties take their vengeance. Forbearancebreaks this pattern and may soften enemies who expectretaliation.The third strand is empathy for the enemies’ humanity. Empathydoesn’t excuse wrongs but acknowledges that offender andoffended share much in common. This recognition opens the wayfor both sides to live together in peace. Union general Ulysses S.Grant demonstrated how to combine the judgment of wrong withempathy at Appomattox, where Southern troops surrendered toend the U.S. Civil War. On that occasion, Grant wrote thefollowing in his journal. “I felt . . . sad and depressed at thedownfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had
suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe,one of the worst for which a people ever fought.”32The fourth and final strand of the forgiveness cable is commitmentto restore the broken relationship. Forgivers must be prepared tolive and interact with their former enemies. At first, the two partiesprobably will coexist in a state of mutual toleration. Later, theymay fully reconcile, as the United States and Germany have donesince the end of World War II.In sum, I believe that forgiveness is one of a leader’s mostpowerful weapons in the fight against evil. Or, to return to thecentral metaphor of this text, forgiving is one of the ways in whichleaders cast light rather than shadow. We must face our innerdarkness, particularly our resentments and hostilities, in order tooffer genuine forgiveness. By forgiving and seeking reconciliation,we short-circuit or break the shadowy, destructive cycles thatpoison groups, organizations, and societies. Offering forgivenessbrightens our lives by reducing our anxiety levels and enhancingour sense of well-being.33 Requesting forgiveness, as we’ll seebelow, opens the door for reconciliation.
Seeking ForgivenessJust as we need to offer forgiveness, we need to seekforgiveness. In fact, some observers have called the current erathe “Age of Apology.” Nearly every week, it seems, a leader offersan apology either for his or her misdeeds or on behalf of thegroups he or she leads. Louis C. K., Charlie Rose, RussellSimmons, George H. W. Bush, and other men offered apologiesfor sexual misconduct, for example. Pope Francis asked forforgiveness for Catholic persecution of Protestants following theReformation. 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 severalreasons.34 First, globalization is creating more friction as culturesand values clash; apologies act as a conflict management tool.Second, digital technology reduces the likelihood that misbehaviorcan be kept secret. Offensive behavior is now broadcast aroundthe world. United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz offered his “deepestapology” after passengers posted video of a screaming doctorbeing dragged from a plane so that an employee could take hisseat. Third, as old regimes crumble, new leaders find that theyneed to acknowledge the suffering of victims under previousgovernments. Often, past regimes did not acknowledge their guilt,so the burden falls on incoming officials. As a result, politicalapologies appear to be increasingly common. Examples includethe following:35Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for thenation’s past treatment of LGBT citizens.Former British prime minister Tony Blair apologized for hiscountry’s inaction during the Irish potato famine of the 19thcentury.The Belgian prime minister apologized to Rwandans for notstepping in to prevent the 1994 genocide.Germany’s chancellor Gerhard Schröder requestedforgiveness from the Russian people for the damage done byhis nation during World War II.
U.S. president Bill Clinton expressed regret to Ugandans forAfrican 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 notenacting legislation that would have made lynching a federalcrime.The Oregon state legislature held a public session to revokeand to express regret about an 1849 law that prohibitedAfrican Americans from entering Oregon territory.Australia holds an annual “Sorry Day” to commemorate therelease of a report describing a government program thatremoved 100,000 Aborignal children from their parents andplaced them with white parents and in orphanages.Businesses and religious groups, too, are have officiallyapologized for past wrongs. Mitsubishi acknowledged it forcedAmerican POWs to work for the company during World War II.JPMorgan Chase and Wachovia banks expressed regret for theirsupport of slavery, as did the Southern Baptist convention.Presbyterians admitted that they helped remove Native childrenfrom their families in order to put them in church schools and thatthey had engaged in racist actions during the civil rights era of the1960s. Lutheran leaders officially repudiated the anti-Semeticviews of Martin Luther.Apologies are moral acts.36 In seeking forgiveness, offendersacknowledge that ethical violations have occurred, that a moral orsocial contract has been broken. Perpetrators acceptresponsibility for these transgressions and pledge to repair thedamage. In apologizing, offenders put themselves in a humbleposition while helping to restore the dignity of victims andpromoting healing. They acknowledge that the victims wereindeed wronged and assure them of safety. Apologizing alsosignals a commitment to the relationship as well as to commonvalues. Victims see the offenders suffer through their expressionsof remorse; reparations help to repair the damage. Apologizersdevelop a sense of integrity and greater self-awareness. Byseeking forgiveness, offenders open the door to reconciliation.
Unfortunately, many apologies (pseudo-apologies or inauthenticapologies) fail to live up to their moral obligations. The offender,while ostensibly apologizing, refuses to admit guilt, appearsinsincere, blames others, and so on. For example, whenattempting to apologize for doping, cyclist Lance Armstrongminimized his offenses. He claimed that the U.S. cycling cheatingscheme was limited when compared to the doping program of theEast Germans. However, the head of the United States Anti-Doping Agency said that Armstrong’s team ran “the mostsophisticated, organized and professionalized doping scheme inthe history of cycling.”37Pseudo-apologies can make a situation worse by further offendingvictims and trivializing their concerns. The moral or social contractremains broken. Any opportunity for reconciliation is cut off.Inauthentic apologies are frequently vague (“I apologize forwhatever I did . . .”), use the passive voice (“Mistakes have beenmade . . .”), make the offense conditional (“If mistakes were made. . .”), question whether the victim was damaged (“If anyone washurt . . .”), or minimize the damage (“There’s really nothing [or verylittle] to apologize for . . .”).38 Rwandans rejected former UNSecretary General Kofi Annan’s apology for failing to intervene inthe country’s genocide because Annan didn’t acknowledge thathis inaction as leader contributed to the massacre. Former TodayShow co-host Matt Lauer offered a vague apology for some of thesexual harassment allegations against him. Apology expert JohnKador argues that delivering effective apologies (and avoidinginauthentic apologies) is a critical skill for modern leaders:Today’s most urgent leadership challenges demand theability to apologize when you make a mistake. Thecapacity of leaders to apologize can determine theirability to create the kinds of high-trust organizationsrequired to navigate turbulent times. Apology is aleadership skill. And, like any skill, it can be improvedwith reflection and practice.39
Kador outlines five dimensions of an effective or authentic apologythat can help us develop our ability to apologize, whether for ourown actions or on behalf of the groups we lead. We can also usehis “5-R” model for evaluating the apologies of others.Recognition.An authentic apology begins with identifying the specific offensescommitted (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 thewrong offenses when the company suddenly announced a pricehike and that it was going to divide up its DVD and streamingservices, which would force customers to set up two accounts. Inhis apology letter, Hastings expressed regret for the way hecommunicated the changes, not for the price hike and modifyingthe Netflix business model. He implied that customers wouldaccept the price hikes and dual platform once they learned thecompany’s reasoning. They did not. Eight hundred thousandsubscribers cancelled their subscriptions and Netflix dropped theidea of spinning off a separate streaming service.Responsibility.Take personal responsibility for the offenses. Avoid the temptationto blame others, to make excuses, or to defend yourself. In hisresignation speech from the Senate, former Senator Al Frankenappeared to deflect blame for his sexual misconduct by pointingout that he had to leave “while a man who has bragged on tape
about his history of sexual assault [Donald Trump] sits in the OvalOffice.”40Remorse.“I’m sorry” or “I apologize” or “I regret” should be part of admissionof responsibility. These words need to be reinforced (in face toface settings) with the appropriate nonverbal cues that reflectsadness and remorse. Comedian Steve Harvey drew praise forexpressing heartfelt, tearful remorse to Miss Columbia aftermistakenly announcing that she was the winner of the MissUniverse pageant.Restitution.Take concrete steps to aid the victim by, for example, restoringemployee benefits or paying restitution for damages. Makingamends helps to restore balance to the relationship and signalsthat you are sincere. Former Governor Snyder’s apology for theFlint water crisis fell short because the city’s water system still hasnot been completely restored. It is not always possible to offertangible restitution. In those cases, offer humility, communityservice, and other intangible reparations. Football star MichaelVick helped restore his image after being jailed for dog fightingcharges by working with the Humane Society of the United Stateson its anti-dog-fighting campaign.Repetition.Signal your commitment to not repeat the offensive behavior. Thishelps the victim overcome her or his reluctance to forgive. Forexample, as part of his apology for a series of food-borneillnesses at Chipotle, founder Steve Ells vowed to prevent futureoutbreaks at the restaurant chain by instituting extensive new foodsafety measures.
Spirituality and LeadershipComing to grips with evil is hard work. We must always be on thelookout for evil in whatever form it takes; continually evaluate ourmotivations and choices; make a conscious effort to forgive byreshaping our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors; and have thecourage to apologize. A great number of leaders turn to spiritualityto help equip themselves for these tasks. Many academics arestudying the link between spiritual values and practices andorganizational performance.41 One interest group in the Academyof Management, for example, focuses on the connection betweenspirituality and managerial practice and publishes the Journal ofManagement, Spirituality & Religion. Popular interest in spiritualityis also strong. Meditation rooms and reflective gardens are part ofmany company headquarters. Some organizations sponsorgroups for spiritual seekers, hire chaplains, and send employeesto business and spirituality workshops. Tom’s of Maine, Toro,Dayspring cards, Cordon Bleu-Tomasso, BioGenex, InterstateBatteries, and Medtronic integrate spiritual values into theirorganizational cultures. Margaret Wheatley, David Whyte, andThomas Chappell are some of the popular writers who encouragespiritual development at work.Recent interest in spirituality in the workplace has been fueled inlarge part by the growing importance of organizations. For betteror worse, the corporation has replaced other groups (family,church, social groups) as the dominant institution in society. Worktakes up increasing amounts of our time and energy. As a result,we tend to develop more friendships with coworkers and fewerwith people outside our workplaces. Many of us want a higherreturn on this investment of time and energy, seeking meaningfultasks and relationships that serve higher purposes. At the sametime, downsizing, restructuring, rapid change, and informationoverload have generated fear and uncertainty in the workplace,which prompts us to seek stability and to reexamine our lives.42For their part, organizations hope to benefit because theirmembers feel a greater sense of connection. Investigators havediscovered that spirituality enhances the following:43
Commitment to mission, core values, and ethical standardsOrganizational commitmentOrganizational learning and creativityMorale and satisfaction with rewardsProductivity and profitabilityCollaboration and communityLoyaltyWillingness to mentor othersJob effortJob satisfactionSocial supportSense of well-beingSense of purposeSensitivity to ethical issuesSpirituality involves transcendence, a striving for something biggerthan, or beyond, the self, which can be a higher power or one’sultimate meaning and purpose.44 Religion and spirituality overlapbut are not identical. Religious institutions encourage andstructure spiritual experiences, but spiritual encounters can occuroutside formal religious channels.45Donde Ashmos Plowman and Dennis Duchon define workplacespirituality as “the recognition that employees have an inner lifethat nourishes and is nourished by meaningful work that takesplace in the context of community.”46 Inner life refers to the factthat employees have spiritual needs (their core identity andvalues; desire for connection to something greater) just as theyhave emotional, physical, and intellectual wants, and they bringthe whole person to work. Even industrialist Henry Ford, who onlywanted human cogs for his automobile assembly line, noted thisfact. “Why is it that I always get the whole person,” he complained,“when all I really want is a pair of hands?”47 Meaningful workrefers to the fact that workers typically are motivated by more thanmaterial rewards. They want their labor to be fulfilling and to servethe needs of society. Community refers to the fact thatorganization members desire connection to others. A sense ofbelonging fosters the inner life. (Complete Self-Assessment 4.2 todetermine your experience of spirituality at your workplace.)
Many leaders report that spirituality has played an important rolein their character development, giving them the courage to persistin the face of obstacles, remain optimistic, demonstratecompassion, learn from hardship, and clarify their values.48Spiritual leadership expert Laura Reave reviewed more than 150studies and found that leaders who see their work as a callingdemonstrate 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.49Reave also found that leaders who engage in common spiritualpractices are both more ethical and more effective. Thesebehaviors, emphasized in a variety of belief systems, include thefollowing:Demonstrating respect for others’ values. Many spiritualtraditions emphasize respect for the individual. Ethicalleaders demonstrate their respect for followers by includingthem in important decisions. By doing so, they empowerfollowers and bring individual, group, and organizationalvalues into alignment. When the values of leaders andfollowers are aligned, an organization is more likely to enjoylong-term success.Treating others fairly. Fairness is a natural outcome ofviewing others with respect. Employees are very concernedabout how fairly they are treated, particularly when it comesto compensation. Followers are more likely to trust leaderswho act justly. Subordinates who believe that theirsupervisors are fair also go beyond their job descriptions tohelp coworkers.Expressing caring and concern. Spirituality often takes theform of supportive behavior. Caring leaders typically havemore satisfied and productive followers. Concerned leadersare also more likely to build positive relationships that are thekey to their personal success. Furthermore, demonstratingcare and concern for the community pays dividends.Employees working for firms known for their corporatephilanthropy rate their work environments as excellent andethical, get a greater sense of achievement from their work,and take more pride in their companies.
Listening responsively. Listening and responding to the needsof 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 skillsare rated as more effective. Ethical leaders also respond towhat they hear by acting on feedback and suggestions.Appreciating the contributions of others. Most of the world’sfaith traditions encourage adherents to treat others ascreations of a higher power who are worthy of praise. Praiseof creation, in turn, becomes an expression of gratitude toGod or a higher power. In the workplace, recognizing andpraising employee contributions generates goodwill towardthe organization, creates a sense of community, and fosterscontinuing commitment and contribution.Engaging in reflective practice. Spiritual practice doesn’t endwith demonstrating fairness, caring, and appreciation toothers. It also incorporates individual self-examination orcommunication with God. Meditation, prayer, journaling, andspiritual reading not only deepen spirituality, but they also paypractical dividends.50 Leaders who engage in such activitiesare more effective because they experience less stress, enjoyimproved mental and physical health, and develop strongerrelationships with others. They are better equipped torebound from crises and see a greater (transcendent)meaning in even the most stressful circumstances. Self-reflective leaders also manage their emotions more effectivelyand exercise greater self-discipline.Texas A&M University–Central Texas professor Louis Frydeveloped the spiritual leadership theory to explain how leaderstap into the desire for meaning and connection to transformorganizations.51 Spiritual leadership begins with the inner life ofthe leader. Leaders who engage in spiritual practices develop (1)hope and faith in a vision of service to others and (2) acommitment to altruistic love. They then model altruism anddevelop a vision that helps organization members experience asense of calling—the belief that life has meaning and makes adifference. This vision builds hope and faith in the future, whichencourages employees to put forth their best efforts and topersevere. Spiritually focused leaders also establish cultures
based on altruistic love that foster a sense of membership andconnection. (I’ll have more to say about altruism in Chapter 5.)Leaders and followers enjoy a sense of ethical well-being in whichtheir behavior reflects their inner values. Not only are they morelikely to be satisfied, committed, and productive, but theorganization as a whole is also changed for the better. Fry reportsthat spiritual leadership improves sales and financial performancewhile fostering corporate social responsibility.The path to individual and organizational spiritual transformationhas its ups and downs. After the initial excitement of discoveringthe benefits of spirituality, individuals and organizations typicallyhit obstacles—frustration, financial challenges, feelings ofemptiness—that demand new spiritual practices and renewedcommitment to a greater purpose if growth is to continue.52 Withthis in mind, you can use the following values framework tomeasure the spiritual climate of your workplace and to determineyour organization’s spiritual progress.53Benevolence: kindness toward others, desire to promote thehappiness and prosperity of employeesGenerativity: long-term focus, concern about futureconsequences of actions for this and future generationsHumanism: policies and practices that respect the dignity andworth of every employee, opportunity for personal growthwhen working toward organizational goalsIntegrity: adherence to a code of conduct, honesty, sincerity,candorJustice: evenhanded treatment of employees, impartiality,unbiased rewards and punishmentsMutuality: feelings of interconnectedness and mutualdependence, employees working together to completeprojects and achieve goalsReceptivity: flexible thinking, open-mindedness, willingness totake calculated risks, rewards for creativityRespect: treatment of employees with esteem and value,demonstration of consideration and concernResponsibility: independent follow-through on goals despiteobstacles, concern with what is right
Trust: confidence in the character and truthfulness of theorganization and its representatives by members andoutsidersTo this point, our focus has been on the positive benefits ofspirituality. However, before ending discussion of the topic, Ishould note that spiritual leadership has a potential dark side. Thisdark side leads some (and that might include you) to concludethat spirituality has no role in leadership. For those who believe inthe value of spiritual leadership (like me), noting the pitfalls canhelp us avoid these abuses. To begin, some leaders viewspirituality solely as a tool for increasing follower commitment(obedience) and productivity, which increases profits. They losesight of the fact that spirituality has value in and of itself, helpingorganizational members find meaning and establish connections.Other leaders try to impose their particular religious and spiritualviews on followers. In the worst-case scenario, authoritarianleaders engage in spiritual abuse.54 They use spirituality toreinforce their power, to seek selfish (often fraudulent) goals, andto foster dependence in followers.Spiritual abuse is a danger in business organizations as well as inreligious ones. Common abusive tactics include (1)overemphasizing spiritual authority and forbidding challenges fromfollowers; (2) demanding unquestioning obedience as a sign offollower loyalty, which takes away the right of subordinates tomake their own choices; (3) keeping members apart fromoutsiders and dismissing external critics while at the same timehiding character flaws and unethical practices from the public; (4)insisting on rigid beliefs and behavior while demanding conformityand perfection; (5) suppressing follower dissent throughhumiliation, deprivation, and other means; and (6) using nearlyabsolute power to engage in fraud, sexual immorality, and otherunethical practices.Implications and ApplicationsEvil takes a variety of forms or faces, including as a sense ofdreadful pleasure, as idealism, as exclusion, as rationaladministration, as a series of small but fateful decisions, and as
the product of situational forces that convert ordinary peopleinto evildoers. Whatever face it displays, evil is a destructiveforce that inflicts pain and suffering and ends in death.Idealism can provide a license to hate, justifying evil as a wayto achieve a worthy objective. Carefully consider the causesyou support. Never use evil as a means to an end, no matterhow noble the cause.Moral exclusion limits members’ willingness to treat outsidersfairly. Combat moral exclusion through pluralism, whichencourages team members to broaden their scope of justice toinclude a wider variety of outside groups.Administrative evil is masked or hidden from perpetrators whoinflict pain and suffering while carrying out their jobs. Recognizethe long-term consequences of carrying out your role; refuse toparticipate in unethical behavior as part of your professionalduties.Ultimately, the choice of whether to do or participate in evil isyours.Work to eliminate the situational factors—cultural, psychologicaland social—that turn leaders and followers into evildoers.Intervene to stop evil behavior.Forgiveness is one way to defuse or absorb evil. Forgivingtakes a conscious act of will, unfolds over time, and replaceshostility and resentment with empathy and compassion.Warring groups can overcome their mutual hatred by facing andjudging the past, rejecting revenge in favor of restraint, feelingempathy for their enemies’ humanity, and being committed torestoring the broken relationship.You will need to seek forgiveness, for yourself or the group youlead, in addition to offering forgiveness. A moral (authentic)apology incorporates recognition of the offense, takingresponsibility, expressing remorse, offering restitution, andsignaling a commitment to not repeat the offensive behavior.Pseudo-apologies are vague, use the passive voice, make theoffense conditional, question whether the victim was damaged,or minimize the danger.Spiritual resources can equip you for the demanding work ofconfronting evil by contributing to your character development.Common spiritual practices that can make you more effectiveand ethical as a leader include (1) demonstrating respect forothers’ values, (2) treating others fairly, (3) expressing caringand concern, (4) listening responsively, (5) appreciating thecontributions of others, and (6) engaging in reflective practice.You can foster an ethical organizational climate by acting as aspiritual leader who creates a vision that helps members
experience a sense of calling and establishes a culture basedon altruistic love.Recognize that there is a potential dark side to spiritualleadership. Be careful not to use spirituality solely as a tool toboost productivity, to force your particular beliefs onto followers,or to reinforce your power.For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment1. What is your view of evil? Is it a useful concept or is it toomoralistic, outdated, and misused? If you agree that there isevil, which of the six faces of evil described in the chapter ismost useful to you? How does it help you better understandand prevent evil? Record your thoughts.2. Develop your own definition of forgiveness. Does your definitionset boundaries that limit when forgiveness can be offered?Should evildoers be forgiven? What right do leaders have tooffer or accept forgiveness on behalf of the group?3. Consider a time when you forgave someone who treated youunjustly. Did you move through the stages identified by Enrightand his colleagues? What benefits did you experience?Conversely, describe a time when you asked for and receivedforgiveness. What process did you go through? How did youand the relationship benefit?4. Develop your own forgiveness case study based on the life of aleader who prevented or broke a cycle of evil through an act ofapology, mercy, or reconciliation.5. Analyze the apology of a well-known leader and analyze itseffectiveness as an ethical statement. Conclude with an overallevaluation and provide suggestions for how the apology couldhave been improved.6. What should be the role, if any, of spirituality in leadership? Tryto reach a consensus on this question in a group.7. What is your experience of spirituality at your workplace basedon your responses to Self-Assessment 4.2? Did somedimensions rate significantly higher than others? Why? Did anyof your scores surprise you? Would your ratings be higher orlower 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 thelist of spiritual values outlined in the chapter.
Student Study SiteVisit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGEjournal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.
Case Study 4.1Duterte’s Death SquadsPhilippines President Rodrigo Duterte acts more like a Mafia boss than apolitician. Before becoming the nation’s president, Duterte (nicknamed“The Punisher”) served as mayor of Davao City. There he formed a deathsquad that began by “salvaging” (killing) suspected drug dealers andusers and later targeted political opponents. Mayor Rudy allegedlyparticipated in at least one killing, shooting an investigator from theJustice Ministry. He supervised the dismemberment and disposal ofcorpses, reportedly telling his hit squad, “Throw them (the bodies) in theocean or the quarry. Make it clean. Make sure there are no traces of thebodies.”1Duterte won the presidency by promising to eliminate drug dealing, crime,and corruption. Soon death squads were operating in the capital Manilaand other cities. Gangs of motorcycle riders pursue victims, who aregenerally poor, at night. They shoot suspects in the street or drag themfrom their homes and execute them. In some cases, assassins wrap theirvictims’ heads in packing tape so that they suffocate and leave cardboardsigns saying, “don’t be like him.” To date, 7,000 have died at the hands ofthe hit squads.Two former killers provided dramatic testimony to the Philippines senatedescribing how the Davao death squad operated. Edgar Matobato(described as “seemingly harmless in appearance” by one journalist) wasa founding member of the squad.2 Matobato claims to have participatedin the killing of 1,000 people under the direction of Mayor Rudy; hepersonally executed 50 people. Squad members were paid 3,000 pesos(75 Euros) for killing ordinary criminals and 6,000 pesos for higher-valuetargets. At the time, Matobato believed that he was doing the right thing: “Iwas helping good people by killing the bad ones.”3 He hid his activitiesfrom his family.Like Matobato, retired Davao policeman Arturo Lascanas thought that hewas serving a noble purpose by killing suspected drug dealers and usersas a leader of the Davao death squad. So convinced was he of the causethat he participated in the killings of his two brothers who were involved inillegal drugs. Lascanas began his murderous career by helping to disposeof corpses. Then he began killing suspects to maintain his position in thegroup. Lascanas also received a bounty from Duterte for each killingalong with a monthly stipend. In one particular noteworthy murder,
Lascanas admitted to participating in the assassination of a radiobroadcaster critical of Duterte.Both hit men marked themselves for torture and execution by comingforward to testify. Both are in hiding, under the protective custody ofoutside groups. Matobato believed it was his duty to come forward.Struggling with guilt, he sees the faces of the dead nightly. He doesn’texpect to receive a fair trial but hopes that Duterte will be convicted for hiscrimes, bringing justice to those he murdered. Police officer Lascanas firstdenied the existence of the Davao death squad, fearing for his family’ssafety. He had a change of heart after a spiritual awakening. Hisnightmares are about killing a suspect along with the man’s pregnant wifeand four-year-old son on orders from Mayor Duterte. He wants to clear hisconscience by speaking out. He told a reporter, “The only way out of thisevil 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 fromcondemnation for his actions.The testimonies of the two killers are all the more remarkable given thewidespread public support for the Philippine president. Eighty percent ofFilipinos said they trusted the president after his first year in office. Manycitizens believe that the nation needs a strong leader to save their nationfrom drug dealers and other criminals. Said one, “Here in the Philippineswe 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 inpoor areas. Some benefit directly from the hit squads by using them tosettle old scores or to frighten enemies.Duterte is unfazed by the criticism of a few political opponents and humanrights groups. To him, killing criminals is not a crime because “criminalsdon’t have any humanity.”6 He compared himself to Hitler, saying that ifHitler massacred 3 million Jews (actually the number was 6 million), hewould “be happy to slaughter” 3 million drug addicts.7 The President toldhis enforcers to eliminate human rights officials if they get in the way. Inthe past, the Philippines faced pressure from the United States, thecountry’s most important economic partner, to improve human rights.However, President Trump made little mention of human rights whenmeeting with Duterte for the first time. Instead, Trump claimed that the two“had a great relationship.”8
Discussion Probes1. What faces of evil do you see reflected in this case?2. Why do followers support leaders, like Duterte, who engage inatrocities?3. Can you think of other examples of leaders and followers who doevil 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 somany of their fellow death squad colleagues remain silent?5. What role does truth-telling play in fighting evil? What role does guiltplay?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? Whataction, if any, should the United States take?
Notes1. 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 onPhilippine leader. Spiegel Online.3. Kuntz.4. Lamb.5. Kuntz.6. Lamb.7. Kuntz.8. Hirschfeld Davis, J. (2017, November 13). Trump lauds “greatrelationship” with Duterte in Manila. The New York Times.
SourcesBouchckaert, 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 theInternational Criminal Court. The New York Times.Holmes, O. (2017, August 17). Human rights group slams Philippinespresident Duterte’s threat to kill them. The Guardian.Quiano, K., & Westcott, B. (2017, March 2). Ex-Davao death squadleader: Duterte ordered bombing. CNN.Villamor, F. (2017, February 20). Ex-officer in Philippines says he leddeath squad at Duterte’s behest. The New York Times.Woody, C. (2017, May 8). Filipinos trust Rodrigo Duterte—even if theydon’t like many of his policies. Business Insider.
Case Study 4.2The High Cost of Moral Exclusion: TheRohingya Refugee CrisisVictims of moral exclusion pay a high price. Nowhere is this moreapparent than in the Rohingya refugee crisis. The Muslim Rohingyapeople live in the western region of Myanmar (Burma), which is 90%Buddhist. Originally brought in from Bangladesh to work as laborers underBritish rule, they have never been accepted as a legitimate part ofMyanmar society. Most Burmese refuse to use the term Rohingya todescribe them, describing them instead as “Bengalis” or as illegaltrespassers. Laws limit the number of children Muslims can have andmake it difficult for Muslims and Buddhists to marry. Rohingya are bannedfrom better schools and their freedom to travel is limited. Hatred of theRohingya appears to be growing along with the rise of Buddhistnationalism. Many young people, in particular, want to ensure thatMyanmar remains a Buddhist nation. They point to Afghanistan andIndonesia as examples of formerly Buddhist nations that converted toIslam.Repression sparked the rise of a Muslim separatist movement. In 2017, agroup calling itself the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army attackedgovernment security forces. In response, the Burmese military launched abrutal campaign of suppression. Entire villages were burned to theground, women were gang-raped, and hundreds of men, women andchildren were killed. Over 600,000 fled—some through mine fields laid bythe military—to squalid refugee camps in neighboring Bangladesh, joiningover 300,000 who already relocated following previous violence in 2012.The UN called the military campaign a “textbook case of ethniccleansing,” 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 majorhealth disaster. Thirty percent of the refugees are under age 5; manysuffer from malnutrition and measles, pneumonia, and other illnesses.These children may never recover from the trauma of seeing their homesdestroyed 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. Themilitary conducted its own internal investigation that found no incidencesof rape, torture, arson, killing, or theft. Reports on social media claimedthat “mass rape couldn’t have taken place because Rohingya women
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 longbeen an international human rights icon. She received a Nobel Prize forher work on behalf of democracy in Myanmar and was elected to agovernment position after serving 15 years under military house arrest.However, Suu Kyi also refers to the Rohingya as Bengalis and claimsthere is a “huge iceberg of misinformation” about the military campaign.She takes issue with the description of the crackdown as ethnic cleansingand considers Rohingya rebels to be terrorists.Not wanting to risk the wrath of her Buddhist political base, Suu Kyi’sNational League for Democracy party did not field one Muslim candidatein the last election, marking the first time the Parliament has been withouta Muslim member. Suu Kyi is also worried about offending Burma’sgenerals, who still wield the most power. Human rights groups harshlycriticized Kyi for refusing to help the Rohingyans. Several British collegeshave taken away her honors and some have suggested that she bestripped of her Nobel Prize.Conditions for the Rohingya people are not likely to improve any timesoon given the initial response of other nations in the region. Bangladeshiofficials threaten to return refugees to Myanmar. China, which is reluctantto endanger economic relations with Myanmar, considers the refugeecrisis an internal matter. It blocked a UN Security Council Resolution thatwould have guaranteed the refugees the right to return to return theirhomes in Myanmar. India will not criticize Myanmar and worries thatIslamic extremists would infiltrate any Rohingyan Muslims that resettle inits country. Japan has offered money for emergency aid but will housefew, if any, refugees. Australia refuses to accept any.After visiting Rohingyan refugee camps, the European commissioner forhumanitarian aid and crisis management, Christos Stylianides, describedthe conditions there as “beyond imagination.” Appalled by what he saw,he offered this reminder: “[The] Rohingya are nothing less than everyother human being in the world.”2 Tragically, few government leaders inMyanmar and neighboring countries recognize that fact.
Discussion Probes1. What signs or symptoms of moral exclusion do you see in this case?2. What parallels do you see between the treatment of Rohingyarefugees and refugees from other regions like Africa, CentralAmerica and the Middle East?3. Do you think that nations are more likely to reject refugees now thanthey were in the past? Why or why not?4. Should Aung San Suu Kyi be stripped of her Nobel Prize for refusingto protect the Rohingya people?5. What can the leaders of other nations, aid groups, and ordinarycitizens do to end the Rohingya refugee crisis?6. How can we encourage leaders and followers to treat members ofevery group as “nothing less than every other human being in theworld?”
Notes1. 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 tosite of anti-Rohingya violence. The Guardian.
SourcesBeech, 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 ofraping and murdering Rohingya Muslims after “internal investigation.” TheIndependent.Cohen, R. (2017, November 26). This is not a morality tale. The New YorkTimes.Cumming-Bruce, N. (2017, September 12). Rohingya crisis called ethniccleansing. The New York Times, p. A9.Gladstone, R., & Specia, M. (207, September 29). At the U.N., pressurebuilds on Myanmar over a “human rights nightmare.” The New YorkTimes, p. A4.Kuriantzick. J. (2017, September 15). Why Aung San Suu Kyi isn’tprotecting the Rohingya in Burma. The Washington Post.McPherson, P. (2017, October 19). Rohingya crisis may be driving AungSan 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 temporaryhome 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.
Case Study 4.3Poisoning Flint MichiganProviding 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-largestsource of fresh water in the world. Imagine, then, the surprise of Flintresidents when they turned on their taps and foul looking, tasting, andsmelling water poured out. One day, the liquid would be blue, the nextday, green, and the following day, brown or yellow. Citizens beganbreaking out in rashes after bathing and losing clumps of hair. Somecompared the smell of their tap water to the odor of gasoline or the insideof 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 drawingwater from the Flint River in order to save money as it waited for a newwater 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 theriver water from corroding the city’s lead pipes and releasing lead into thesystem. (The estimated cost of treating the water was $100–$200 perday.) General Motors soon stopped using Flint River water to washautomobile 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 pneumonialinked to the toxic water—spiked, sickening 91 residents and killing 12.Health researchers discovered high levels of lead in the blood of the city’schildren. Lead is a neurotoxin that does long-term physical damage.(There is no safe amount of lead in the human body, according to theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention.) In young children, leadcauses behavioral problems and slows cognitive development. Thechemical can cause liver and kidney problems in adults.For 19 months, state and federal officials failed to respond to the watercrisis. They acted only after the national press focused on Flint’s plight.Governor Rick Snyder apologized, acknowledging that federal, state, andlocal leaders broke the trust of Flint residents and pledged to take actionto correct the problem. He then ordered law enforcement and fire officialsto begin delivering bottled water, water filters, and test kits door to doorand 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 stepswere being taken, Flint residents continued to pay some of the highest
water bills in the nation for a product that could harm or kill them. TheMichigan legislature agreed to reimburse Flint citizens for a portion oftheir water bills but the program expired. The state and federalgovernment funded pipe replacement. However, at last report, it will beyears before Flint will receive an “all clear,” letting citizens drink directlyfrom their taps. Until then residents must use water filters and bottledwater for cooking, brushing their teeth, and bathing.What went wrong in Flint? Administrative evil may be to blame. Topofficials in Michigan believed in a rational approach to publicadministration. Then governor Snyder, a former accountant and CEO whohad never held office before being elected governor, billed himself as ano-nonsense problem solver with a businesslike approach to running thegovernment. (He ran for office using the slogan “One Tough Nerd.”) Oncein office, he appointed a series of emergency managers who took controlof Flint away from local elected officials. One of the emergencyadministrators made the decision to use the Flint River water whileawaiting the completion of the new water tunnel. Another overruled thecity council when it first wanted to return to Detroit’s water supply.Diffused responsibility and compartmentalization were also at work. TheState Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) misinterpretedEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that required the useof the corrosion treatment but federal EPA officials (who had the authorityto force the city to comply) failed to enforce the law. Instead, EPAmanagers waited for the city to act, saying at one point, “the ball is in thecity’s court.”1 State officials refused to let the Centers for Disease Control—the world’s leading authority on infectious diseases—investigate theLegionnaires’ outbreak.When concerns were raised about Flint’s water, state officials were quickto deny and attack. The governor’s spokesman assured residents thattheir concerns were unfounded: “Let me start here—anyone who isconcerned about lead in the drinking water in Flint can relax.”2 An EPAwater specialist who raised the alarm about lead levels in the water wascalled a “rogue employee” by his supervisors. The DEQ and Departmentof Community Health accused Flint residents of using their children’shealth for political gain, claiming “some in Flint are taking the verysensitive issue of children’s exposure to lead and trying to turn it into apolitical football.”3 Dr. Eden Wells, the chief medical officer of MichiganDepartment of Health and Human Services, allegedly threatened towithhold state funding from a Flint community health group if it didn’t stopits investigation into the Legionnaires’ outbreak. When told that anotherLegionnaires’ outbreak was likely and that people would die, her boss,Health and Human Services director Nick Lyon, reportedly said he “can’tsave everyone,” and “everyone has to die of something.”4
Many in Flint believe that they were ignored because their town is largelyblack and poor, putting them on the margins of society. (The medianincome of Flint is half that of the state average, and 40% of residents livebelow the poverty line.) They are particularly bitter toward the formergovernor. Said one resident: “We’re poor. And because we don’t haveanybody on our side that has any clout, Snyder didn’t care.”5 A number ofobservers believe that this tragedy would never have taken place in oneof the wealthy white communities in Michigan. Then-presidentialcandidate Hillary Clinton drove this point home, noting, “What happenedin Flint is immoral. The children of Flint are just as precious as thechildren of any part of America.”6Justice may be coming for the residents of Flint. The Michigan AttorneyGeneral brought charges against six officials, declaring “that people wouldwant to sweep this away and that there are nameless, facelessbureaucrats who caused this and no one responsible is outrageous.”7Five officials, including Lyon and Wells, are charged with involuntarymanslaughter for failing to stop the Legionnaires’ epidemic. Other chargesinclude obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. However, theformer governor has not been charged with any crime, despite calls fromsome critics to do so.
Discussion Probes1. Is this a case of administrative evil in action? Why or why not?2. Do you think that the residents of Flint were treated differentlybecause they are poor and African American?3. Was the Governor’s apology adequate? What, if any, additionalsteps should the governor have taken in response to the crisis?4. Should governors be able to appoint emergency managers whohave the power to override the decisions of local elected officials?5. Do you think the charges of negligent homicide against state officialsare justified?
Notes1. Lynch, J. (2016, February 5). DEQ fires worker who supervised Flint’swater. 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 watermost likely explanation for Legionnaire’ disease outbreak. Detroit FreePress.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 isimmoral.” NBC News.7. Ganim, S. (2017, June 14). Michigan officials charged in FlintLegionnaires’ outbreak. CNN.
SourcesBosman, J., & Smith, M. (2016, January 19). Gov. Rick Snyder ofMichigan apologizes in Flint water crisis. The New York Times.Fleming, L. N. (2016, January 12). Volunteers deliver water in Flint amidlead crisis. The Detroit News.Fleming, S. J. (2016, February 5). Lee: Time to end emergency managerlaw. The Detroit News.Fonger, R. (2015, October 13). Ex-emergency manager says he’s not toblame 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 yearsaway. Detroit News.Spangler, T. (2016, February 5). Second U.S. House panel to holdhearing on Flint water. Detroit Free Press.SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.1 Tendency to Forgive ScaleInstructions: Respond to each of the following items on a scale of 1(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).1234567Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1. 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 andforget. ______5. Scoring: Reverse your scores on items 2 and 3, and then addup your responses to all four statements. The higher the score(possible scores range from 4 to 28), the more likely you are toforgive others and the less likely you are to bring up offensesfrom the past.
Source: Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in thetendency 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 forPersonality and Social Psychology. Inc. Used with permission.SELF-ASSESSMENT 4.2 Spirit at Work ScaleInstructionsThis instrument measures your experience of spirituality or spirit atyour 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 andmy 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 mycoworkers.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 positiveeffect on my work.7. I am passionate about my work.8. At times, I experience an energy or vitality at work that isdifficult to describe.9. I am fulfilling my calling through my work.10. My spiritual beliefs play an important role in everyday decisionsthat I make at work.11. I have a sense of personal mission in life, which my work helpsme to fulfill.12. I have moments at work in which I have no sense of time orspace.13. I share a strong sense of purpose and meaning with mycoworkers 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 mywork.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 upyour dimension scores to generate a total score. Higher scores
indicate that you have a greater sense of spirit at your place ofemployment.Engaging Work (feelings of well-being, meaning work, alignment ofbeliefs and values with the organization)Items 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, & 18 ______ Range 7–35Mystical Experience (positive energy or vitality, feeling oftranscendence, joy and bliss)Items 2, 4, 8, 12, & 16 ______ Range 5–30Spiritual Connection (a sense of connection with somethinglarger than the self)Items, 6, 10, & 15 ________ Range 3–15Sense of Community (connection with others and a largerpurpose)Items 3, 13, & 17 _______ Range 3–15Total _________ Range 18–90Source: Kinjerski, V. (2013). The Spirit at Work Scale: Developingand validating a measure of individual spirituality at work. In J. Neal(Ed.), Handbook of faith and spirituality in the workplace: Emergingresearch and practice (pp. 383–402). New York, NY: Springer. Usedby permission.
Notes1. Adams, G. B. (2011). The problem of administrative evil in aculture of technical rationality. Public Integrity, 13, 275–285;Neiman, S. (2002). Evil in modern thought: An alternative historyof 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 thebeguilings of evil. Albany: State University of New York Press;Kekes, J. (2005). The roots of evil. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress; 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 collectiveevildoing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ofcourse, a host of other definitions are offered by major religionsand philosophical systems.3. Alford, C. F. (1997). What evil means to us. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, p. 3.4. Kekes.5. Baumeister, R. F. (1999). Evil: Inside human violence andcurelty. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman, p. 1706. Deutsch, M. (1990). Psychological roots of moral exclusion.Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 21–25.7. Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: Anintroduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20.8. Chang, I. (1997). The rape of Nanking: The forgotten holocaustof World War II. New York, NY: Basic Books, p. 218.9. Adam, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2012). The dynamics ofadministrative evil in organizations. In C. L. Jurkiewicz (Ed.), The
foundations of organizational evil (pp. 16–30). Armonk, NY: M. E.Sharpe, p. 28.10. Opotow, S. (2007). Moral exclusion and torture: The tickingbomb scenario and the slippery ethical slope. Peace and Conflict:Journal of Peace Psychology, 13, 457–461.11. Opotow, S. (1990). Deterring moral exclusion. Journal ofSocial Issues, 46(1), 173–182.12. Leets, L. (2001). Interrupting the cycle of moral exclusion: Acommunication contribution to social justice research. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 31, 1859–1891, p. 1863.13. Tileaga, C. (2006). Representing the “other”: A discursiveanalysis 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 raceand nation. Princton, NJ: Princeton University Press.15. Glover, J. (1999). Humanity: A moral history of the twentiethcentury. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.16. Adams; Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2005). Public-serviceethics 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, andadministrative evil: Lessons from Katrina and Iraq. In R. W. Cox III(Ed.), Ethics and integrity in public administration: Concepts andcases (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.
18. Fromm, E. (1964). The heart of man: Its genius for good andevil. New York, NY: Harper & Row, p. 136.19. Arendt, H. (1964). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on thebanality of evil. New York, NY: Viking.20. Hatzfeld, J. (2005). Machete season: The killers in Rwandaspeak (L. Coverdal, Trans.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus andGiroux.21. Waller, J. (2007). Becoming evil: How ordinary people commitgenocide and mass killing (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press; Waller, J. (2016). Confronting evil: Engaging ourresponsibility to prevent genocide. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.22. Zimbardo, P. G. (2005). A situationist perspective on thepsychology of evil. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology ofgood and evil (pp. 21–50). New York, NY: Guilford Press;Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding howgood people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House. Opotow(1990), Deterring moral exclusion.23. Opotow, S., & Weiss, L. (2000). Denial and the process ofmoral 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 theends 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 centraltherapeutic concern. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.26. Material on the definition and psychology of forgiveness istaken 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,
E. A. (1992). Forgiveness: A developmental view. Journal of MoralEducation, 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 anatural environment. Counseling and Values, 56, 25–42;McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000).The psychology of forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, andoverview. 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). Anassessment of contemporary models of forgiveness. New York,NY: Peter Lang; Thomas, G. (2000, January 10). The forgivenessfactor. Christianity Today, 38–43.27. Enright, Freedman, & Rique, pp. 46–64. These elements alsoappear in the REACH model of forgiveness developed bypsychotherapists. See Worthington, E. L., & Sandage S. J. (2016).Forgiveness and spirituality in psychotherapy: A relationalapproach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.28. Berman, M. (2015, June 19). “I forgive you.” Relatives ofCharleston church shooting victims address Dylann Roof. TheWashington Post.29. For information on the by-products of forgiveness, see, forexample, Enright, R. D. (2012). The forgiving life. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association; Enright, R. (2015). 8keys to forgiveness. New York: NY: W. W. Norton; Thoresen, C.E., Harris, H. S., & Luskin, F. (2000). Forgiveness and health: Anunanswered 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 inpolitics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. See also Wilmot,
W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6th ed.). NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Ch. 1.31. Sullivan, D, & Tifft, L. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook ofrestorative justice. London, England: Routledge.32. Shriver, p. 8.33. Forgiveness also extends to the self. Self-forgivenessacknowledges your dignity and equips you to move forward torestore 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 ValueInquiry, 32, 75–91; Snow, N. E. (1993). Self-forgiveness. Journalof Value Inquiry, 27, 75–80.34. Kador, J. (2009). Effective apology: Mending fences, buildingbridges, and restoring trust. Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler; Lazare,A. (2004). On apology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.35. Griswold, C. L. (2007). Forgiveness: A philosophicalexploration. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press;Lowenheim, N. (2009). A haunted past: Requesting forgivenessfor wrongdoing in international relations. Review of InternationalStudies, 35, 531–555; Minow, M. (1998). Between vengeance andforgiveness. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; Nobles, M. (2008). Thepolitics of official apologies. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press; Shriver, D. W. (2001). Forgiveness: A bridgeacross abysses of revenge. In R. G. Helmick & R. L. Peterson(Eds.), Forgiveness and reconciliation: Religion, public policy, andconflict transformation (pp. 151–167). Philadelphia, PA: TempletonFoundation Press.36. Johnson, C. E., & Shelton, P. (2014, October). Ethicalleadership in the age of apology. International Leadership Journal,6, 7–29.37. Macur, J. (2013, January 18). Confession, but continuing tofight. The New York Times, p. B11.
38. Lazare.39. Kador, p. 11.40. Phillips, A. (2017, December 7). Al Franken’s defiant,unapologetic resignation speech, annotated. The WashingtonPost.41. Oswick, C. (2009). Burgeoning workplace spirituality? Atextual analysis of momentum and directions. Journal ofManagement, Spirituality & Religion, 6, 15–25.42. King, S., Biberman, J., Robbins, L., & Nicol, D. M. (2007).Integrating spirituality into management education in academiaand organizations: Origins, a conceptual framework, and currentpractices. In J. Biberman & M. D. Whitty (Eds.), At work:Spirituality matters (pp. 243–256). Scranton, PA: University ofScranton Press.43. Information on the benefits of workplace spirituality is takenfrom the following: Craigie, F. C. (1999). The spirit and work:Observations about spirituality and organizational life. Journal ofPsychology 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 andorganizational performance. Public Administration Review, 63,355–363; Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003a). Rightfrom wrong: The influence of spirituality on perceptions ofunethical business activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 85–97; Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2010). Toward a scienceof workplace spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz(Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizationalperformance (2nd ed., pp. 3–26). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe;Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values frameworkfor measuring the impact of workplace spirituality onorganizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 129–142; Karakas, F. (2010). Spirituality and performance inorganizations: 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.
(2008). Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: Anempirical 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 workplacepolicy. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jukiewicz (Eds.), Handbook ofworkplace 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: Aconceptualization 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 unitperformance. 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 anddeveloping executive character. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.49. Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related toleadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655–687.50. One detailed list of personal and collective spiritual practicescan be found in Foster, R. J. (1978). Celebration of discipline: Thepath 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 atheory of ethical and spiritual well-being, and corporate Socialresponsibility through spiritual leadership. In R. A. Giacalone, C.L. Jurkiewicz, & C. Dunn (Eds.), Positive psychology in businessethics 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. InJ. 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 inorganizations. New York, NY: Seabury Books; Benefiel, M. (2005).The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership fororganizational transformation. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 723–747.53. Jurkiewicz & Giacalone.54. Boje, D. (2008). Critical theory approaches to spirituality inbusiness. In J. Biberman & L. Tischler (Eds.), Spirituality inbusiness: Theory, practice, and future directions (pp. 160–187).New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; Tourish, D. (2013). The darkside of transformational leadership: A critical perspective. NewYork, NY: Routledge.
Part III Ethical Standards andStrategiesChapter 5. Ethical Perspectives 144Chapter 6. Ethical Decision Making and Behavior 174Chapter 7. Exercising Ethical Influence 207Chapter 8. Normative Leadership Theories 243
5 Ethical Perspectives
Learning Objectives> List the four steps to conducting a utilitarian analysis of an ethicalproblem.> Defend the importance of making ethical choices based on duty.> Explain how justice as fairness theory guarantees equal rightswhile 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 ethicalperspectives.The question is not what to do, but how to decide what todo.—EDUCATOR AND PHILOSOPHER JOHN DEWEYLeaders are truly effective only when they are motivatedby a concern for others.—BUSINESS PROFESSORS RABINDRA KANUNGOAND MANUEL MENDONCA
What’s AheadThis chapter surveys widely used ethical perspectives or systemsthat leaders can use when making ethical decisions. Theseapproaches include utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative,Rawls’s justice as fairness, pragmatism, and altruism. For eachperspective, I provide a brief description and then offer somesuggestions for applying the framework as well as some cautionsabout doing so.In Chapter 2, I identified lack of expertise as one reason leadersunintentionally cast shadows. We may lack experience or we maynot be aware of the ethical perspectives or frameworks we canapply to ethical dilemmas. The purpose of this chapter is tointroduce some widely used systems that leaders can employwhen making moral choices. These tools help us identify andclarify problems, force us to think systematically, encourage us toview issues from many different vantage points, and supply uswith decision-making guidelines. They play a critical role in thedecision-making formats described in the next chapter.Resist the temptation to select one perspective for decisionmaking while ignoring the others. That would be a mistake. Eachoffers unique insights. Applying several approaches to the sameproblem will give you a deeper understanding of the issue even ifthe different frameworks lead to different conclusions. You mightalso find that a particular perspective is more suited to some kindsof ethical dilemmas than to others.
Utilitarianism: Do the Greatest Goodfor the Greatest Number of PeopleUtilitarianism is based on the premise that ethical choices shouldbe based on their consequences. People probably have alwaysconsidered the likely outcomes of their decisions whendetermining what to do. However, this process wasn’t formalizedand given a name until the 18th and 19th centuries. Englishphilosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill(1806–1873) argued that the best decisions generate the mostbenefits, as compared with their disadvantages, and benefit thelargest number of people.1 In sum, utilitarianism is attempting todo the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utility canbe based on what is best in a specific case (act utilitarianism) oron what is generally best in most contexts (rule utilitarianism). Forexample, we can decide that telling a specific lie is justified in onesituation (to protect someone’s reputation) but, as a general rule,believe that lying is wrong because it causes more harm thangood.There are four steps to conducting a utilitarian analysis of anethical problem.2 First, clearly identify the action or issue underconsideration. Second, specify all those who might be affected bythe action (e.g., the organization, the local community, aprofessional group, society), not just those immediately involved inthe situation. Third, determine the likely consequences, both goodand bad, for those affected. Fourth, sum the good and the badconsequences. The action is morally right if the benefits outweighthe costs.Utilitarian reasoning is often employed when setting public policy.Take the legalization of recreational marijuana, for example.3Citizens and policy makers consider a variety of benefits andcosts when debating this issue. Benefits of legalization includeshrinking prison populations by keeping more people out of jail,reducing the illegal drug trade, and bringing in additional taxrevenue. Costs include a greater risk of cognitive damage to
children and long-time users as pot becomes more available,additional impaired drivers on the road, and damage to therespiratory system and gums of those who smoke the drug. Agrowing number of states have determined that the benefitsoutweigh the costs, legalizing the sale and use of marijuana.However, the majority of states, as well as the federalgovernment, disagree and still ban its use.Utilitarian analysis can also be used when choosing between twonegative alternatives. In these situations, decision makers opt forthe least costly option, selecting the lesser of two evils. Suchchoices are becoming increasingly common as authorities copewith damage to the environment. Consider, for example, thedispute over managing wild horses in Nevada and other westernstates. Government officials and ranchers argue that uncontrolledmustang populations explode, which damages the fragile desertenvironment and deprives cattle of food. Wild horse advocatesresist most attempts to restrict mustang numbers. They complainthat such efforts are cruel and could lead to the slaughter of theseproud symbols of the West. The Bureau of Land Management hasdetermined that periodically reducing herd sizes throughhelicopter roundups is the lesser of the two evils. In the PacificNorthwest, one protected species (the sea lion) is eatingthousands of other protected species (steelhead and salmon) inthe Columbia and Willamette rivers. Congress granted stateofficials permission to kill some “nuisance” sea lions, determiningthat this option is least objectionable.4 (Relocating problem sealions 130 miles to the Pacific Ocean does no good. They are backeating endangered fish in a matter of a few days.)
Applications and CautionsApplicationsBuild 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 toapply. Chances are you already use this technique, creating aseries of mental balance sheets for all types of decisions, such asdetermining whether an item, a car, or a vacation package isworth the price; considering a job offer; or evaluating the merits oftwo political candidates. Take advantage of your experience whenweighing the costs and benefits of ethical decisions. Keep yourfocus on outcomes, which will encourage you to think throughyour decisions. You’ll also be less likely to make rash, unreasonedchoices, which is particularly important when it comes to ethicaldilemmas. The ultimate goal of evaluating consequences isadmirable: to maximize benefits to as many people as possible(not just to yourself). As a result, your personal interests shouldnot be the primary concern when making decisions. Remember,too, that utilitarianism is probably the most defensible approach insome situations. For example, in medical emergencies involvinglarge numbers of injured victims, top priority should go to thosewho are most likely to survive. It does little good for medicalpersonnel to spend time with terminal patients while other victimswho would benefit from treatment die.CautionsProbable consequences are difficult to identify, measure, andevaluate.There may be unanticipated outcomes.Decision makers may reach different conclusions.Be wary of extreme utilitarianism.
Identifying possible consequences can be difficult. (Case Study5.1 illustrates how the high costs of unethical decisions are oftenhidden.) Specifying outcomes is particularly for decision makerswho represent a variety of constituencies or stakeholders. Takethe case of a college president who must decide what academicprograms to cut in a budget crisis. Many different groups have astake in this decision, and each probably will reach a differentconclusion about potential costs and benefits. Every departmentbelieves that it makes a valuable contribution to the university andserves the mission of the school. Powerful alumni may bealienated by the elimination of their majors. Members of the localcommunity might suffer if the education department is terminatedand no longer supplies teachers to area schools or if plays andconcerts end because of cutbacks in the theater and musicdepartments. Unanticipated consequences further complicate thechoice. If student enrollments increase, the president may have torestore programs that she eliminated earlier. Yet failing to makecuts can put the future of the school in jeopardy.Even when consequences are clear, you may find that evaluatingtheir relative merits can be daunting. It is hard to compare differentkinds of costs and benefits, for example. The construction of ahousing development provides new homes but takes farmland outof production. How do we weigh the relative value of urbanhousing versus family farms? Also, utilitarianism says little abouthow benefits are to be distributed. “Doing the greatest good” maymean putting one group at a serious disadvantage so thateveryone else will benefit. During World War II, for instance,Japanese Americans were warehoused in camps based on themistaken belief that this would make the nation as a whole safer.Conversely, utilitarian calculations may benefit the few at theexpense of the majority. Most of the savings from recent federaltax cuts, which were justified as a way to benefit the overalleconomy, went to the richest corporations and individuals. Wealso tend to favor ourselves when making decisions. Thus, youare likely to put more weight on consequences that most directlyaffect you. It’s all too easy to confuse the “greatest good” with yourown selfish interests.
Given the difficulty of identifying and evaluating potential costsand benefits, utilitarian decision makers sometimes reach differentconclusions when faced with the same dilemma, such as thelegalization of marijuana. During its investigation of the SanBernardino terrorist shooting, the FBI asked Apple to unlock theiPhone of one of the killers, reasoning that national securityconcerns outweighed any threat to privacy. Apple executivesobjected, arguing that unlocking the phone would give thegovernment and hackers access to information from millions ofiPhone owners, which outweighed the benefits of allowing accessin this one case.5 (The FBI later managed to open the phonewithout Apple’s help.)In its most extreme form, utilitarianism discounts family, friendship,and community bonds. Australian ethicist Peter Singer usesutilitarian reasoning to argue that the needs of strangers are equalto the needs of those close to us. Imagine, Singer says, that youare walking by a shallow pond and see a drowning child who youcan rescue with little cost or risk to yourself. You ought to wade inand save the toddler. Now imagine that you have been asked tosend money to an aid group to save the life of a child in a poornation. According to Singer, you are just as morally obligated tosend the contribution as you are to rescue the drowning child. Heurges us to forsake luxuries like movie tickets and musicdownloads, giving the money to humanitarian aid instead.6You may decide that you agree with Singer’s reasoning but shouldrecognize the costs in doing so. Giving so much away takes awaythe freedom to live life the way we choose and may deprive us ofthe resources we need to take care of ourselves.7 (Altruism raisessimilar concerns, as we’ll see later in the chapter.) Very fewpeople are willing to make the sacrifices called for by Singer.Giving to an aid organization doesn’t directly convert into saving alife either. (In fact, some aid programs seem to hurt rather thanhelp recipients.) Most importantly, the majority of us believe thatour greatest moral responsibility lies with those who are closest tous—family, friends, neighbors.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative: DoWhat’s Right No Matter the CostIn sharp contrast to the utilitarians, European philosopherImmanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that people should do what ismorally right no matter the consequences.8 (The term categoricalmeans “without exception.”) His approach to moral reasoning isthe best-known example of deontological ethics. Deontologicalethicists argue that we ought to make choices based on our duty(deon is the Greek word for duty). Fulfilling our obligations mayrun contrary to our personal interests. For example, revealing aproduct defect to a potential customer might cost us a sale, but isnevertheless the ethical course of action. (Duty plays an importantrole 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 toask ourselves one question: Would I want everyone else to makethe decision I did? If the answer is yes, the choice is justified. Ifthe answer is no, the decision is wrong. Based on this reasoning,certain behaviors, such as truth telling and helping the poor, arealways right. Other acts, such as lying, cheating, and murder, arealways wrong. Testing and grading would be impossible ifeveryone cheated, for example, and cooperation would beimpossible if no one could be trusted to tell the truth. A number ofobservers worry that disregard for the truth is poisoning thepolitical climate of the United States, putting much of the blame onPresident Trump. According to one group of fact checkers, thepresident lied an average of 15 times a day during his secondyear in office.9 President Trump and many of his supporters,however, accuse the media and his opponents of spreading “fakenews” that presents a distorted view of the president and hispolicies. This climate of distrust makes it extremely difficult for theWhite House and Congress, as well as for Republicans andDemocrats, to collaborate.
Kant also emphasized the importance of respecting persons,which has become a key principle in Western moral philosophy.10According to Kant, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in yourown person or that of another, always as an end and never as ameans only.” Although others can help us reach our goals, theyshould never be considered solely as tools. Instead, we shouldrespect and encourage the capacity of others to think and choosefor themselves. Under this standard, it is wrong for companies toexpose citizens living near manufacturing facilities to dangerouspollutants without their knowledge or consent. Coercion andviolence are immoral because such tactics violate freedom ofchoice. Failing to assist a neighbor is unethical because ignoringthis person’s need limits his or her options.Former University of Minnesota business professor NormanBowie argues that following Kantian principles would dramaticallychange the way that modern organizations operate and how theyare led.11 Instead of laying people off to save money, they mightreduce work hours for all workers instead. Retirees and pensionholders would continue to receive their promised benefits despiteeconomic downturns. Companies would be transparent byopening their books to employees. From a Kantian perspective,businesses and other organizations function as moralcommunities in which members have a significant voice in therules and policies that govern them. They operate likedemocracies where members are organizational citizens withrights and duties. Organizational citizens enjoy free speech andprivacy rights and receive information on the group’s future. Theyplay a role in setting the group’s rules and policies. Their leadersfoster follower autonomy, persuading rather than imposing. Theyassure that the interests of all stakeholders are taken intoconsideration, 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 treatpeople as ends and to promote their autonomy. Meaningful worksupports the right of employees to make decisions—includingmoral ones—and provides a living wage.
Applications and CautionsApplicationsBe duty-bound.Always ask yourself if you would want everyone to make thesame choice.Demonstrate respect for others.Duty should play a significant role in our ethical deliberations. Infact, the notion that we have a duty to take our ethicalresponsibilities seriously is a foundational principle of this text.Emphasis on duty encourages persistence and consistentbehavior. If you are driven by the conviction that certain behaviorsare either right or wrong no matter what the situation, you will beless likely to compromise your personal ethical standards. You areapt to “stay the course” despite group pressures and oppositionand to follow through on your choices. (See the “Focus ofFollower Ethics” box below to see how we can equip ourselves asfollowers to carry out our ethical duties.)Kant offers two powerful decision-making tools. First, ask yourselfif you would want everyone else to make the same decision. Ifnot, reevaluate your choice before going forward. Second, alwaysrespect 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, andviolence.CautionsExceptions exist to nearly every “universal” law.Moral obligations may conflict with one another.Ethical guidelines are often demonstrated through unrealisticexamples.This framework is hard to apply, particularly under stress.Most attacks on Kant’s system of reasoning center on hisassertion that there are universal principles that should be
followed in every situation. In almost every case, we can think ofexceptions. For instance, many of us believe that lying is wrongyet would lie or withhold the truth to save the life of a friend, or inthe case of an active school shooter, the lives of classmates andinstructors. Countries regularly justify homicide during war. Then,too, moral obligations can conflict. It may be impossible for you tokeep promises made to more than one group, for example. Raisespromised to employees may have to be set aside so thatpromised dividends can be paid to stockholders. Or satisfying oneduty 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 thoseoutlined by Kant are applied to extreme situations, not to the typesof decisions we typically make. Chances are you won’t ever befaced with any of the extraordinary scenarios (e.g., stealing tosave a life or lying to the secret police to protect a fugitive) thatare often used to illustrate principled decision making.12 Yourdilemmas are likely to be less dramatic. You have to determinewhether to confront a coworker about a sexist joke or tellsomeone the truth at the risk of hurting his or her feelings. Youalso face time pressures and uncertainty. In a crisis, you don’talways have time to carefully weigh consequences or todetermine which abstract principle to follow.Focus on Follower Ethics Constructing Ethical FollowershipHow we think about what it means to be a follower has a lot to dowith our ethical or unethical behavior as followers. Melissa Carsten,Mary Uhl-Bien, and their colleagues conducted interviews withfollowers in a variety of industries to determine how they viewed theirroles. The investigators discovered that followers define or constructtheir roles in three ways. Passive followers see themselves in asubordinate position. They defer to the leader and focus on carryingout orders. Active followers believe it is important to express theiropinions and to offer input to their leaders when asked. They maydisagree but ultimately remain loyal to the leader. Proactive followersdon’t wait to be asked. They take the initiative, offering unsolicitedfeedback and advice and challenge their leaders. Proactive followerssee themselves as partners (co-producers) with leaders, workingwith them to reach important organizational goals.
In a subsequent study, Carsten and Uhl-Bien discovered arelationship between follower coproduction beliefs and thewillingness to engage in unethical behavior. Those who thought ofthemselves as active partners with their leaders were less likely toobey the unethical directives of their superiors. Instead, they offeredconstructive resistance by providing alternatives or reasons fornoncompliance. Followers who saw themselves as passive anddependent (who had weak coproduction beliefs) tended to give in tounlawful or unethical requests, to engage in “crimes of obedience.”They shifted or displaced responsibility for their actions to theirleaders.Carsten and Uhl-Bien’s research suggests that, in order to stand upto leaders, we need to think of ourselves as their partners. When wechallenge our leaders, we encourage them to engage in ethicalconduct. We share responsibility for the ethical success or failure ofthe group whether serving in a leader or follower role.
SourcesCarsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2013). Ethical followership: Anexamination of followership beliefs and crimes of obedience. Journalof 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 qualitativestudy. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543–562.
See alsoShamir, 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 onleadership (pp. ix–xxxix). Greenwich CT: Information Age.Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and thesocial 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.
Justice as Fairness: GuaranteeingEqual Rights and OpportunitiesBehind the Veil of IgnoranceMany disputes in democratic societies center on questions ofjustice or fairness. What is equitable compensation forexecutives? Should a certain percentage of federal contracts bereserved for minority contractors? Is it fair that Native Americansare granted special fishing rights? Why should young workershave to contribute to the Social Security system when it may notbe around when they retire?In the last third of the 20th century, Harvard philosopher JohnRawls addressed questions such as these in a series of booksand articles.13 He set out to identify principles that would fostercooperation in a society made up of free and equal citizens who,at the same time, must deal with inequalities (e.g., status andeconomic differences, varying levels of talent and abilities). Rawlsrejected utilitarian principles because, as noted earlier, generatingthe greatest number of benefits for society as a whole canseriously disadvantage certain groups and individuals. Cuttingcorporate taxes is another case of how utilitarian reasoning canundermine the interests of some groups at the expense of others.This policy may spur a region’s overall economic growth, but mostof the benefits go to the owners of companies. Other citizens haveto pay higher taxes to make up for the lost revenue. Those makingminimum wage, who can barely pay for rent and food, areparticularly hard hit. They end up subsidizing wealthy corporateexecutives and stockholders.Instead of basing decisions on cost–benefit analyses, Rawlsargues, we should follow these principles of justice and build theminto our social institutions:Principle 1: Each person has an equal right to the same basicliberties that are compatible with similar liberties for all.Principle 2: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfytwo conditions: (a) They are to be attached to offices and
positions open to all under conditions of fair equality ofopportunity; (b) they are to provide the greatest benefit to theleast advantaged members of society.The first principle, the “principle of equal liberty,” has priority. Itstates that certain rights, such as the right to vote, the right to holdproperty, and freedom of speech, are protected and must be heldequal by all persons. Attempts to deny voting rights to minorities,which allegedly happened in Georgia and South Dakota duringthe 2018 midterm elections, would be unethical according to thisstandard. Principle 2a asserts that everyone should have an equalopportunity to qualify for offices and jobs. Discrimination based onrace, gender, or ethnic origin is forbidden. Furthermore, everyonein society ought to have access to the training and educationneeded to prepare for these roles. Principle 2b, “the differenceprinciple,” recognizes that inequalities exist but states that priorityshould 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 thathis principles provide a solid foundation for a democratic societysuch as the United States. Imagine, he says, a group of peoplewho are asked to come up with a set of principles that will governsociety. These group members are ignorant of their owncharacteristics (including their natural abilities), social status, andage (generation). Standing behind this veil of ignorance, thesepeople would choose (a) equal liberty, because they would wantthe maximum amount of freedom to pursue their interests; (b)equal opportunity, because if they turned out to be the mosttalented members of society, they would probably land the bestjobs and elected offices; and (c) the difference principle, becausethey would want to be sure they were cared for if they ended updisadvantaged.
Applications and CautionsApplicationsFollow fairness guidelines.Weigh both individual freedom and the good of thecommunity when making decisions.Step behind the veil of ignorance when making choices.As noted in Chapter 1, leaders cast shadows by actinginconsistently. Inconsistent leaders violate commonly heldstandards of fairness, arbitrarily giving preferential treatment tosome followers while denying the same benefits to others who areequally deserving (or more so). Rawls directly addresses theshadow of inconsistency by outlining a set of principles to help usact fairly: Guarantee basic rights to all followers; ensure thatfollowers have equal access to promotion, training, and otherbenefits; and make special efforts to help followers who haveunique needs. (Complete Self-Assessment 5.1 to determine thelevel of justice in your organization.) Keep in mind the reality ofinequalities but strive to balance both individual freedom and thecommon good. While you want to encourage more talented,skilled, or fortunate followers to pursue their goals, Rawls urgesyou to make sure the fruits of their labor also benefit their lessfortunate neighbors or coworkers.The veil of ignorance is an important guideline to follow whenmaking moral choices. Whenever possible, try to set aside suchconsiderations as wealth, education, gender, and race. The leastadvantaged usually benefit when social class differences areexcluded from the decision-making process. Our judicial system isone 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 theselection of juries, the determination of guilt and innocence, thelengths of sentences (and where they are served), and nearlyevery other aspect of the judicial process.
CautionsRawls’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 mostimportant.Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness has come under sharp attack.Rawls himself acknowledged that his model applied only to liberaldemocratic societies marked by institutions and associations thatpromote justice. It cannot work in “outlaw states” that put their owninterests first and go to war to defend them, or in “burdenedsocieties” which have been unable to establish liberaldemocracies because of their histories and poor economies.(Well-ordered societies, however, have a duty to assist burdenedcountries develop just institutions.) In addition, the more diversedemocratic nations become, the more difficult it is for groups toagree on common values and principles.14 And there is continueddebate over whether this, a political theory, can be applied tobusinesses and other organizations to address such ethical issuesas fair pay, executive compensation, worker’s rights, andcorporate social responsibility.15Rawls’s critics note that definitions of justice and fairness varywidely, 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 admissioncriteria. Some assert that admission decisions should favormembers of minority groups to redress past discrimination and toenable minorities to achieve equal footing with whites. Others feelthat admission standards that take minority status into account areunfair because they deny equal opportunity and ignore legitimatedifferences in abilities. (See Case Study 5.2 Tax Transparency foranother example of how groups define fairness differently.)Some philosophers point out that there is no guarantee thatparties who step behind the veil of ignorance would come up withthe same set of principles as Rawls. Rather than emphasizefairness, these people might choose to make decisions based onutilitarian criteria or to emphasize certain rights. For example,
libertarians hold that freedom from coercion is the most importanthuman right. Every person should be able to produce and sell ashe or she chooses regardless of impact on the poor. Capitalisttheorists believe that benefits should be distributed based on thecontributions each person makes to the group. They argue thathelping out the less advantaged rewards laziness whilediscouraging productive people from doing their best. Becausedecision makers may reach different conclusions behind the veil,you may agree with skeptics who contend that Rawls’s guidelineslack moral force. You may conclude that other approaches tomanaging society’s inequities are just as valid as the notion offairness.
Pragmatism: Ethics as InquiryThe approaches discussed so far—utilitarianism, the categoricalimperative, and justice as fairness—differ significantly, but allshare one characteristic: They are rule-based approaches toresolving ethical dilemmas. Each outlines a set of principles orrules 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 abstractprinciples, believing instead that good ethical choices emergethrough the use of inquiry.16Pragmatism was the dominant philosophical movement in theUnited States from the Civil War through World War II.17 CharlesPeirce (1839–1914) and William James (1842–1910) founded themovement, but it was John Dewey (1859–1952) who emerged asits most prominent spokesperson. Dewey wrote extensively on thetopics of education, philosophy, science, and politics over his longcareer. In recent years, Richard Rorty, Hilary Putnam, and otherprominent philosophers and ethicists have returned to the ideas ofDewey for insights into how to approach moral decision making.Pragmatism gets its name from its focus on using philosophy tosolve practical problems.18 Dewey and other pragmatists believedthat the scientific method can be applied to solving humandilemmas. In the scientific method, researchers develophypotheses, which they then test through experiments. Thehypotheses are then modified based on the experimental results.Conclusions are always subject to revision, depending on whatthe evidence reveals. Taking a pragmatic approach encouragesflexibility.Dewey argued that ethical dilemmas should be approachedscientifically as well. Ethical quandaries create a sense of uneaseor distress, which then prompts us to address the problem. Sincewe can’t conduct an actual physical experiment (as we wouldwhen investigating a chemistry problem), we rely on our moralimaginations.19 Exercising moral imagination involves mentally
testing out various courses of action, considering likely outcomes,determining how others might respond, referring to how similarproblems have been solved in the past, and so on. Humility andopenness to other points of view are key to mentalexperimentation. We need to admit that our knowledge is limitedand welcome new discoveries.20 According to Dewey, democracyprovides the best setting for encouraging this type of experimentalthinking and action and he was active in civic causes, helping tofound both the American Civil Liberties Union and the NationalAssociation for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).The term dramatic rehearsal describes mental imagination inaction. In dramatic rehearsal, decision makers conduct a series ofimaginary thought experiments to visualize how their decisionscould turn out. According to philosopher John McVea, dramaticrehearsal differs in important ways from the calculative,deliberative approach typically used in ethical decision-making.21Dramatic rehearsal takes into account the emotions of thoseinvolved rather than setting feelings aside. Creative solutionsemerge through deliberation rather than through the application ofrules. Dramatic rehearsal immerses the leader in the specifics ofthe situation instead of encouraging her or him to rely on rules orguidelines.While Dewey focused on the process of ethical decision-making,he also believed that every ethical decision must be made with anend or value in mind. Ethics needs to answer these questions:“What ends should I strive for?” and “What conduct should Iengage in so that I attain these ends?”22 Dewey believed thateach moral decision or habit has an impact on the character of theperson making the choice. Making wise choices, then, fosters ourcharacter development.23 Dewey emphasized that individualgrowth is the ultimate goal of moral decision making. Growthcomes from solving problems, which opens up new possibilitiesfor further growth and maturity. In Dewey’s words,The process of growth, of improvement and progress,rather than the static outcome and result, becomes thesignificant thing. . . . The end is no longer a terminus or
limit to be reached. It is the active process oftransforming the existent situation. Not perfection as afinal goal, but the ever-enduring process of perfecting,maturing, refining is the aim in living. . . . Growth itself isthe only moral “end.”24Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh,is an example of a leader who used dramatic rehearsal to addressimmediate ethical problems. In so doing, he developed hischaracter.25 In 1972, Yunus returned to his home country ofBangladesh to take up a teaching post after completing hisdoctorate in economics in the United States. However, thenation’s suffering troubled Yunus, and he began to focus onalleviating poverty. He and his students then undertook a series ofresearch projects in order to understand the causes of poverty.They discovered that inability to secure credit kept many fromeconomic security. Rather than turn to charities or the governmentfor help, Yunus developed a creative solution—he started a for-profit bank to lend small amounts to rural villagers. By immersinghimself in the plight of poor, he discovered that many villagewomen had skills that they could use in small enterprises if theyonly had the capital to start their businesses. As a result, many ofthe 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 outphones for calls and that the phones would give villagers accessto market information. Cell phones would also reduce the isolationof women, which made them vulnerable to abuse.Because he decided to work on eliminating poverty rather thanteaching economics, Yunus ended up pursuing a different careerand developing a new set of beliefs and values. Throughout hisjourney, 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 Ireally wanted was to solve an immediate problem. Even
to this day I still view myself, my work and that of mycolleagues, as devoted to solving the same immediateproblem: the problem of poverty which humiliates anddenigrates everything that a human being stands for.26
Applications and CautionsApplicationsApproach 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 assolving other dilemmas, like determining how to lower costs orincrease sales. You must identify options, consider possibleoutcomes, gather information, experiment, and adjust yourconclusions in the light of new information (see Chapter 6). Youneed to immerse yourself in the details of the situation to gain abetter 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 inperspective taking, both of which are essential to ethical problemsolving. An experimental approach is particularly important whenin a leadership role. You need to acknowledge your limitations—that means continually trying out ideas, recognizing when ideasneed to be adjusted in the face of changing conditions, andrespecting the input of followers. In other words, develop a“pragmatic temperament” that is flexible and open to change andother points of view. Whenever possible, seek novel solutions.These often emerge during the inquiry process. Rather thanrejecting your emotions, embrace them. They can signal that anethical problem exists and spur you to action. (We’ll take a closerlook at the role of emotions in ethical decision making in the nextchapter.)Dewey also reminds us that ethical choices aren’t isolated events.Ethical choices and the habits they develop have a cumulative
impact. Taken together, they determine who we are becoming.CautionsPragmatism 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 thegreatest good for the greatest number, for determining right orwrong or for justifying a choice. Instead, you need to trust that aworthy solution will emerge through the process of inquiry. Assome critics note, there is no guarantee that ethical inquiry andexperimentation will produce ethical solutions. They point to theexample of the Nazis, who engaged in a series of inhumanmedical experiments. Doctors euthanized mentally challengedand disabled children, and Josef Mengele carried out gruesomemedical experiments at Auschwitz.27 Then, too, there is confusionabout the ultimate goal of pragmatic ethical decision making.Dewey argues that we need to pursue personal growth anddevelopment. You will have to define what this lofty but abstractgoal mean to you.
Altruism: Love Your NeighborAdvocates of altruism argue that love of neighbor is the ultimateethical standard. Our actions should be designed to help others,whatever the personal cost. The altruistic approach to moralreasoning shares much in common with virtue ethics. Many of thevirtues that characterize people of high moral character, such ascompassion, hospitality, empathy, and generosity, reflect concernfor other people. Clearly, virtuous leaders are other centered, notself-centered.Altruism appears to be a universal value, one promoted in culturesin every region of the world. The Dalai Lama urges followers topractice an ethic of compassion, for instance, and benevolence isa central value of Confucianism. Western thought has beengreatly influenced by the altruistic emphasis of Judaism andChristianity. The command to love God and to love others as welove ourselves is our most important obligation in Judeo-Christianethics. Because humans are made in the image of God and Godis love, we have an obligation to love others no matter who theyare and no matter their relationship to us. Jesus drove home thispoint in the parable of the Good Samaritan:A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho whenhe fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of hisclothes, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead.A priest happened to be going down the same road, andwhen he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and sawhim, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as hetraveled, came where the man was; and when he sawhim, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandagedhis wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put theman on his own donkey, took him to an inn, and tookcare of him. The next day he took out two silver coinsand gave them to the innkeeper. “Look after him,” hesaid, “and when I return, I will reimburse you for any
extra expense you may have.” Which of these three doyou think was a neighbor to the man who fell into thehands of robbers? The expert replied, “The one who hadmercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”(Luke 10:30–37, New International Version)Hospice volunteers provide a modern-day example of theunconditional 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 significantpersonal cost without expecting anything in return.Concern for others promotes healthy social relationships. (SeeBox 5.1 for a closer look at an ethical approach centered oncaring for others.) Society functions more effectively when peoplehelp one another in their daily interactions. Researchers in socialpsychology, economics, political science, and other fields havediscovered that altruistic behavior is more often than not the norm,not the exception.28 Every day we help others—by pitching in tohelp finish a project, shoveling the driveway of an elderlyneighbor, listening to a roommate’s problems, and so on. Altruismis the driving force behind all kinds of movements andorganizations designed to help the less fortunate and to eliminatesocial problems. Name almost any nonprofit group, ranging from ahospital or medical relief team to a youth club or crisis hotline, andyou’ll find that it was launched by someone with an altruisticmotive. In addition, when we compare good to evil, altruistic actsgenerally come to mind. Moral heroes shine so brightly becausethey ignore personal risks to battle evil forces.From this discussion, it’s easy to see why altruism is a significantethical consideration for all types of citizens. (To determine yourtendency to engage in altruistic behavior, complete Self-Assessment 5.2.) However, management professors RabindraKanungo and Manuel Mendonca believe that concern for others iseven more important for leaders than it is for followers.29 Bydefinition, leaders exercise influence on behalf of others. Theycan’t understand or articulate the needs of followers unless theyfocus on the concerns of constituents. To succeed, leaders may
have to take risks and forgo personal gain. Leaders intent onbenefiting followers will pursue organizational goals, rely onreferent and expert power bases, and give power away. Leadersintent on benefiting themselves will focus on personalachievements; rely on legitimate, coercive, and reward powerbases; and try to control followers. Kanungo and Mendoncaidentify four forms of leader altruistic behaviors. Individual-focusedleader altruistic behaviors include providing training, technicalassistance, and mentoring. Group-focused leader altruisticbehaviors include team building, participative group decisionmaking, and minority advancement programs. Organizational-focused leader altruistic attitudes and actions includedemonstrating commitment and loyalty, protecting organizationalresources, and whistle-blowing. Societal-focused leader altruisticbehaviors include making contributions to promote social welfare,reducing pollution, ensuring product safety, and maintainingcustomer satisfaction.30Altruism plays a critical role in equipping individuals to absorb theemotional pain that is part and parcel of organizational life.Downsizing, mergers, reorganizations, new policies andprocedures, competition for promotions and resources, difficultcoworkers and clients, the sudden death of colleagues, abusivebosses and other factors generate fear, anxiety, anger, and othertoxic emotions. These negative feelings produce stress whichdamages the health and well-being of members. Stress alsodamages organizational performance through low morale,absenteeism, turnover, gossip, and sabotage. Toxin handlers arecompassionate individuals who absorb others’ pain, helping themconfront and overcome their negative feelings to go forward.31These individuals take on this role in addition to their regularduties. In fact, they are able to take on this burden because theyare highly competent in carrying out their regular jobresponsibilities. Toxic handlers risk burnout as they take on theemotional and physical stress of colleagues. Further, their effortsgo unnoticed in many organizations. While toxin handlers can befound at any organizational level, leaders often fill this role,operating near the top of the organization. For example, onesenior utility manager stepped in to defend coworkers beingattacked by the CEO and allowed his colleagues to vent their
frustrations. A vice president at a New York bank playedpeacemaker between administrative staff and new MBAs andcalmed the fears of those worried about a possible merger.Toxic handlers reduce pain in five different ways:1. Listening. Compassionate leaders keep their office doorsopen, make time for visitors, and let others tell their stories.They are warm and empathetic, offering feedback andinformation. The person in pain feels heard and respected.2. Suggesting solutions. Toxin handlers don’t only listen, theysolve problems. They offer counseling and advice whenneeded. For instance, they will help a subordinate who hasbeen passed over for a promotion prepare for a futurepromotion.3. Working behind the scenes to prevent pain. Toxin handlerswork quietly within the organizational system to preventadditional toxic feelings. They might secretly arrange thetransfer of an employee to a better environment or place astruggling new hire with an experienced mentor.4. Carrying the confidences of others. Toxin handlers don’tbetray the secrets of others but allow them to walk awayfeeling heard and supported.5. Reframing difficult messages. Handlers act as diplomats andtranslators. They may take the anger out of a message from aboss, for instance, or act as a buffer, preventing followersfrom sending messages to the boss that might damage theircareers.Box 5.1 The Ethic of CareThe altruistic ethic of care developed as an alternative to whatfeminists label as the traditional male-oriented approach to ethics.The utilitarian, categorical imperative and justice-as-fairnessapproaches emphasize the importance of acting on abstract moralprinciples, being impartial, and treating others fairly. Carol Gilligan,Nel Noddings, and others initially argued that women take a differentapproach (have a “different voice”) to moral decision making basedon caring for others. Instead of expressing concern for people inabstract terms, women care for others through their relationships andtailor their responses to the particular needs of the other individual.
Subsequent research revealed that the ethic of care is not exclusiveto women. Men as well as women may prefer care to justice.Philosopher Virginia Held identifies five key components of the careethic:1. Focuses on the importance of noting and meeting the needs ofthose we are responsible for. Most people are dependent formuch of their existence, including during childhood, duringillness, and near the end of life. Morality built on rights andautonomy overlooks this fact. The ethic of care makes concernfor others central to human experience and puts the needs ofspecific individuals—a child, an elderly relative—first.2. Values emotions. Sympathy, sensitivity, empathy, andresponsiveness are moral emotions that need to be cultivated.This stands in sharp contrast to ethical approaches that urgedecision makers to set aside their feelings in order to makerational, impartial determinations. However, emotions need tobe carefully monitored and evaluated to make sure they areappropriate. For instance, caregivers caught up in empathy candeny their own needs or end up controlling the recipients oftheir care.3. Specific needs and relationships take priority above universalprinciples. The ethic of care rejects the notion of impartiality andbelieves particular relationships are more important thanuniversal moral principles like rights and freedom. For example,the needs of the immediate family take precedence over theneeds of neighbors or of society as a whole. Persons in caringrelationships aren’t out to promote their personal interests orthe interests of humanity; instead, they want to foster ethicalrelationships with each other. Family and friendships have greatmoral value in the ethic of care, and caregiving is a criticalmoral responsibility.4. Breaks down the barriers between the public and privatespheres. In the past, men were dominant in the public spherewhile relegating women to the “private” sphere. Men largelymade decisions about how to exercise political and economicpower while women were marginalized and dependent. Theethic of care argues that the private domain is just as importantas the public domain and that problems faced in the privatesphere, such as inequality and dependence, also arise in thepublic sphere.5. Views persons as both relational and interdependent. Each ofus starts life depending on others, and we depend on our websof interpersonal relationships throughout our time on Earth. Inthe ethic of care, individuals are seen as “embedded” in
particular families, cultures, and historical periods. Beingembedded 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 changenational and international priorities. Child rearing, education, eldercare, and other caring activities, as well as the institutions thatsupport them, would consume a greater proportion of governmentalbudgets. Societal leaders would ensure that caregivers receive moremoney, recognition, support, and status. More men would take oncaregiving responsibilities. Organizational leaders would helpemployees strike a better balance between work and homeresponsibilities and provide more generous family leave policies.Corporations would devote more attention to addressing societalproblems. The powerful would recognize their responsibility toprovide care. Nations would welcome strangers forced into asylumby violence and oppression as well as migrants who travel acrossborders to provide care. More economic, medical, and educationalaid would go to countries with the greatest needs.
Sources:Barnes, M., Brannelly, T., Ward, L, & Ward, N. (Eds.). (2015). Ethicsof care: Critical advances in international perspective. Bristol,England: Policy PressGilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory andwomen’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxfordhandbook of ethical theory (pp. 537–566). Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics andmoral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for anethic of care. New York, NY: Routledge.Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality, andjustice. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Applications and CautionsApplicationsPut 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 toleadership. To be an effective leader, you need to be aware of theneeds of your followers and be willing to act on their behalf. Putthe goals of the group or organization first and empower followers.Practice the altruistic individual-, group-, organizational-, andsocietal-focused behaviors outlined earlier. Be prepared to absorbthe pain of others; acknowledge and assist those who act as toxinhandlers. By acting selflessly, you inspire others to do the same.Compassion should also be an important consideration in everydecision you make. Consider how your choices will affect others;seek solutions that will benefit them.CautionsIt 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 theydo.Altruism takes many different, sometimes conflicting, forms.You’ve probably already discovered that love of neighbor is not aneasy principle to put into practice. The world’s needs far exceedour ability to meet them. How do you decide whom to help andwhom to ignore? (See our earlier discussion of extremeutilitarianism.) Extreme altruists go to great lengths to help others.In order to serve the needy, they move to poverty-strickencountries, give away all of their possessions, gather food from
dumpsters so they can contribute more money to the poor, lethomeless people live in their houses, donate kidneys to completestrangers, and adopt multiple children with significant disabilities.However, writer Lisa MacFarquar, who interviewed several ofthese “radical do-gooders,” found that even they put limits on howmuch they could help. In order to save themselves, they had tostop sacrificing for others, realizing that they couldn’t adoptanother child, continue to live on the streets, or work withouttaking a break.32Some altruistic behavior is driven, not by compassion, but by lesslofty motives like guilt (“I’ll feel bad if I don’t help.”), peer pressure(“Everyone else is participating in the service project.”), and thedesire 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 toserve their communities. Suspect motives may or may not negatethe good done by individuals and organizations. (Case Study 5.3gives you the opportunity to judge whether the wrong motive cantaint good deeds done for others.)Finally, far too many people who claim to follow the Christian ethicfail miserably. They come across as less, not more, caring thanthose who don’t claim to follow this approach. Some of thebitterest wars are religious ones, fought by believers whoseemingly ignore the altruistic values of their faiths. (As we saw inthe last chapter, ideology is one of the faces of evil.) There is alsodisagreement about what constitutes loving behavior. Forexample, committed religious leaders disagree about thelegitimacy of war. Some view military service as an act of love,one designed to defend their families and friends. Others opposethe military, believing that nonviolence is the only way to expresscompassion for others.Implications and ApplicationsWell-established ethical systems and values can help you makewise moral choices. Whenever possible, employ more than oneperspective when faced with an ethical dilemma.
Two well-meaning leaders can use the same ethical approachand reach different conclusions.Utilitarianism weighs the possible costs and benefits of moralchoices. According to this approach, you should seek to do thegreatest good for the greatest number of people. To conduct autilitarian analysis, clearly identify the action or issue, specify allwho might be affected, determine the likely consequences, andsum up the negative and positive consequences. The action ismorally right if the benefits outweigh the costs. Kant’s categorical imperative urges us to do what’s right nomatter the consequences. By this standard, some actions (truthtelling, helping others) are always right, while others (lying,cheating, murder) are always wrong. Kant also urges us to treatall people (followers, stakeholders, neighbors) with respect,never using them as tools for reaching our goals.The justice-as-fairness approach guarantees the same basicrights and opportunities to everyone in a democratic society.When these basic requirements are met, your responsibility asa leader is to give special consideration to the leastadvantaged. One way to ensure fairness is by standing behinda veil of ignorance when making choices. Try to set aside suchconsiderations as wealth, education, gender, and race. Pragmatism focuses on the process of ethical decisionmaking. Use your imagination to test out options and courses ofaction. Immerse yourself in the details of the situation andembrace your emotions. Remember that every decision helpsto make up your character.Altruism encourages you to put others first, no matter thepersonal cost. Concern for others is particularly important forleaders who exert influence on behalf of others and requiresself-sacrifice. The ethic of care is an altruistic approach toethics based on meeting the needs of specific individuals.For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Assessment1. Choose a contemporary social issue (e.g., adopting universalhealth insurance, raising the minimum wage, providingcitizenship for children of illegal immigrants) and conduct autilitarian analysis. Do the benefits of the proposal outweigh itscosts? Should public policy be changed?2. In a group, generate a list of absolute moral laws or duties thatmust be obeyed without exception. To make the list, everyonein the group must agree on it. Keep a separate list of the laws
or duties that were nominated but failed to receive unanimoussupport. Present your lists to the rest of the class.3. Reflect on one of your recent ethical decisions. What ethicalsystem(s) did you follow? Were you satisfied with your choice?4. Find a partner and generate additional applications andcautions for each of the ethical perspectives presented in thischapter.5. Given that inequalities will always exist, what is the best way toallocate wealth, education, health care, and other benefits in ademocratic society? In organizations? Write up yourconclusions.6. Analyze your response to Self-Assessment 5.1. What doesyour score reveal about your perception of justice in yourorganization? How can your organization act more justly? As analternative, analyze your response to Self-Assessment 5.2.What does your score reveal about your willingness to helpothers? 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 ethicalproblems.– Altruism is more important for leaders than forfollowers.– When making ethical choices, compassion is moreimportant than justice.– Women are more compassionate than men.– We should care as much about the needs of strangersas we do for the needs of our families.– Emotional pain is an inevitable part of organizationallife.8. Describe a time when you acted as a toxin handler or went to aleader or colleague that played this role. Did you help thisindividual deal with her or his toxic emotions? Or did youreceive adequate help? Which of the five pain reductionstrategies was most important in this situation? Based on thisexperience, what skills are needed to absorb pain? What pricedo toxin handlers pay? Does your organization support thosewho play this role?9. Create your own ethics case based on your personalexperience or on current or historical events. Describe the keyethical issues raised in the case and evaluate the characters inthe story according to each of the ethical approaches.10. Apply each of the ethical perspectives (including the ethic ofcare) to a case study of your choosing from the text. Write upyour conclusions.
Student Study SiteVisit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGEjournal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.Case 5.1 The Hidden, High Cost of BriberyGlobal corporate bribery illustrates how difficult it is to anticipate thenegative consequences of unethical behavior. The business costs ofpaying kickbacks are most evident. Bribes distort the market, giving anunfair advantage to some companies while keeping out competitors.However, the negative impact of bribery extends well beyond themarketplace. PBS Frontline producer and journalist David Monterohighlights the many unanticipated consequences of corruption in his bookKickback: Exposing the Global Corporate Bribery Network. According toMontero, those who suffer most from bribery remain hidden. He providesthe following examples of the high, hidden cost of bribery based oninterviews with police officials, criminals, business executives, andcorruption authorities from around the world:– Over 2,000 firms from 66 nations collectively paid SaddamHussein $1.7 billion in bribes during the United Nations Oil-For-Foodprogram prior to the Gulf War. Fortune 500 companies payingkickbacks included Johnson & Johnson, Chevron, and GeneralElectric. Kickbacks helped Saddam avoid the consequences ofinternational sanctions while the Iraqis (who were supposed toreceive humanitarian aid under the program) continued to suffer. Asone congressional investigator noted, “For every dollar that waskicked back to Saddam on a contract was a dollar that did not go tobuy humanitarian goods, food or medicine or anything else, for theIraqi people” (p. 52). A portion of the illegal payments funded theIraqi insurgency, an insurgency that resulted in the deaths ofAmerican soldiers and civilians. Bribery funds may have alsoprovided the start-up capital for ISIS.– The sales forces of Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb,GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and other major pharmaceutical firmsgave Chinese doctors cash, cigarettes, visits to strip clubs andDisneyland, and other gifts to convince them to prescribe theirproducts. These payments boosted the costs of drugs, forcingpatients to pay enormous medical bills. Kickbacks also encouragedoverprescribing, as physicians were rewarded for the number ofdrugs they encouraged patients to take. As a result, an estimated25% to 30% of China’s overall health care costs are spent on
unnecessary drugs and services. Overprescribing antibiotics isparticularly dangerous. One hundred fifty thousand died in one five-year period from severe adverse reactions to antibiotics. Antibioticstrains of tuberculosis and syphilis have developed. While theChinese and U.S. governments have greatly reduced corruption inChina’s pharmaceutical market, paying bribes is still a widespreadpractice.– Chevron and Shell Oil funneled money to Nigerian governorJames Ibori by spending millions to rent houseboats from hiscompany to serve as floating hostels for employees. To hide his ill-gotten gains, the strongman created a series of shell companies thatdeposited money in major overseas banks and purchased luxuryproperties in Houston, New York, and other cities. Bribery enrichedIbori and his family and cronies but left average Nigerians (who liveabove one of the largest oil fields in the world) impoverished.– Ericsson, Daimler, Siemens, Ferrostaal, and other companiespaid kickbacks to government and military officials in Greece. Thesekickbacks grossly inflated costs of public works projects andweapons, leading to high debt and the subsequent collapse of thatcountry’s economy. Millions of Greeks lost their jobs and pensions.The country was forced to slash its health costs (already inflated bykickbacks to doctors and hospitals) in order to receive a financialbail-out from the International Monetary Fund and the EuropeanUnion. Since the cutbacks, cases of malaria have been reported forthe first time in 40 years and stillborn deaths (due to less prenatalcare) are rising.– Siemens bribed top officials in the Bangladesh government inorder to win a telecommunications contract. Sons of a former primeminister, who are members of the Islamic National Party (BNP),used these funds to start a terrorist group which carries outassassinations, bombings and other attacks on those supportingsecular values. Moderate citizens live in fear as extortion,explosions, and murders continue.Montero argues that penalties for bribery ought to consider the hiddenvictims of corruption. As it stands, regulators focus solely on the economiccosts. A typical judgment matches the amount of the bribe plus anadditional penalty. No money goes to the country where the bribery tookplace. 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 societalimpact of the crime. The attorney general of Costa Rica, for example,sued French telecommunication giant Alcatel-Lucent for causing “socialharm” by paying millions in bribes to high-level government officials,including two past presidents, to win national contracts. He argued that
Alcatel bribes undermined the sound financial management that CostaRican citizens had a right to expect; damaged the reputation of thecountry, which was called corrupt in the press; and undermined thepolitical process because the populace may have lost faith in politiciansand 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, generatinganywhere from $5.60 to $11.00 in benefit for each dollar spent. Evenmassive fines do little to deter bribery because they pale in comparison tothe size of many multinationals. Siemens paid a record-breaking $1.8billion to the U.S. and German governments. One billion dollars wasforfeiture of the profit made from bribery and $800 million was theadditional penalty. The $800 million fine was the equivalent of less than1% of Siemen’s $100 billion market capitalization.Montero goes on to argue that penalties should be coupled with apologiesand reparations. Requiring companies to publicly admit the damage theyhave done to foreign citizens would pose a greater threat to theirreputations than paying a fine. Reparations would go to directlyaddressing the needs of victims, which has occasionally happened in thepast. The U.S. Justice Department worked with World Bank officials andthe government of Kazakhstan to establish a foundation to help the poorusing money seized from an American businessman convicted of bribingKazakhstan officials on behalf of major oil companies. Portions ofsettlements in the Oil-for-Food scandal in Iraq were directed to Iraqireconstruction.In addition to highlighting the hidden costs of bribery, Montero also pointsout the benefits of shunning bribery. Organizations committed toanticorruption are often more profitable and innovative. They also benefitfrom a more committed workforce because engaging in bribery reducesemployee morale. Montero concludes that, when it comes to kickbacks,the ethical course of action is the most profitable in the long run.
Discussion Probes1. How does utilitarian reasoning lead companies, including many ofthe world’s largest and well-known firms, to engage in bribery?2. How can governments increase the costs of corporate kickbackswhile reducing the benefits?3. Should companies convicted of bribery have to pay for the socialharm they do in the countries where the kickbacks take place? Howwould you measure the costs of social harm?4. Would requiring apologies and reparations help to reduce corporatebribery?5. Do you agree that avoiding corruption is more profitable in the longrun? Why or why not?
SourceMontero, D. (2018). Kickback: Exposing the global corporate briberynetwork. New York, NY: Viking.
Case Study 5.2Tax TransparencyWhat is fair? The answer to that question can depend on where you live.Consider how different nations view the release of salary information, forexample. In the United States, what people earn is often a closelyguarded secret. Twenty-five percent of U.S. companies, according to onesurvey, forbid employees from revealing their salaries to other workers.Few citizens know the incomes of their neighbors or even of other familymembers. President Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns tothe public. In Finland, on the other hand, what other people earn is publicknowledge. Every November 1st at 8 a.m. the Finnish governmentreleases the tax returns of all of its citizens. Any resident can look up theearnings of any other Finn without that person being notified of thesearch.Releasing salary information in the United States is seen as an unfairinvasion of privacy. There is the widespread belief that fairness meansrewarding employees based on their contributions, not on how theycompare to others. High-level executives deserve higher incomesbecause they create more economic value than the average worker. Incontrast, Finland and other Nordic states define fairness as equality.Government leaders believe that transparency, which allows citizens tocompare their pay to their colleagues and family members, is one way toslow income disparity. According to one Finnish reporter assigned toreview the tax returns of prominent citizens, “We’re looking at the gapbetween normal people and those rich, rich people—is it getting toowide?”1 (Finland has one of the lowest income inequality levels of anyEuropean nation.) Releasing tax information is designed to increasesalaries as employees discover they are making less than theircolleagues and ask for raises. Transparency also reveals pay differencesbetween men and women.Many Americans hope to pay as little tax as possible. To that end, somecompanies and their leaders hide or protect income overseas. Apple, forexample, avoided paying taxes on over $100 billion by using Ireland as atax shelter. The Cayman Islands also serve as a tax haven for businessesand wealthy individuals. Finns are more enthused about paying taxesthan their U.S. counterparts. Seventy-nine percent of Finns have afavorable attitude toward the tax system and 96% say it is importantcollect tax to support the welfare state. Finland’s corporate leaders, ratherthan trying to avoid taxes, appear happy to pay their fair share. IllkaPaananen, one of the founders of the gaming company Supercell and the
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 theirtaxes are subject to public shaming. The Finnish governmentrenegotiated a tax agreement with Portugal when it discovered thatFinnish executives were moving there to avoid taxes on their pensions.The executives who took advantage of the tax loop hole will face ongoingdisapproval. “These particular executives have destroyed theirreputation,” asserted one observer. “I would be surprised if they didn’tcare. Finland is a small society. There is a sense that as long as you’re aFinn, you’re always a Finn. . . . they will feel it people’s eyes: thedisrespect.”3Finland’s tax transparency has its drawbacks. (Norway and Sweden alsorelease tax data but only upon request and then inform people of who isseeking the information.) The tax returns released to the public are ofteninaccurate because they don’t include nontaxable income like capitalgains and grants. Then, too, there is the problem of envy, which promptedThe New York Times to declare November 1st in Finland as “NationalJealousy Day.” There is evidence that knowing what others make canmake 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.
Discussion Probes1. How would you respond if your tax returns were made public? Doyou think that this would be unfair?2. Should companies reveal the salaries of all their workers? Whatimpact might this have?3. Would knowing that the salaries of your coworkers were higher thanyour salary make you jealous or encourage you to work harder?4. What accounts for the different attitudes toward taxes in the UnitedStates (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?
Notes1. Barry, E. (2018, November 2). In Finland, every citizen’s taxableincome is revealed. The New York Times, p. A8.2. Paddison, L. (2018, November 2). This country publishes everyone’sincome on “National Jealousy Day.” HuffPost.3. Barry.
SourcesCollinson, P. (2016, April 11). Norway, the country where you can seeeveryone’s tax returns. The Guardian.Whiting, K. (2018, November 2). Finland has just published everyonetaxes on “National Jealousy Day.” World Economic Forum.
Case Study 5.3Altruism as AtonementDr. Anne Spoerry was one of Kenya’s national heroes when she died in1999. Spoerry was honored with a funeral generally reserved forimportant government officials. Some attending called her a saint. “MamaDaktari” or “Mother Doctor,” as she was known, flew all around Kenya inher small Piper Lance plane providing medical care to isolated ruralpeople. (She was the first female flying doctor in the world.) Spoerrywould land on rough, “ribbon thin” airstrips where villagers would waitunder what shade they could find. She would set up a card table andbegin making diagnoses, dispensing medications, giving shots, stitchingup hyena bites and other wounds, and setting broken bones using splintsmade out of tree branches. Hers was a no-nonsense approach tomedicine. She would quickly dismiss those who appeared to be seekingneedless 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 financialneeds of some of her patients, paying for schooling and housing for one,surgery and hospital care for another. Decades later Mama Daktari is stillremembered fondly by the people she served.Anne’s work drew international attention, making her one of the world’smost celebrated humanitarians. Mama Daktari published her memoir,appeared in a film documentary on the Flying Doctors, and was thesubject of magazine features. She was recognized as an HonoraryCitizen of Paris, received Kenya’s medal of honor, and became friendswith members of Europe’s royal families. All these accolades hid a darksecret, however. Spoerry was captured and imprisoned by the Gestapofor her work for the French resistance in World War II. She was sent toRavensbruck concentration camp for women in Germany. While there,she fell under the spell of the camp’s most powerful prisoner, CarmenMory, in Cell Block 10. (The two were reportedly lovers.) Mory banished aqualified doctor from the block, where tuberculosis patients and theinsane were housed, and replaced her with Spoerry, who was still amedical student. As Mory’s assistant, Anne informed on fellow prisonersand threw cold water on starving inmates. She allegedly killed 60 to 70“lunatics” in one night with injections. When one fellow physician refusedto kill a mentally ill patient, Spoerry didn’t hesitate to do so. According thisformer inmate,That anyone who is a medical doctor or wants to become onecould deliberately execute a patient . . . I can only explain it by
her fear of reprisals . . . I felt sorry for her for the manifestation ofa larger problem, which is not for us to judge. She had a blackhole 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 medicalrecords to help prisoners escape death transports, and warned Jewssentenced to execution. According to one witness to Anne’stransformation, “Away from Carmen Mory, Anne was quite different. Shewas good and kind, a devoted helper for all” (170).Following the war, Carmen Mory was convicted of war crimes andsentenced to death. Anne was brought before an informal FrenchResistance tribunal. She confessed that she was “spellbound” by Moryand asked that her former companions forgive her and “help her lead agood life” (p. 184). Spoerry was stripped of her membership in the FrenchFree Forces and exiled from France. Later, she was put on the registry ofwar criminals and charged with torture.Spoerry fled Europe when it looked like she might be convicted of warcrimes 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 joinedthe Flying Doctors medical organization.Biographer John Heminway believes that Mother Doctor’s work in Africawas a life sentence, one designed to atone for her actions atRavensbruck. “Ravensbruck created Anne and Africa saved her,” assertsHeminway. If not for her experiences at the camp, he argues, she wouldhave lived an ordinary (largely self-centered) upper-class French life.Instead, her failure at Ravensbruck drove her to seek redemption throughtireless efforts to help others. “Once Anne had wrestled her dark self tothe ground in Africa,” says Heminway, “she rose to exceptional heights,remarkable, given her dark past” (p. 269).
Discussion Probes1. 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 10atone for her evil deeds? Did she find redemption in Africa?3. What role should motivation play in judging altruism? Can helpingothers be tainted by the wrong motives?4. Does Mama Daktari’s desire for redemption discredit her work onbehalf of the rural poor?5. Can you think of other leaders who were driven to help others inorder to atone for their past behavior?
SourceHeminway, J. (2018). In full flight: A story of Africa and atonement. NewYork, NY: Knopf.SELF-ASSESSMENT 5.1 The Organizational Justice ScaleInstructions: Evaluate your employer or another organization of yourchoice on the following items. Respond to each of the statements ona scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).In general, this company (organization) treats its employees(members) fairly.1 2 3 4 5Generally employees (members) think of this company(organization) as fair.1 2 3 4 5Rewards are allocated fairly in this firm (organization).1 2 3 4 5Employees (members) in this firm (organization) are rewardedfairly.1 2 3 4 5In this firm (organization), people get the reward or punishmentthey deserve.1 2 3 4 5Supervisors (leaders) in this company (organization) treatemployees (members) with dignity and respect.1 2 3 4 5Employees (members) can count on being treated withcourtesy and respect in this firm (organization).1 2 3 4 5Scoring: Scores can range from 7 to 35. The higher the score, themore just you believe your organization to be. You may want to givethis instrument to other organizational members to determine if theirperceptions 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. BusinessEthics Quarterly, 11, 651–671. Used by permission.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 5.2 The Self Report Altruism ScaleInstructions: Check the category on the right that conforms to thefrequency 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. NeverOnceMorethanonceOftenVeryoften1. I have helped pusha stranger’s car out ofthe snow. 2. I have givendirections to a stranger. 3. I have made changefor a stranger. 4. I have given moneyto a charity. 5. I have given moneyto a stranger whoneeded it (or asked mefor it). 6. I have donatedgoods or clothes to acharity. 7. I have donevolunteer work for acharity. 8. I have donatedblood. 9. I have helped carrya stranger’s belongings(books, parcels, etc.).
NeverOnceMorethanonceOftenVeryoften10. I have delayed anelevator and held thedoor open for a stranger. 11. I have allowedsomeone to go ahead ofme in a line (atphotocopy machine, inthe supermarket). 12. I have given astranger a lift in my car. 13. I have pointed outa clerk’s error (in a bank,at the supermarket) inundercharging me for anitem. 14. I have let aneighbour whom I didn’tknow too well borrow anitem of some value tome (e.g., a dish, tools,etc.) 15. I have bought“charity” Christmascards deliberatelybecause I knew it was agood cause. 16. I have helped aclassmate who I did notknow that well with ahomework assignmentwhen my knowledgewas greater than his orhers.
NeverOnceMorethanonceOftenVeryoften17. I have before beingasked, voluntarily lookedafter a neighbor’s petsor children without beingpaid for it. 18. I have offered tohelp a handicapped orelderly stranger across astreet. 19. I have offered myseat on a bus or train toa stranger who wasstanding. 20. I have helped anacquaintance to movehouseholds. Source: Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). Thealtruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personalityand Individual Differences, 2, 293–302. Used by permission.
Notes1. 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 andlegislation. 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). Theclassical 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.). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Ch. 3.3. Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2015). The elements of moralphilosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.4. Fisher, B. (2019, January 12). Stepping into the wild horsedebate, 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. LosAngeles Times; Congress approves bill allowing the killing of sealions . . . to protect salmon. NBC News.5. Isaac, M. (2016, February 18). Why Apple is putting up a fightover privacy with the F.B.I. The New York Times, p. B4.6. Singer, P. (2009). The life you can save: Acting now to endworld 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;
Sucher, S. J. (2008). The moral leader: Challenges, tools, andinsights. 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 unprecedenteddeception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018. TheWashington 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 industrialrelations (pp. 61–87). Champaign, IL: Labor and EmploymentRelations Association; Bowie, N. (2000). A Kantian theory ofleadership. 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 avirtue. 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 hisapproach, is taken from Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice.Cambridge, MA: Belknap; Rawls, J. (1993). Distributive justice. InT. Donaldson & P. H. Werhane (Eds.), Ethical issues in business:A philosophical approach (4th ed., pp. 274–285). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: Arestatement (E. Kelly, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap; Velasquez;Warnke, G. (1993). Justice and interpretation. Cambridge: MITPress, Ch. 3.14. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York, NY: ColumbiaUniversity 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
organizations: A Rawlsian approach. In J. Smith (Ed.), Normativetheory and business ethics (pp. 93–117). Lanham, NA: Rowman &Littlefield; Moriarty, J. (2005). On the relevance of politicalphilosophy 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 businessethics. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13, 215–223.17. Margolis, J. (2006). Introduction: Pragmatism, retrospectiveand prospective. In J. R. Shook & J. Margolis (Eds.), A companionto pragmatism (pp. 1–9). Malden, MA: Blackwell; Bacon, M.(2012). Pragmatism. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.18. Feslenstein, M. (2008). John Dewey, inquiry ethics, anddemocracy. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Americanphilosophy (pp. 87–109). Oxford, England: Oxford UniversityPress; Nicholson, C. (2013). Education and the pragmatictemperament. In A. Malachowski (Ed.), The Cambridgecompanion to pragmatism (pp. 249–271). Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.19. Alexander, T. M. (1993). John Dewey and the moralimagination: Beyond Putnam and Rorty toward a postmodernethics. 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’sdeliberative 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, Jamesand Dewey. Westport CT: Greenwood Press.23. Pagan, N. O. (2008). Configuring the moral self: Aristotle andDewey. Foundations of Science, 13, 239–250; Carden, S. D.
(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 gooddecisions in ethically charged situations: The role of dramaticrehearsal. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 375–390.26. Yunus, M. (1998, October 31). Banker to the poor. TheGuardian.27. Weber.28. Piliavin, J. A., & Chang, H. W. (1990). Altruism: A review ofrecent 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, andreligious perspectives of human benevolence. Philadelphia, PA:Templeton Foundation Press.29. Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensionsof leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.30. Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1990). The quest for altruismin organizations. In S. Srivastra & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.),Appreciative management and leadership (pp. 228–256). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.31. Frost, P. J., & Robinson, S. (2008). The leader as toxinhandler: 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: Howcompassionate 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: Thebuffering effect of formalizing toxin handling responsibilities.
Human Resource Management, 48, 695–716. Some examples inthis section come from these sources.32. MacFarquhar, L. (2015). Strangers drowning: Grappling withimpossible idealism, drastic choices, and the overpowering urgeto help. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
6 Ethical Decision Making andBehavior
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 ofunconscious distortions.> Identify factors that increase or decrease the motivation to followthrough on ethical choices.> Critique the four decision-making formats.> Analyze an ethical dilemma using one of the four decision-makingformats.It no longer makes sense to engage in debate overwhether moral judgment is accomplished exclusively by“cognition” as opposed to “affect,” or exclusively byconscious reasoning as opposed to intuition.—PSYCHOLOGISTS FIERY CUSHMAN, LIANEYOUNG, AND JOSHUA GREENEAs we practice resolving dilemmas we find ethics to beless a goal than a pathway, less a destination than a trip,less an inoculation than a process.—ETHICIST RUSHWORTH KIDDER
What’s AheadThis chapter begins with a look at the role of reason andintuition/emotion in ethical decision making. It then surveys thecomponents of ethical behavior—moral sensitivity, moraljudgment, moral motivation, and moral character—and introducessystematic approaches to ethical problem solving. We’ll take alook at four decision-making formats: The Four-Way Method, FiveTimeless Questions, the Lonergan/Baird method, and theFoursquare Protocol. After presenting each approach, I’ll discussits relative advantages and disadvantages.Understanding how we make and follow through on ethicaldecisions is the first step to making better choices; taking asystematic approach is the second. We’ll explore both of thesesteps in this chapter. After examining the ethical decision-makingprocess, we’ll see how guidelines or formats can guide our ethicaldeliberations.
Ethical Decision Making: A DualProcess ApproachFor decades, scholars viewed ethical decision making as acognitive process. Moral psychologists, ethicists and ethicseducators focused on how individuals consciously use logic andreason to solve ethical problems. They assumed that leadersreach their conclusions after careful deliberation. Researchersignored emotions or treated them with suspicion because feelingscould undermine moral reasoning.In recent years, a growing number of scholars have challengedthe cognitive approach to ethical decision making. One critic ispsychologist Jonathan Haidt.1 He argues that we quickly makeethical determinations and then employ logic after the fact tojustify our choices. Haidt points to moral dumbfounding asevidence that moral decision making is the product of intuition, notdeliberation. In moral dumbfounding, leaders and followers havestrong opinions about right or wrong but can’t explain why theyfeel as they do. For example, when he asked Americans if eatingthe family dog for dinner was morally wrong, most people feltdisgusted but were at a loss to explain why they felt this way.Haidt calls his approach to ethical decision making the SocialIntuitionist Model to highlight the role that intuition and socialnorms play in moral determinations. He defines intuition asthe sudden appearance in consciousness, or at thefringe of consciousness, of an evaluative feeling (like-dislike, good-bad) about a person or event without anyconscious awareness of having gone through steps ofweighing evidence, crafting evaluative arguments, orinferring a conclusion.2Haidt argues that automatic processes are the elephant and logicis the rider. In most cases, the elephant goes where it wants to go,
though the rider can occasionally steer the pachyderm in adifferent direction. Our instantaneous intuitions about right andwrong are the product of social forces like our culturalbackground. For example, dogs are routinely eaten in somesocieties. In these cultures, which don’t treat pets as familymembers, respondents would approve of eating a dog for dinner.Haidt doesn’t completely eliminate reason from his model. Otherpeople may challenge our intuitions, introducing new informationand arguments that change our initial position. Or we may modifyour attitudes based on self-reflection. Many Americans used toimmediately condemn interracial couples. As time passed, societyrecognized that this reaction was biased, unfounded, and unjust.The nature of moral dilemma may trigger either an intuitive orrational response.Researchers in cognitive neuroscience or neuroethics alsochallenge the notion that ethical thinking is devoid of emotion.3They report that individuals who suffer brain damage may retaintheir reasoning abilities but make poor decisions due to emotionaldeficits. Neuroimaging using MRI screens reveals that ethicaldecision making is not localized in one portion of the brain butinvolves several different regions. Ethical thinking activates bothcognitive and emotional areas of the brain. Other investigatorsbelieve that our brains evolved with moral structures that operateautomatically. Some draw a linguistic analogy, arguing that we areborn with the ability to make ethical choices (a moral grammar) inthe same way that we are born with the ability to use language(linguistic grammar).4Investigators continue to disagree as to whether logic or intuitionplays 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 makinggood ethical choices.5 Recognizing the role of intuition in decisionmaking enables us to better direct its use. There are times that weneed to regulate our initial intuitive reaction, controlling ourtendency to automatically respond in anger or condemnation. Wemay need to step back and reappraise the situation or work oncalming down. (You would likely want to control your automaticresponse if, while travelling, your foreign hosts serve you dog
meat.) We need to recognize how our intuitions are being shapedby the social situation. Are we accepting corruption because theorganization has weakened our intuitions about right and wrong,for instance? Should we keep our distance from coworkers whomight be corrupting influences? We may want to “train” ourintuitions in the same way we develop our character, working toeliminate automatic prejudices against other groups, for instance,and combating the temptation to cheat by developing morerespect for academic authority.6We shouldn’t always tamp down our emotions. On someoccasions, we may need to give priority our intuitions.Researchers have discovered that deliberate reasoning can“crowd out” altruism, for instance.7 Paying volunteers cansignificantly reduce volunteering. A day care center that beganfining adults who were late picking up their children. The numberof tardy parents actually increased. Why? Because parents nolonger felt guilty for inconveniencing the day care staff.8Incorporating intuition into ethics training can improve ethicalbehavior, as in the case of the Johnson & Johnson company.Instead of emphasizing obligations to customers in general, thefirm invokes emotional images by citing specific groups through itscredo: “Our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses, andpatients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use ourproducts and services.”One practical strategy for drawing upon both reason and feeling isto record your initial reaction to an ethical dilemma. Whenconfronted with ethical scenarios like those presented in CaseStudy 6.1, write down your initial reaction. Then use the decision-making formats and other cognitive tools to test your immediateresponse. When you’re finished, compare your final decision toyour initial reaction. Your ultimate conclusion after following aseries of steps may be the same as your first judgment. Or youmight come to a significantly different decision. (You may alsowant to test your conclusion to see if it “feels” right.) In any case,you should be more comfortable with your solution because yourdeliberations were informed both by your experiences, emotions,and intuitions as well as by your conscious reasoning. To assist
you in dual processing, I’ll be introducing research findings fromboth the cognitive and intuitionist traditions in the next section ofthe chapter.
Components of Moral ActionJames Rest of the University of Minnesota developed the mostwidely used model of moral behavior. Rest built his four-component model by working backward. He started with the endproduct—moral action—and then determined the steps thatproduce such behavior. He concluded that ethical action is theresult of four psychological subprocesses: (1) moral sensitivity(recognition), (2) moral judgment, (3) moral focus (motivation),and (4) moral character.9
Component 1: Moral Sensitivity (Recognition)Moral sensitivity (recognizing the presence of an ethical issue) isthe first step in ethical decision making because we can’t solve amoral problem unless we first know that one exists. A great manymoral failures stem from ethical insensitivity. The safety committeeat Ford Motor decided not to fix the defective gas tank on thePinto automobile (see Chapter 2) because members saw noproblem with saving money rather than human lives. Toshibaoverstated earnings for 7 years as managers concentrated onreaching high quarterly goals instead of on maintaining thecompany’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 considerhow our behavior affects others, identify possible courses ofaction, and determine the consequences of each potentialstrategy. Empathy and perspective skills are essential to thiscomponent of moral action. If we understand how others mightfeel or react, we are more sensitive to potential negative effects ofour choices and can better predict the likely outcomes of eachoption.A number of factors prevent us from recognizing ethical issues.Sometimes, we frame or interpret ethical issues as business orlegal issues instead, believing that offering bribes is a normal wayof doing business or that a marketing tactic, such as advertisingsugary cereals to children, is acceptable because it doesn’t violateany laws.11 We may be reluctant to use moral terminology—values, justice, right, wrong—to describe our decisions becausewe want to avoid controversy or believe that keeping silent willmake us appear strong and capable.12 We may even deceiveourselves into thinking that we are acting morally when we areclearly not, a process called ethical fading. The moral aspects of adecision fade into the background if we use euphemisms todisguise unethical behavior, numb our consciences throughrepeated misbehavior, blame others, and claim that only we knowthe “truth.”13
Low levels of moral attentiveness can also reduce our sensitivityto ethical issues.14 Moral attentiveness is a personality-like traitthat describes the amount of attention individuals pay to the moraldimension of experiences and events. This trait is made up of twoelements: (1) perceptual moral attentiveness (the tendency tonotice morality in everyday life), and (2) reflective moralattentiveness (routinely considering ethics when making choices).Perceptual attentiveness taps into intuition while reflectiveattentiveness involves conscious reasoning. Those low in moralattentiveness aren’t as aware of the ethical implication of specificsituations (i.e., bribery, conflicts of interest) and act less ethicallyas a result. (Complete Self-Assessment 6.1 to determine yourlevel 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 doingthe following:Recognizing the ethical dimension of routine decisions andeventsTaking ethics coursework and ethics trainingRoutinely reflecting on ethical issuesActively listening and role-playingImagining other perspectivesStepping back from a situation to determine whether it hasmoral implicationsUsing moral terminology to discuss problems and issuesAvoiding euphemismsRefusing to excuse misbehaviorAccepting personal responsibilityPracticing humility and openness to other points of viewIn addition to these steps, we can also increase ethical sensitivityby making an issue more salient. The greater the moral intensityof an issue, the more likely it is that decision makers will take noteof it and respond ethically.15 We can build moral intensity by (1)illustrating that the situation can cause significant harm or benefitto many people (magnitude of consequences); (2) establishingthat there is social consensus or agreement that a behavior ismoral or immoral (e.g., legal or illegal, approved or forbidden by a
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 (temporalimmediacy); (5) emphasizing social, psychological, physical, orpsychological closeness (proximity) with those affected by ouractions; and (6) proving that one person or a group will greatlysuffer due to a decision (concentration of effect).
Component 2: Moral JudgmentOnce an ethical problem is identified, decision makers select acourse of action from the options generated in Component 1. Inother words, they make judgments about what is the right orwrong thing to do in this situation.Moral judgment has generated more research than the othercomponents of Rest’s model. Investigators have been particularlyinterested in (1) cognitive moral development, the process bywhich people develop their moral reasoning abilities over time,and (2) biases or errors that undermine the decision makingprocess.Cognitive Moral DevelopmentHarvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg argued that individualsprogress through a series of moral stages just as they do physicalones.16 Each stage is more advanced than the one before. Notonly do people engage in more complex reasoning as theyprogress up the stages, but they also become less self-centeredand develop broader definitions of morality.Kohlberg identified three levels of moral development, eachdivided into two stages. Level I, preconventional thinking, is themost primitive and focuses on consequences. This form of moralreasoning is common among children who choose to obey toavoid punishment (Stage 1) or follow the rules in order to meettheir interests (Stage 2). Stage 2 thinkers are interested in gettinga fair deal: You help me, and I’ll help you.Conventional thinkers (Level II) look to others for guidance whendeciding how to act. Stage 3 people want to live up to theexpectations of those they respect, such as parents, siblings, andfriends, and value concern for others and respect. Stage 4individuals take a somewhat broader perspective, looking tosociety as a whole for direction. They believe in following rules atwork, for example, and the law. Kohlberg found that most adultsare Level II thinkers.
Level III, postconventional or principled reasoning, is the mostadvanced type of ethical thinking. Stage 5 people are guided byutilitarian principles. They are concerned for the needs of theentire group and want to make sure that rules and laws serve thegreatest good for the greatest number. Stage 6 people operateaccording to internalized, universal principles such as justice,equality, and human dignity. These principles consistently guidetheir behavior and take precedence over the laws of any particularsociety. According to Kohlberg, fewer than 20% of Americanadults ever reach Stage 5, and almost no one reaches Stage 6.Critics take issue with both the philosophical foundation ofKohlberg’s model and its reliance on concrete stages of moraldevelopment.17 They contend that Kohlberg based hispostconventional stage on Rawls’s justice-as-fairness theory andmade deontological ethics superior to other ethical approaches.They note that the model applies more to societal issues than toindividual ethical decisions. A great many psychologists challengethe notion that people go through a rigid or “hard” series of moralstages, leaving one stage completely behind before moving to thenext. They argue instead that a person can engage in many waysof thinking about a problem, regardless of age.Rest (who studied under Kohlberg), Darcia Narvaez, and theircolleagues responded to the critics by replacing the hard stageswith a staircase of developmental schemas.18 Schemas arenetworks of knowledge organized around life events. We useschemas when encountering new situations or information. Youare able to master information in new classes, for instance, byusing strategies you developed in previous courses. According tothis “neo-Kohlbergian” approach, decision makers rely on moresophisticated moral schemas as they develop. The leastsophisticated schema is based on personal interest. People at thislevel are concerned only with what they may gain or lose in anethical dilemma. No consideration is given to the needs of broadersociety.Those who reason at the next level, the maintaining normsschema, believe they have a moral obligation to maintain socialorder. They are concerned with following rules and laws and
making sure that regulations apply to everyone. These thinkersbelieve that there is a clear hierarchy with carefully defined roles(e.g., bosses–subordinates, teachers–students, officers–enlistedpersonnel). The postconventional schema is the most advancedlevel of moral reasoning. Thinking at this level is not limited to oneethical approach, as Kohlberg argued, but encompasses manydifferent philosophical traditions. Postconventional individualsbelieve that moral obligations are to be based on shared ideals,should not favor some people at the expense of others, and areopen to scrutiny (testing and examination). Such thinkers reasonact like moral philosophers, looking behind societal norms todetermine whether they serve moral purposes.Rest developed the Defining Issues Test (DIT) to measure moraldevelopment. Subjects taking the DIT (and its successor, the DIT-2) respond to ethical scenarios and then choose statements thatbest reflect the reasoning they used to come up with their choices.These statements, which correspond to the three levels of moralreasoning, are then scored. In the best-known dilemma, Heinz’swife 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 reasoninggenerally increases with age and education.19 Undergraduate andgraduate students benefit from their educational experiences ingeneral and ethical coursework in particular. Discussing ethicaldilemmas is a particularly effective way to stimulate higher-levelmoral reasoning. In addition, moral development is a universalconcept, crossing cultural boundaries. Principled leaders canboost the moral judgment of a group by encouraging members toadopt more sophisticated ethical schemas.20Models of cognitive development provide important insights intothe process of ethical decision making. First, contextual variablesplay an important role in shaping ethical behavior. Most peoplelook to others as well as to rules and regulations when makingethical determinations. They are more likely to make wise moraljudgments if coworkers and supervisors encourage and modelethical behavior. As leaders, we need to build ethicalenvironments. (We’ll take a closer look at the formation of ethical
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 moraldevelopment. As part of your education, focus as much attentionas you can on ethics (i.e., take ethics courses, discuss ethicalissues in groups and classes, reflect on the ethical challenges youexperience in internships). Third, a broader perspective is better.Consider the needs and viewpoints of others outside yourimmediate group or organization; determine what is good for thelocal area, the larger society, and the global community. Fourth,moral principles produce superior solutions. The best ethicalthinkers base their choices on widely accepted ethical guidelines.Do the same by drawing on important ethical approaches such asutilitarianism, the categorical imperative, altruism, the ethic ofcare, and justice-as-fairness theory.Ethical Blind SpotsHarvard professor Max Bazerman and his colleagues believe thatunethical choices are often the result of unconscious distortions.These ethical blind spots cause us to participate in or approve ofbehaviors we would normally condemn. Significant biases includethe following:211. Overestimating our ethicality. Studies consistentlydemonstrate that, when it comes to ethics, we have aninflated opinion of ourselves. We boldly predict, for example,that we will do the right thing when faced with an ethicaldilemma. Unfortunately, we often fall well short of ourpredictions. This was illustrated by a study of female collegestudents who were asked how they would respond toinappropriate job interview questions like whether they had aboyfriend or whether they think it is appropriate for women towear a bra to work. Sixty to seventy percent of theparticipants said they would refuse to answer thesequestions, challenge the interviewer, or tell him that suchqueries were inappropriate. However, when a maleinterviewer actually asked them the offensive questions, nonerefused to answer. At the end of the session, only a fewparticipants asked the interviewer why he had posed these
queries.22 (The Leadership at the Movies case found on theStudent Study site introduces a leader who had an overlyhigh opinion of his ethical strength.)Our belief in our inherent goodness may blind us topotential conflicts of interests that can undermine ourobjectivity and influence our choices. Consider the caseof Housing and Urban Development (HUD) SecretaryBen Carson, for example. HUD granted a contract to hisdaughter-in-law’s consulting firm. The Secretary allowedhis son on a HUD housing tour despite the fact that hisson had business dealings with some of those invited tomeet with HUD officials. Carson defended his family’sinvolvement, saying: “My family, or people withrelationships with my family, have never influenced anydecision at HUD.”232. Forgiving our own unethical behavior. Driven by the desire tobe moral and behave ethically, we feel a sense ofpsychological tension called cognitive dissonance when wefall short of our ethical standards (i.e., lying when we believethat we are honest). Our “want self” (our desire for status,money, etc.) overcomes our “should self” (who we think weought to be ethically). To relieve the distress generated whenour actions and self-images don’t match, we either changeour behavior or excuse what we’ve done. We may convinceourselves that the objectionable behavior was really morallypermissible—see the discussion of moral disengagement inChapter 2. We blame the boss or claim that we were “justfollowing orders” or that “everyone else is doing it.” The“everybody is doing it” excuse was used to justify the use ofsteroids and other performance enhancing drugs in majorleague baseball and professional cycling. We may alsobecome “revisionist historians.” Using selective recall, weremember events in a way that supports our decisions. Werecollect the times we stood up to an unjust boss or told thetruth; we forget the times we caved into pressure from asupervisor or lied to make a sale or to get a job.3. In-group favoritism. Doing favors for people we know thatshare our nationality, neighborhood, religion, social, class, oralma mater seems harmless. We may ask our neighbor tohire our son or daughter, for example, or recommend a
sorority sister for an overseas program. Trouble comesbecause when those in power give resources to members oftheir in-groups, they discriminate against those who aredifferent from them. Caucasian loan officers who relax lendingstandards for white applicants may end up refusing loans tobetter-qualified black applicants, therefore hurting the bank’sbottom line. In-group favoritism can also prompt us to excuseother’s unethical behavior. For example, when basketballplayers on our team knock opponents to the court, they areplaying “hard.” When players on the other team knock ourteam members to the floor, they are playing “dirty.” We areparticularly willing to forgive shortcomings when we benefitfrom the choices they have made. Many bank and hedgefund managers funneled money into Bernie Madoff’sfraudulent investment fund, the biggest swindle in history,even though the returns he promised were statisticallyimpossible. They likely ignored the danger signs becausethey were earning generous fees from Madoff.4. Implicit prejudice. Implicit prejudice is different from visible orexplicit forms of prejudice like racism or sexism. Individualsare not generally aware of these biases, which are based onour 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-incomeindividuals drive expensive vehicles. Unconscious biases canundermine ethical decision making. Take hiring decisions, forinstance. Personnel managers are likely to exclude qualifiedapplicants if they assume that someone with a physicaldisability is also mentally challenged or that women can’t filltraditional “masculine” jobs.5. Judging based on outcomes, not the process. Two leaderscan follow the same process when making a decision but wetypically judge them differently based on their results. Whenthe decision turns out well, we consider her or himsuccessful. If the outcome is poor, we believe the leader is afailure. Nevertheless, just because a poorly made decisionhad positive consequences in one case doesn’t mean thatfollowing the same process will have positive results the nexttime. In fact, poor decision-making procedures eventually
produce bad (unethical) results. Officials at the PeanutCorporation of America repeatedly shipped tainted peanutproducts. Few, if any people got sick. However, the lastshipment of contaminated products eventually caused eightdeaths and sickened thousands more.24 The CEO was latersentenced to prison.Bazerman and his colleagues argue that our good intentions andour determination to act ethically won’t be enough to overcomethese biases because we aren’t aware of them. Instead, we needto acknowledge these blind spots. Admit that that you aren’t asethical and unbiased as you believe, for instance, and that youforgive your ethical misbehavior and that of other group members.Then take steps to combat these ethical distortions. Publiclycommit yourself to an ethical course of action ahead of time soyour “should” self doesn’t get overwhelmed your “want” self in theheat of the moment. Focus on the moral principles involved in achoice, not on the immediate benefit you might receive. Putyourself 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 organizationto determine if it is trapped by in-group biases and eliminateprograms that perpetuate the hiring and promotion of those ofsimilar backgrounds. Step behind the veil of ignorance (seeChapter 5) to make more equitable choices. Evaluate the qualityof the decision-making process, not the outcome; don’t condemnthose who make good quality decisions only to see them turn outbadly.
Component 3: Moral Focus (Motivation)After concluding what course of action is best, decision makersmust be focused (motivated to follow through) on their choices.Moral values often conflict with other significant values. Forinstance, an accountant who wants to blow the whistle on illegalaccounting practices at her firm must balance her desire to do theright thing against her desire to keep her job, provide income forher family, and maintain relationships with her fellow workers. Shewill report the accounting abuses to outside authorities only ifmoral considerations take precedence over these competingpriorities. It’s no wonder, then, that there is often a significant gapbetween knowing and doing, between moral judgment(Component 2) and moral action (Components 3 and 4).25Developing moral potency is one way to address the moralthought-action gap.26 Moral potency is a psychological state orresource made up of moral ownership, moral courage and moralefficacy. Moral ownership occurs when individuals believe thattheir teams, organizations and communities are extensions ofthemselves. This sense of ownership increases their obligation tobehave in an ethical manner. Thus, a project manager whoidentifies strongly with his team will view status reports as asymbol of his own ethicality. He has a strong motivation to seethat such reports are accurate. Moral courage provides theimpetus to act despite outside pressures and adversity. Moralefficacy is a leader’s belief or confidence that he or she has theability to carry out the plan of action. For instance, a manager maydetermine that a high-performing salesperson should be fired forsubmitting bogus expense reports. Yet, she won’t take action ifshe doesn’t think she has the support of top company leaders or ifshe believes she doesn’t have the necessary skills to confront theindividual.As a capability or capacity, moral potency can be developed, inourselves as well as in our followers. (The “Focus on FollowerEthics” box provides a closer look at how subordinates canexercise their moral potency.) To foster moral ownership, clarifythe ethical responsibilities associated with each organizational
role. Identify and commit to professional codes and values whileencouraging others to do the same. To develop moral courage,look to courageous leaders as role models and seek to be acourageous role model yourself (see Chapter 3). Build inorganizational cues that encourage courageous actions. Cadets atU.S. Military Academy at West Point, for instance, must sign anhonor code that states they “will not lie, cheat or steal,” but alsothat they will not “tolerate those that do.” The second part of thehonor code requires cadets to display moral courage if theywitness unethical behavior. They are disciplined or removed fromthe Academy if they fail to do so.To develop moral efficacy, take on increasingly difficult ethicalchallenges and then debrief them to evaluate your responses.Learn from how others have handled ethical dilemmas. Preparefor ethical challenges through simulations, cases, discussions,and training. The moral efficacy of your followers is directly tied toyour moral efficacy as a leader. If you are confident that you caneffectively deal with moral problems, your followers will also beconfident they can handle such situations.Psychologists report that self-interest and hypocrisy underminemoral motivation.27 Sometimes individuals genuinely want to dothe right thing, but their integrity is “overpowered” when theydiscover that they will have to pay a personal cost for acting in anethical manner. Others never intend to follow an ethical course ofaction but engage in moral hypocrisy instead. These decisionmakers “want to appear moral while, if possible, avoiding the costof actually being moral.”28 In experimental settings, they say thatassignments should be distributed fairly but then assignthemselves the most desirable tasks while giving less desirablechores to others. Both self-interest and hypocrisy encourageleaders to set their moral principles aside. For instance, corporateexecutives might declare that lower-level employees deservehigher wages. However, these executives may not pay employeesmore if it means that they will earn less as a result.Rewards play an important role in ethical follow-through. Peopleare prone to give ethical values top priority when rewardedthrough raises, promotions, public recognition, and other means
for doing so. Conversely, moral motivation drops when the rewardsystem reinforces unethical behavior.29 Unfortunately, misplacedrewards are all too common, as in the case of electronics retailerswho reward employees for selling expensive extended warrantieson new products. Such warranties are generally a bad deal forconsumers.Emotions also play a part in moral motivation.30 Researchersreport that positive emotions such as joy and happinessencourage people to live out their moral choices and to helpothers. Depression, on the other hand, lowers motivation, andjealousy, rage, and envy contribute to lying, revenge, stealing, andother antisocial behaviors. Moral emotions are of particularimportance to ethical follow-through. Moral emotions are part ofour makeup as humans.31 These feelings are triggered evenwhen 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 ina squalid camp or contempt for a public official charged withdomestic violence.Anger, disgust, and contempt are other-condemning moralemotions. They are elicited by unfairness, betrayal, immorality,cruelty, poor performance, and status differences. Anger canmotivate us to redress injustices like racism, oppression, andpoverty. For example, driven by moral anger, some citizenstraveled to the U.S.–Mexican border to try to prevent authoritiesfrom separating immigrant children from their families. Disgustencourages us to set up rewards and punishments to deterinappropriate behaviors, like sexual deviancy or mistreatinganimals.32 Contempt generally causes us to step back from othersand to feel less compassion for them.Shame, embarrassment, and guilt are self-conscious emotionsthat encourage us to obey the rules and uphold the social order.Shame and embarrassment are elicited when we violate normsand social conventions, present the wrong image to others, andfail to live up to moral guidelines. Shame produces a negativeevaluation of the self for being flawed, such as when we aredisappointed in ourselves for not helping a coworker strugglingwith a computer problem. Embarrassment produces a negative
evaluation of a specific act, such as when we violate culturalnorms by failing to present gifts when meeting businesspeopleabroad. Shame and embarrassment can keep us from engagingin further damaging behavior and may drive us to withdraw fromsocial contact. Guilt arises in relationships when one party causesharm or distress to the other through lying, betrayal, physicalharm, or other behavior. We then want to right the wrong, to helpothers, and to treat them well.Sympathy and compassion are other-suffering emotions. They areactivated when we perceive suffering or sorrow in our fellowhuman beings. We are most likely to feel compassion for ourfamily, friends and community but sympathy typically extendstoward total strangers as well. Such feelings encourage us tocomfort, 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 socialservice programs. (See our earlier discussion of altruism inChapter 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 whensomeone has done something on our behalf. We then want torepay their generosity and kindness. Those feeling gratitudegenerally have a greater sense of personal and spiritual well-being and are more likely to become engaged in theircommunities. Awe (admiration) comes from experiencing natural(a sunset, mountain vista), artistic (a great painting or statue) orspiritual (God, perfection) beauty. Those experiencing awegenerally stop and admire; they open their hearts and minds.Energized, they work harder at self-improvement. Elevationcomes from viewing the best in humanity—acts of charity, loyalty,and self-sacrifice—and when we read or hear about moralexemplars. Experiencing elevation makes us more likely to helpothers.You can channel the power of rewards and emotions to increaseyour moral motivation and the moral motivation of those you lead.Seek out and create ethically rewarding environments. Make sure
the reward system of an organization supports ethical behaviorbefore joining it as an employee or a volunteer. Try to reduce thecosts of behaving morally by instituting policies and proceduresthat make it easier to report unethical behavior, combatdiscrimination, and so forth. Work to align rewards with desiredbehavior. Be concerned about how goals are reached. If all elsefails, reward yourself. Take pride in acting on your choices and onliving up to your self-image as a person of integrity. Finally, tapinto your feelings. Make a conscious effort to control negativeemotions and to put yourself in a positive frame of mind. Channelthe motivational force of moral emotions to help you followthrough. Pay particular attention to other praising emotions, whichare energizing and prompt self-improvement.33 Express gratitudemore often. Seek out natural, artistic and moral beauty. Take awalk in a forest or on the beach; visit an art exhibit, watch aYouTube video of a moral role model and so on.Focus on Follower Ethics Intelligent DisobedienceExecutive coach and consultant Ira Chaleff believes that a greatmany scandals could be avoided if followers knew when and how todisobey unethical or misguided orders from their leaders. He arguesthat followers need to learn to practice “intelligent disobedience.” Theconcept of intelligent disobedience comes from guide dog training.Guide dogs for the blind must not only follow the directions of theirowners but must also know when to disobey commands that wouldput both dog and human in harm’s way, such as an order to cross thestreet when a car is coming. Practicing intelligent disobedience is afour-step process: (1) understand the mission, values and goals ofthe organization or group; (2) pause and examine any order thatseems inconstant with the mission, values and goals; (3) make aconscious choice to comply or resist the order, offering an alternativewhen possible; and (4) assume personal accountability for yourchoice to obey or disobey.Chaleff notes that, in most cases, obedience is the right option thatallows 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 includepausing to gather your thoughts, asking relevant questions, pointingout 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
consequences of doing so). Teachers and supervisors can helpchildren and employees develop refusal skills through discussions,simulations, practice sessions, role-plays, and stories of followerswho practiced intelligent disobedience.The tale of a young nurse provides one dramatic example ofintelligent disobedience in action. Her first job out of nursing schoolwas in a hospital emergency room. When a cardiac patient waswheeled in, the emergency room physician ordered her to administera medication she knew would kill the patient. When she questionedthe order, the doctor yelled at her: “You just do it!” The nurse hookedup 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 itviolated her training. He would have to do so himself. Her resistancewas enough to prompt the doctor to reconsider the risks and otheroptions. He ordered a different medication and the patient made acomplete recovery.Source: Chaleff, I. (2015). Intelligent disobedience: Doing right whenwhat you’re told to do is wrong. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Component 4: Moral CharacterExecuting the plan of action takes character. The positive virtuesdescribed in Chapter 3 contribute to ethical follow-through.Courage helps leaders implement their plans despite the risks andcosts of doing so while prudence helps them choose the bestcourse of action. Integrity encourages leaders to be true tothemselves and their choices. Humility forces leaders to addresslimitations that might prevent them from taking action. Optimismequips leaders to persist in the face of obstacles and difficulties.Compassion and justice focus the attention of leaders on theneeds of others rather than on personal priorities.In addition to virtues, other personal qualities contribute to moralaction.34 Those with a strong will, as well as confidence inthemselves and their abilities, are more likely to persist. The sameis true for those with an internal locus of control. Internallyoriented people (internals) believe that they have control over theirlives and can determine what happens to them. Externallyoriented people (externals) believe that life events are beyondtheir control and are the product of fate or luck instead. Because
they take personal responsibility for their actions, internals aremore motivated to do what is right. Externals are more susceptibleto situational pressures and therefore less likely to persist inethical tasks.Duty orientation is another characteristic linked to moral behavior.Those driven by duty make and act on ethical decisions basedlargely on their loyalty to the group. They are willing to give upsome of their free choice in order to fulfil their obligations.35Researchers using samples drawn from the U.S. Army, theNational Guard, federal employees, and the corporate sectorfound that a sense of obligation promotes prosocial behaviorswhile limiting deviant acts. Duty orientation is made up of threedimensions: (1) duty to members, (2) duty to mission, and (3) dutyto codes. Duty to members involves supporting and serving theother members of the group, even at cost to the self. Those drivenby their obligations to others may mentor a new hire, defend ateam member from gossip, donate unused vacation time to an illcoworker, and refuse to share proprietary information with acompetitor. Duty to mission means supporting the work andpurpose of the group by doing what it takes to see that the groupor organization succeeds. This might mean working additionalhours or taking on additional responsibilities, for instance. Duty tocodes is consistent adherence to rules and norms of the group.Formal codes of ethics (see Chapter 10) lay out rules regardingtreatment of others both inside and outside the organization.Norms are the unwritten guidelines that direct behavior. Examplesmight include “always work your hardest,” “admit your mistakes,”and “treat all colleagues with respect.” Violating formal codes andinformal norms brings dishonor to the self and the group. (You candetermine your level of duty orientation by completing Self-Assessment 6.2.)Successful implementation of a decision also requirescompetence. For instance, modifying the organizational rewardsystem may entail researching, organizing, arguing, networking,and relationship-building skills. These skills are put to maximumuse when actors have an in-depth understanding of theorganizational context—important policies, the group’s history andculture, informal leaders, and so on.
Following the virtue and character-building guidelines presented inChapter 3 will go a long way to helping you build the virtues youneed to put your moral choices into action. Believe that you canhave an impact. Otherwise, you are probably not going to carrythrough when obstacles surface. Develop your skills so that youcan better put your moral choice into action and master thecontext in which you operate. (Turn to Box 6.1 for moresuggestions on how to follow through on your ethical choices.)Consider how you might improve your commitment to your groupor organization. Finally, practice ethical leadership to encouragefollowers to develop a duty orientation. Your followers are morelikely to feel a sense of obligation if you act as a moral role model,set clear ethical rules and structures, communicate what ethicalbehaviors are expected, and focus on shared goals.Box 6.1 Giving Voice to ValuesThe Giving Voice to Values program, started by the Aspen Instituteand Yale University and now housed at Babson College, is aninternational effort designed to help participants resist the pressure toset aside their personal standards. Mary Gentile, director of theGiving Voice to Values curriculum, argues that the first step to actingon personal moral standards (developing “moral muscle”) is toconduct a thought experiment. Ask, “What if you were going to act onyour values—what would you say and do?” (p. xxxv). She thenoutlines seven pillars or foundational concepts that equip us to act onour ethical choices.1. Recognize that certain values are widely shared. Identifyingshared values like courage, compassion, integrity, and wisdomcan provide the foundation for resolving values conflicts and fordeveloping shared goals in a variety of cultural settings.2. Acknowledge the power of choice. Most of us can think of atime when we acted on our ethical beliefs or, conversely, failedto do so. Telling the story of both events reveals that we havethe power to choose. These narratives help us identify factorsthat contributed to success in the first case (enablers) andfailure in the second (disablers). Gentile reports that somecommon enablers include finding allies, gathering information,asking questions, taking incremental steps, and reframing (i.e.,redefining ethical misbehavior as a risk or turning competitioninto a win–win negotiation).
3. Treat values conflicts as normal. Disagreements over ethicalchoices are common in organizations. If we acknowledge thatfact, then we won’t be surprised when such disputes arise andwill remain calm. We’ll also find it easier to appreciate theviewpoint of the other parties instead of vilifying them.4. Consider your personal and professional purpose. Beforevalues conflicts arise, consider the impact you want to have inyour job and career. Thinking about why you work and themission of your organization can provide new arguments to usewhen voicing values. You’ll feel more empowered to speak upand others may be attracted to your purpose.5. Play to personal strengths. We are more likely to speak up if weknow who we are. Acting on values then arises out of our coreidentity. In addition to identifying your personal purpose,consider the degree of risk you are willing to take, yourpersonal communication style, where your loyalties lie, andyour image of yourself. Create a personal narrative or self-storythat builds on your strengths and encourages you to act ownyour convictions.6. Find your unique voice. Expressing values is a learnable skill.There are many different ways to speak out about values in thework setting. Find and develop yours through reflection on yourexperience, practice (each time you speak up builds moralmuscle), and coaching from mentors and peers. When youvoice your values as a leader, you encourage your followers todo the same.7. Anticipate rationalizations for unethical behavior. Consider themost likely arguments used to support immoral behavior.Common rationalizations include “Everyone does this; it isstandard practice” and “This is not my responsibility; I’m justfollowing orders.” Then consider how to best respond. Forexample, the “everybody is doing it” argument is anexaggeration since (a) not everyone engages in the practice,and (b) if it were standard practice then there wouldn’t be a lawagainst it. The “just following orders” argument reveals that thespeaker is uncomfortable with her or his response to thesituation and should be open to further discussion.Source: Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving voice to values: How to speakyour mind when you know what’s right. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press. For additional information, visitwww.givingvoicetovalues.com
Decision-Making FormatsDecision-making guidelines or formats can help us make betterethical choices. Taking a systematic approach encourages teamsand individuals to carefully define the problem, gather information,apply ethical standards and values, identify and evaluatealternative courses of action, and follow through on their choices.They’re also better equipped to defend their decisions. Fourethical decision-making formats are described in the pages tocome. I’ll provide a balance sheet for each format, outlining itsstrengths and weaknesses (pros and cons). All four approachesare useful. You may want to use just one or a combination of all ofthem. The particular format you use is not as important as using asystematic approach to moral reasoning. You can practice theseguidelines by applying them to the scenarios described at the endof the chapter.
The Four-Way MethodVirterbo College ethics professor Richard Kyte argues that anyethical decision-making format must address the problem of moraldisengagement, of convincing ourselves that what is normallywrong is really right (see Chapter 2), as well the problem of partialdisengagement.36 Partial disengagement is narrowing our focus toonly those principles that support our position. Partialdisengagement makes it difficult to listen to and understand thearguments of someone using a different ethical framework.Consider how an employee and small business owner might viewcutting back on scheduled work hours, for instance. The workeroperating from a fairness framework is likely to see reduced hoursas unjust. The owner, focused on consequences, believes that thereduction in scheduled hours is justified in order to keep thebusiness profitable. Neither party will likely convince the other tochange his/her point of view.Professor Kyte introduces a Four-Way Method to promotedifferent ways of thinking. Each stage of the model addresses onethinking mode. Whenever possible, use the model with others.Truth.The first thinking mode focuses on understanding the facts andcontext of the dilemma. People often think that they correctlyunderstand a situation when they don’t. Key questions to answerhere 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 considerthe following:
Who is most likely to be effected?How are they likely to be affected?Which solution will be most beneficial/least harmful to thoseaffected?Fairness.In this mode of thinking, consider the perspective of the otherparty and strive for equality. Treat others with respect and designa fair process for resolving the dilemma. Respond to the followingqueries:Do the proposed (possible) solutions treat others the sameway you would want to be treated?Do the proposed solutions treat everyone involved withrespect and dignity?Are the proposed solutions motivated by goodwill?Do the proposed solutions enhance or diminish the autonomyof all involved?Character.The fourth way of thinking highlights the person. Consider themotivation of the actor and the outcome of the act. Reflect on thefollowing: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 thatbuilds trusting relationships?
Balance SheetAdvantages (Pros)Acknowledges barriers to moral reasoningFacilitates ethical group discussionIncorporates a variety of ethical theoriesSpecifically addresses characterCan be used in implementing decisionsDisadvantages (Cons)Disagreement about factsConflicting views of consequences and fairnessThe Four-Way Method specifically addresses moraldisengagement, which frequently undermines moral reasoning(see Chapter 2). It also recognizes that we may suffer from partialdisengagement. We think we are open-minded when, in fact, wefavor one ethical approach over others. Following the four ways ofthinking with others should encourage careful reflection whilelistening to additional perspectives. The Four-Way approach alsoincorporates Kantianism, utilitarianism, and justice theory as wellas virtue and character. According to Kyte, the format provides aframework for explaining decisions once they are made. Leadersneed to address all forms of thinking when communicatingcontroversial choices, such as when announcing then end of apension plan or a plant relocation. Some employees will be moreinterested in the consequences of the decision; others will wonderif the process for making the decision was fair; still others will bemost concerned that the decision is implemented in acompassionate manner.The method’s creator acknowledges that following the thinkingtypes is no guarantee of reaching consensus. To begin, decisionmakers often disagree about the “facts.” They reject evidence orinterpret the same evidence differently. Consider how people differover global warming, for example. Some are alarmed by climate
change while others, viewing the same data, deny that climatechange exists. Democrats and Republicans clash over the factssurrounding Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Democratsclaim that the evidence proves collusion between the Trumpcampaign and Russia. Republicans argue that there is a FBI andintelligence community conspiracy against President Trump. Sincethe Four-Way Method incorporates utilitarianism and justice asfairness theory, it shares the weaknesses of these perspectives(see Chapter 3). Decision makers may come to differentconclusions about possible consequences, what is fair, and so on.
Five Timeless QuestionsLeaders spend much of their time “managing in the gray.” Grayarea problems highly complex and have no black or white, right orwrong answers. Resolving gray problems requires carefuljudgment and hard choices. To meet the challenges of a grayproblem, leaders must rely on their managerial skills (working withothers, gathering data, analyzing information) and desire toresolve the issue as a human being (adopting a humanisticperspective). Harvard business professor Joseph Badaraccooffers five questions to help leaders grapple with the human sideof gray problems.37 These questions draw upon the insights ofsome of history’s greatest thinkers—Jesus, Aristotle, Confucius,Buddha, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, and others. Together these queriesform a humanistic philosophy of management and leadership, onebased on what is really important to living as fully human.Question 1: What Are the Net, NetConsequences?Begin by considering the consequences of your possible choices.When doing so, be careful not to overlook anyone who might beaffected. Everyone impacted by the decision should beconsidered to be of equal value. Don’t oversimplify by thinkingonly about the bottom line. To adequately respond to this firstquestion, (1) stop and look for more information, (2) use a goodprocess that involves consulting others, (3) get the right peoplewith the right expertise involved in making the choice, and (4) usea decision-making format or decision tree for your deliberations.Aaron Feurstein of Malden Mills failed to consider all theconsequences when he decided to use an insurance settlement topay his workers and rebuild his textile factory after a fire. Whileinitially praised for his generosity, Feurstein didn’t take intoconsideration the fact that the U.S. textile industry couldn’tcompete with foreign producers. The new plant was forced toclose and all the employees lost their jobs. Better options mighthave been to rebuild part of the factory, invest more in R & D,and/or provide generous retraining packages to laid-off workers.
Question 2: What Are My Core Obligations?This second question is a reminder that human beings haveobligations or duties to one another. Answering this query startswith looking beyond economic concerns. Apple CEO Tim Cookinvoked social responsibility when responding to the challenge ofa shareholder, for instance. The critic argued that the companyshould only use renewable energy if it were profitable to do so.Cook pointed out that the company did many things that didn’tgenerate return on investment (ROI), such as making devicesavailable to the blind. “If you want me to do things only for ROIreasons,” he told the critic, “you should get out of this stock.” Takecare to not only focus on large, well-established stakeholderswhile overlooking other less visible groups and futurestakeholders. Invoke your moral imagination to generate newperspectives. Draw upon your understanding of what humanshave 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 toyou. Go directly to those who might be impacted by the choiceand get their perspectives.Question 3: What Will Work in the World as ItIs?This question invokes consideration of organizational realities.Situations change, plans fail, leaders have limited power and soon. This query also recognizes the reality of human nature, whichincludes a mix of desirable and undesirable qualities. According toBadaracco,All these types of individuals—the brilliantly devious, theinept and confused, and the mostly solid citizens—areout there, all around us. They are continuously acting,reacting, vying, jostling, maneuvering, scheming, andcolliding. That is the world as it is.38To see the world as it is, first think carefully about how poweroperates in your organization. Consider the interests of each party
(including your own). Be modest and humble—there is much youdon’t know and can’t control. You might want to fire a poorperformer who is a friend of your boss, for instance. However,given the political reality, you may have to settle for warning thatperson, providing training, or helping him or her find a position thatis a better fit in the organization. Adapt to unfolding events andtake advantage of opportunities when they arise. Assert yourpower and authority when necessary.Question 4: Who Are We?This query highlights the decision-making context and should onlybe asked after the first three questions have been answered. Asleaders, we are social beings tied to the histories of ourorganizations and communities. Our ethical choices should reflectand reinforce the norms and values of our social groups.Answering question four requires a shift from analysis to sensingthe larger context. Refer to the organization’s mission and valuesstatements for guidance. Consider how the action fits into themessages carried by the organization’s story. Imagine yourselfhaving to defend your choice. How would workers respond to yourdecision to terminate a loyal, long-term employee? To your choiceto ignore evidence that a star performer is using an officecomputer to visit porn sites?Question 5: What Can I Live With?The final question recognizes the reality that there is no one rightanswer to a gray area problem. No matter what the choice,individuals are likely to be hurt. The goal is then to make a choiceyou can be comfortable with (or be least uncomfortable with).Biogen CEO Jim Mullen had to decide what he and his firm couldlive with when marketing the multiple sclerosis drug Tysabri. Aclinical trial revealed that the drug dramatically improved the livesof patients but triggered a rare fatal brain disease in a fewindividuals. After gathering information with the help of regulatorsand experts, Biogen went forward with marketing the drug aftersetting up protocols for those most at risk. One hundred thousandpatients got relief from their symptoms but 500 contracted the
brain infection and 100 died. Despite the undesirableconsequences, the decision to market the drug can be defendedas well-reasoned and medically acceptable.The judgment of what constitutes a reasonable solution will bebased in large part on “tempered intuition”—considered reflectionbased on character and experience. Pause; take time out toponder the first four questions (don’t favor one over the others).Expect to struggle, experiencing regrets and losing sleep. Thesearen’t signs of failure but indications that you have given thesituation the attention it deserves. When possible, make a trialchoice and see if you could live with the decision in the future.Think about how you might explain the decision to someone youadmire. Finally, make the decision, communicate the decision andmove forward, recognizing that you might need to adjust thechoice if needed.
Balance SheetAdvantages (Pros)Recognizes the “messiness” of ethical problems faced byleadersDraws upon prominent thinkers and traditionsBlends management and humanism, reason, and intuitionAcknowledges painful realitiesEmphasizes the importance of making the choiceDisadvantages (Cons)Temptation to favor one question over anotherLacks specificsMakes high demands on decision makersThe 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 thechain of command. The higher your level on the organizationalhierarchy, the more gray area problems you will face. To addressthese problems, the model draws upon managerial skills, reason,and data as well as humanism and intuition. The questions aregrounded in the insights of both Eastern and Western traditions.Realism is another strength of the format. Not only do thequestions acknowledge that some problems lack clear answers,they encourage decision makers to take stock of the situationsthey find themselves in, acknowledge their limitations, andrecognize the flaws of human nature. Leaders also need to acceptthe fact that they will have to settle for a sound solution (one theycan live with) rather than an ideal solution. We can expect to losesleep even after the choice is made. Finally, the model highlightsimportance of making the decision and then communicating thechoice. Answering the five questions should lead to action.Badaracco emphasizes the importance of asking and respondingto all five questions since they work together and set boundaries
on one another. Yet, I suspect that decision makers will betempted to favor some questions over others, deciding, forexample, to put more weight on organizational values whiledownplaying possible consequences. Or others might focus somuch on consequences that they give little thought to theirobligations to others. Those with limited experience have little tobase their intuitions on. Then, too, asking broad questions meansthe model offers less specific guidance than other formats.Responding to the queries, which requires deep thinking, is highlydemanding. Implementing the model requires self-reflection,analyzing possible outcomes, identifying core obligations,dissecting organizational power systems and values, and drawingupon experience and character. Even after all this effort, a leadermay feel vaguely dissatisfied with the outcome.
The Lonergan/Baird MethodTwentieth-century philosopher Bernard Lonergan (1904–1980)believed all people act like natural scientists, following the samebasic pattern of cognitive operations in order to make sense of theworld.39 First, they observe at the physical or empirical level(perceive, sense, move, speak). Next they process thisinformation on an intellectual level by asking questions,expressing relationships, developing hypotheses, and coming toan understanding. Then, they put together arguments and cometo a judgment on the truthfulness and certainty of the hypothesesor propositions at the rational level. Finally, individuals move to theresponsible level. At this stage, they determine how to act on theirconclusions, evaluating various courses of action and thencarrying out their decisions.Ethics expert Catharyn Baird uses Lonergan’s model as aframework for making ethical choices, condensing it into thefollowing steps: Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Beresponsible. She then develops a set of questions and guidelinesfor each of his four levels.40Step 1: Be attentive—Consider what works and what doesn’t.The first stage sets the parameters of the problem byasking these questions:Who is the ethical actor? An individual ororganization must carry out every ethical decision.(But remember that people and organizationsalways act on limited knowledge.) Make sure theperson or group with the authority to carry out thedecision makes the final determination.Who are the stakeholders in the conflict? All moraldecisions have a relational component. Consider allthe stakeholders who could be impacted by thechoice, including those who have to implement thedecision, those directly impacted by the decision,and those whose interests should be protected.What are the facts of the situation? Be aware ofpersonal biases and try not to prejudge the situation.
Describe the situation in neutral language. Set theproblem in context, considering such factors as thehistory of the issue and the relationship betweenimportant players.Step 2. Be intelligent—Sort through the data.Begin to make sense of the information gathered in Step1 by considering the following:Is this an ethical question? Some issues involveconflicts between core values while others areaesthetic (matters of taste) or technical (differingstrategies for completing a task or reaching a goal).For the ethical question, identify what is the veryspecific issue to be resolved. Identify which exactvalues are in conflict in this particular situation.According to Baird, many conflicts arise along twoaxes. The first axis is autonomy versus equality.Those who favor autonomy believe that individualsshould have as much freedom as possible todetermine how they live—to control their bodies,their labor and their property. Those valuing equalitywant to treat everyone fairly. They want to makesure everyone has access to such resources asfood, health care, and employment. Baird’s othercontinuum is rationality versus sensibility. Followerswho put a priority on rationality know what isexpected and follow the rules. They are willing togive up some of their freedom for protection againstcriminals and terrorists, for example. Those whovalue sensibility, on the other hand, are flexible,adapting to each new situation. They encourage risktaking and innovation, such as in the creation of newbusinesses and technologies.Selection of options for action. Identify courses ofaction for answering the ethical question.Sometimes the best option is inaction (letting thecurrent policy continue).Step 3. Be Reasonable—Evaluate the options.Making responsible decisions involves critical evaluationof the options:
Follow the analytical rules that bring the best result.Hone your critical thinking skills. Rigorously examineall assertions and assumptions; make sure thatsupporting evidence is accurate and relevant.Clearly define your terms. Apply the same criticalstandards to your own reasoning as you do to thereasoning of others.Evaluate the problem against core principles andvalues. Employ ethical perspectives like thosedescribed in Chapter 5. Don’t just choose yourfavorite approach but imagine how otherperspectives apply.Reasonably apply moral principles and values.Consider how best to carry out the ethical choice inan ethical manner. (Terminating employees may benecessary but needs to be done with respect, forexample.) Employ both the head and the heart,reason and emotion, to make responsible choices.Use imagination to envision an outcome thatbalances competing interests and values.Step 4: Be Responsible—Act with courage.To act responsibly, incorporate the following:Correct for bias through ethical maturity. Ethicallymature individuals use reason effectively, nourishrelationships, make proper use of power, and strivefor integration that models ethical wholeness toothers.Attend to the common good. Consider how youractions will impact the larger community, the globaleconomy, and the environment.Act with courage. Make the most thoughtful choicepossible given the limited information available.Remember, “choosing not to act is acting.”41According to Baird, to become mature ethical agents (ethicalexperts), we need to engage in continuous improvement based ona constant cycle of behavior and reflection. Mature ethical agentsact and then evaluate the results of their decisions. Theydetermine which principles and strategies worked well and which
did not. Based on their reflection, they are better equipped totackle the next moral issue using the four steps described above.
Balance SheetAdvantages (Pros)Is widely usedEmphasizes the importance of paying attention and gatheringdataHighlights conflicting valuesRecognizes the importance of follow throughDisadvantages (Cons)Overlooks many other types of ethical conflictsUsed as a tool rather than as part of an ongoing processBaird’s method has been adopted at a number of colleges anduniversities that use her Ethics Game simulation. If your schooluses this format, you and your classmates already have acommon framework for addressing ethical issues.Lonergan/Baird’s emphasis on awareness is particularlynoteworthy. All too often we want to jump to the decision stage.Like good natural scientists, we first need to observe what is goingon around us, carefully identifying the important components ofthe situation. If we don’t pay close attention, we will reach flawedconclusions. Then, too, the method acknowledges that manyethical issues are centered on conflicting values and thatdecisions must produce action.Baird seems to give too much importance to two types of ethicalconflicts: autonomy versus equality and rationality versussensibility. She doesn’t address many other common ethicalconflicts, such as truth versus loyalty and justice versus mercy—for instance, Should I tell the truth but hurt a friend? Should Idiscipline an employee for poor performance when she is goingthrough a divorce? I imagine that most people using her methodview it as a tool. Once used, they put it back into their ethicaltoolboxes. They likely lose sight of the fact that Baird describesethical decision making as an ongoing process. The goal is
continuous improvement and personal ethical development, notjust solving particular moral dilemmas.
The Foursquare ProtocolCatholic University law professor and attorney Stephen Goldmanoffers a decision-making format designed specifically for use inorganizational settings. He calls his method a protocol because itfocuses on the procedures that members use to reach theirconclusions.42 While a general approach, it is designed to helpleaders make choices in particular situations involving productsafety, conflicts of interests, employee misconduct, and othertopics. Codes of ethics lay out general principles about sexualharassment, personal use of company equipment, protectingtrade 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 Christmasgifts from Amazon violate the code, for instance? Can asalesperson take a client out for an expensive lunch? Canpurchasing agents accept any gifts from vendors? Goldmanbelieves that following the protocol ensures that such decisionsare reached fairly.Protocol Element 1: Close description of thesituation. (Dig into the facts.)Ethical decision making begins with digging into the facts.Goldman compares the process to how a physician generates adiagnosis. When determining what is wrong with a patient, thedoctor gathers information about the patient’s symptoms andrelates them to one another to identify the problem. In the sameway, we need to get a complete account of the ethical “patient” orproblem. Gather data and identify the relevant facts.Protocol Element 2: Gathering accumulatedexperience in similar situations. (Examineindividual reactions to past solutions.)Doctors rely on their past experience when treating patients;organizational decision makers should do the same. Draw upon
organizational history or memory. Look to past experiences withsimilar problems. How did the organization respond to cases ofsexual harassment or conflicts of interest in the past, for instance?Explore how other managers have responded to relateddilemmas. To be fair, similar cases should treated the same way.Also consider how others will talk about your decision. What hasbeen the previous organizational conversation about similarchoices? What have members described as the “right way” or the“wrong way” to handle an ethical issue? In Goldman’s words, “Ifyou want to make effective decisions today, you must understandhow past responses played out: what worked, what didn’t, andwhat stunk to high heaven.”43 Those conversations should informyour current deliberations. Remember, too, that how you respondto the issue will shape the group’s ethical culture going forward.For instance, if you excuse those who bully others now, you canexpect more cases of bullying in the future.Protocol Element 3: Recognize the significantdistinctions between the current problem andpast ones. (Gauge similarities with pastsituations.)Identify the important differences between the current situationand past incidents. Some distinctions are insignificant, whileothers are critical. The ability to discern between the unimportantand important differences separates average ethical decisionmakers from the really good ones. Take two cases of acceptinggifts from a vendor, for instance. Punishment for the offendersshould differ depending on the severity of the offense (i.e.,accepting a low cost meal vs. a major vacation trip), whether therewas an attempt to cover up the gift and so on.Protocol Element 4: Situating yourself todecide. (Analyze your decision makingprocess.)Once the facts are gathered and sorted, it is time to make thechoice. To “situate” yourself to make the decision, consider three
factors. First, what, if any, self-interest do you have in the choicethat might compromise your judgment? You might have a financialstake in a course of action, such as when laying off the topsalesperson will lower sales figures for your sales department. Oryou may be tempted to purchase supplies from a close friend. Payattention to how much your personal stake could shape yourdecision. Second, imagine that you are on the receiving end ofyour decision, which is likely to be costly to some groups.Consider how you would respond if you were to be laid off, forinstance. Third, determine what your moral instincts or intuitionsare telling you to do. For example, are you uneasy about yourdecision to lay off those with the longest tenure? Do you have astrong sense that protecting the organization’s diversity byretaining minority employees is the right thing to do? Try to strikea balance between intuition and reason, neither over- norunderemphasizing either one. Use your instincts to test the choiceyou make through the application of ethical principles likeutilitarianism.
Balance SheetAdvantages (Pros)Highlights the importance of justice and fairnessApplies broad principles to individual situationsSituates the decision makerRecognizes the influence of self-interestIncorporates both intuition and reasonDisadvantages (Cons)Undervalues other important ethical values and principlesHard to recognize what is relevant and significant and what isnotSelf-interest may still influence our decisionsThe Foursquare Protocol rightly recognizes the importance justiceand fairness in the organizational context. As I noted in Chapter 1,followers frequently complain about unfair treatment in theworkplace. Another advantage of the model is its recognition thatmany ethical dilemmas in organizations are concerned with howto apply broad policies to specific situations. The particulars ofeach case are critical to the final determination. Goldman alsodraws our attention to the dangers of self-interest, the importanceof situating ourselves as we decide, and incorporating orbalancing both intuition and reason when making choices.The Protocol’s justice focus may undervalue other importantethical considerations like care for others. For instance, keeping apoor performing older employee on the payroll for a few moremonths, until he or she reaches retirement age, may not appearfair to younger workers but could be justified on the basis ofcompassion. Goldman emphasizes the importance of focusing onrelevant facts but even he acknowledges that, at first, it is hard todetermine which information is important. Further, identifyingimportant and unimportant distinctions between ethical situationsappears to be function of experience. Many who use his model
may not have the background to make these determinations.Finally, acknowledging personal bias is no guarantee that we willkeep self-interest from shaping our ethical decisions.Implications and ApplicationsBoth logic and emotions are essential to ethical decisionmaking. Draw upon both processes when making moralchoices. There may be times when you need to regulate yourintuitive response. At other times you may want to give priorityto 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 throughperspective taking, using moral terminology, improving yourmoral attentiveness, and increasing the moral intensity ofissues.Improve your ability to make moral judgments by creating anethical environment that provides ethical role models andguidelines, continuing your education with a special focus onethics, considering the needs and perspectives of broaderaudiences, and basing your decisions on widely accepted moralprinciples and guidelines.Ethical biases or blind spots can cause you to participate in orapprove of behaviors you would normally condemn. Theseerrors include overestimating our ethicality, forgiving ourunethical behavior, in-group favoritism, implicit prejudice, andjudging based on outcomes, not processes. Acknowledging thatyou could have these blind spots is the first step to overcomingthem.Increase your moral motivation and that of followers byfostering a sense of moral potency (ownership, courage,efficacy), rewarding ethical choices, controlling negativefeelings, and responding to moral emotions.Moral emotions are triggered even when we do not have apersonal stake in an event. Anger, disgust, and contempt areother-condemning emotions that motivate us to redressinjustices. Shame, embarrassment and guilt are self-consciousemotions that encourage us to obey the rules and uphold thesocial order. Sympathy and compassion are other-sufferingemotions that prompt us to comfort and help others. Gratitude,awe, and elevation are other-praising emotions that open us upto new opportunities and relationships.Your chances of following through on ethical decisions (moralcharacter) are higher if you (1) develop a duty orientation (to
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 ethicalchoices. Possible ethical decision-making formats include theFour Way Method, Five Timeless Questions., theLonergan/Baird method, and the Foursquare Protocol. Theparticular format you choose is not as important as taking asystematic 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 maygo through a sequence of steps and use them again. Return toyour decision later to evaluate and learn from it. As soon as oneethical crisis passes, there’s likely to be another on the horizon.Don’t expect perfection. As a leader, make the best choice youcan after thorough deliberation but recognize that sometimesyou may have to choose between two flawed alternatives.For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment1. Divide into groups and debate the following statement: Pro orcon: “When it comes to moral decision making, intuition is theelephant and reason is the rider.”2. How can you better manage and utilize your intuitions whenmaking ethical choices? Write up your conclusions.3. Analyze your scores on the moral attentiveness test found inSelf-Assessment 6.1. On which dimension did you scorehighest? Lowest? Why? What do you learn from thisassessment? How can you improve your tendency to noticeand reflect on ethical issues?4. Apply the Four-Component Model to the process you wentthrough when faced with a moral dilemma. How successfullydid you complete each stage? What would you do differentlynext time? Write up your analysis.5. Develop a plan for improving your moral reasoning as part ofyour education. How can you take advantage of your collegeexperiences 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 ofobligation? The least? How are your scores reflected in yourbehavior and ethical decisions? Are you comfortable with yourscores? If not, how might you raise them?
7. Create an original case study that demonstrates one or more ofthe ethical blind spots in action.8. Which of the four decision-making formats do you find mostuseful? Why?9. In a group, brainstorm a list of possible ethical dilemmas facedby a college student. How many of these problems involve aclash between two important values? Identify which values arein conflict in each situation.10. Apply one or more of the formats to one of the scenarios at theend of the chapter. First, reach your own conclusion. Thendiscuss the situation in a group. See whether you can reach aconsensus. Make note of the important factors dividing oruniting group members.11. Use a format from the chapter to analyze an ethical decisionfacing society (e.g., gay marriage, transgender bathrooms,immigration, health care, gun rights, the death penalty). Writeup your analysis and conclusions.Student Study SiteVisit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGEjournal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.
Case Study 6.1Ethical Scenarios for Analysis
Scenario A: Marketing Easy MoneyYou are the marketing manager for a regional mortgage company. Prior tocoming to your current position, you worked at a national lender that wentbankrupt during the housing crisis of 2008–2009. Your previous employeraggressively marketed mortgages to those who couldn’t afford them andencouraged borrowers to take out home equity loans to pay for cars,vacations, and other luxuries. When home values crashed, borrowerswere unable to repay their loans. The improving housing market hasencouraged your competitors to once again ramp up their sales pitches.One local mortgage lender advertises “zip mortgages,” highlighting thespeed of its application process. Another promises to help borrowers withcredit problems get mortgages. Yet another encourages homeowners toview their houses as “banks,” refinancing their homes to pay off creditcard debts, to invest in stocks and bitcoins, and to make purchases. Youworry that these messages will once again tempt consumers to livebeyond their means, buying homes they cannot afford and putting them atrisk should house prices dip. So far your firm has avoided such marketingtactics. However, your CEO is worried that the firm will lose market shareto its more aggressive competitors. He has asked you and yourdepartment to draw up a new advertising campaign that describes howeasy it is to borrow from your company and the firm’s willingness to workwith those who have credit issues. He also wants the campaign tohighlight how borrowers can use the money from refinancing their housesto 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?
Scenario B: The Tenure Review ReportYou are the chair of the tenure and promotion committee at your smalluniversity. Your committee, made up of senior faculty, evaluates theteaching and scholarship of professors and then makes recommendationsto the university provost. Committee members take their responsibilitiesseriously, knowing that peer review—where faculty members evaluate thework of other faculty—plays a critical role in higher education. They feelan obligation to maintain high teaching and research standards. Noprofessor can be tenured (given guaranteed employment) or promoted toa higher rank (associate professor, full professor) without a positiverecommendation from your group. Those denied tenure must leave theschool at the end of the current school year. Your closest departmentalcolleague is being reviewed for tenure. (Your families sometimescelebrate holidays together and your children are friends.) He expectsthat you will offer a positive review and encourage the committee torecommend tenure. Unfortunately, your coworker’s teaching evaluationsare below average. His scholarship is not strong enough to make up forthese shortcomings. You know that your colleague will be devastated by anegative evaluation and will be forced to move to another city to take anew position. He will feel betrayed and blame you for the committee’sdecision, though you are only one voice in the group.Will you support your colleague’s application for tenure?
Scenario C: The School Name Change*You are a school board member for an urban school district. Most of theAfrican American high school students in the district attend ThomasJefferson, making it the only high school where minority studentsoutnumber whites. Leaders—both black and white—from theneighborhood surrounding Jefferson High have requested that the districtchange the name of the school. They point out that the only black-majorityhigh school in the district is named after someone who owned hundredsof 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 knownfor its marching band and debate team. You realize that renamingbuildings that honor racist historical figures is a national trend. Yet, at thesame time, you recognize that Thomas Jefferson holds a special place inAmerican history. He was a primary author of the Declaration ofIndependence, 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. Possiblereplacements 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 Jeffersonhigh school?*Inspired by actual events.
Scenario D: The “Win–Win” DecisionYou direct the real estate department of a major retail clothing chain. Yourprimary responsibility is choosing sites for new stores as the companyexpands. When selecting sites, you use a grading system based on suchfactors 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. Yoursister owns one of the proposed sites under consideration. When yougrade the possible locations, hers is the only one that earns an A. Theother two sites come in at a B and a C grade. You decide to recommendyour sister’s property since it received the highest rating. You do not thinkyou need to notify your supervisors that a relative owns this parcel ofland. After all, this appears to be a “win–win” decision, one that benefitsthe company and your family. However, you decide to take a couple ofdays to reflect on your choice before submitting your report.Should you stay with your initial decision to recommend the propertywithout 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.
Scenario E: Out the Side Door?*You are a municipal judge deciding less serious cases involving violationsof traffic laws, disorderly conduct, fish and game regulations, and localordinances. A case involving an undocumented landscape workercharged with reckless driving is on your court docket. You know that U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials will be waitingoutside the courtroom to take this individual into custody following thehearing. He has lived in the country for over 20 years, is married to anAmerican citizen, and has three children. He will be deported even thoughhis crime is a minor one. Relations between your local court system andICE are tense. Federal officials have stepped up their efforts to deportillegal aliens at the same time your town has declared itself a sanctuarycity, which limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.You and the other judges are committed to keeping the courtroom a safeplace for all citizens. You and your colleagues worry that members ofimmigrant communities will refuse to report rape, domestic violence, andother crimes if they know they will be taken into custody when they cometo court to testify. You could let your reckless driving defendant escapeICE officers by having him exit through the door used by court officials.Doing so could be seen as interfering with federal law enforcement andmight bring obstruction of justice charges and an investigation by the localbar association. Nevertheless, you believe that you would have thesupport of the chief municipal judge and your fellow jurists if you let thedefendant 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
InstructionsIndicate the extent you agree with each of the following statementson 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 doingsomething that’s wrong.3. I regularly face decisions that have significant ethicalimplications.4. My life has been filled with one moral predicament afteranother.5. Many of the decisions that I make have ethical dimensions tothem.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 moralaspects in your everyday experiences. Items 8 through 12 measurethe 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 onitems 8 through 12. Total possible scores for the combined itemsrange from 12 to 84. The higher your scores, the more attentive orsensitive you are to moral issues.Source: Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who paysattention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology,93, p. 1030. Used by permission of the American PsychologicalAssociation.SELF-ASSESSMENT 6.2 Duty Orientation Scale
InstructionsThink 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 amember.1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agreeMy actions demonstrate that I . . .1. Put the interests of my team ahead of my personal interests2. Do all that I can to support the organization3. Am faithful to my team members4. Am loyal to my leaders and team5. Accept personal risk or loss in support of themission/organizational goals6. Make personal sacrifices to serve the mission/organizationalgoals7. Do whatever it takes to not let the mission/organization fail8. Get the job done under the toughest conditions9. Do what is right always10. Demonstrate personal integrity when challenged11. Will not accept dishonor12. Set the example for honorable behavior for othersScoring: Items 1 through 4 measure duty to members, 5 through 8measure duty to mission, and items 9 through 12 measure duty tocodes. Scores for each dimension range from 4 to 20. Total scorescan range from 12 to 60. The higher your score, the greater yoursense 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.
Notes1. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people aredivided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books;Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A socialintuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review,108, 814–834; Lapsley, D. K., & Hill, P. L. (2008). On dualprocessing and heuristic approaches to moral cognition. Journalof Moral Education, 37, 313–332.2. Haidt J. & Bjorklund, F. (2008). Social intuitionists answer sixquestions 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: BradfordBooks, p. 188.3. Boksem, M. A. S., & de Cremer, D. (2009). The neural basis ofmorality. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives onethical behavior and decision-making (pp. 153–166). Charlotte,NC: Information Age; Reynolds, S. J. (2006). A neurocognitivemodel of the ethical decision-making process: Implications forstudy and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 737–748;Casebeer, W. D. (2003). Moral cognition and its neuralconstituents. Neuroscience, 4, 841–846; Tessman, L. (2014).Virtue ethics and moral failure: Lessons from neuroscientific moralpsychology. In M. W. Austin (Ed), Virtues in action: New essays inapplied virtue ethics (pp. 171–189). New York, NY: PalgraveMacmillan.4. Greene, J. (2005). Cognitive neuroscience and the structure ofthe 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. InW. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology, Vol. 2: TheCognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
5. Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: Anintegrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics 139, 755–776.6. Weaver, G. R., Reynolds, S. J., & Brown, M. E. (2014). Moralintuition: Connecting current knowledge to future organizationalresearch and practice. Journal of Management 40, 100–129.7. Zhong, C.-B. (2011). The ethical dangers of deliberativedecision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 1–25.8. Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. Journal ofLegal Studies, 29, 1–18.9. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in researchand theory. New York, NY: Praeger; Rest, J. R. (1993). Researchon 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: Theoryand research. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moraldevelopment in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics(pp. 1–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.10. Soble, J. (2015, July 22). Scandal upends Toshiba’s laudedreputation. 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 andthe practice of ethics in business. Westport, CT: Quorum.13. Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: Therole of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social JusticeResearch, 17, 223–236.14. Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethicalpredispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences inthe recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,91, 233–243; Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Whopays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of AppliedPsychology, 93, 1027–1041; Sturm, R. E. (2017). Decreasing
unethical decisions: The role of morality-based individualdifferences. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 37–57.15. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals inorganizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy ofManagement Review, 15, 366–395; Frey, B. F. (2000). The impactof 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: Areview and investigation of moral recognition, evaluation, andintention. 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 onsome 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 scientificperspectives. 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 issuestest of moral judgment development. Behavioral DevelopmentBulletin, 19, 55–60.19. See the following: Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1991). Thecollege 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 moraldevelopment (pp. 67–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Thoma & Deng(2014).
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 negotiatingbehavior may be ethically challenged—and how to fix it. (2008,April). Negotiation, 11(4), 1–5.22. Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versesimagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues 57(1), 15–30.23. Ellperin, J., & Gillum, J. (2018, January 31). “Using hisposition for private gain”: Ben Carson was warned he might runafoul of ethics rules by enlisting his son. The Washington Post.24. Harris, G. (2009, February 12). Peanut foods shipped beforetesting came in. The New York Times, p. A24.25. Rest (1999), p. 101.26. Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Moral potency: Buildingthe capacity for character-based leadership. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 291–310;Mitchell, M. S., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). The managerial relevanceof 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 moralpeople act morally? Motivational considerations. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 10, 54–57; Batson, C. D.,Thompson, E. R., & Chen, H. (2002). Moral hypocrisy: Addressingsome alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83, 330–339.28. Batson & Thompson, p. 54.29. James, H. S. (2000). Reinforcing ethical decision-makingthrough organizational structure. Journal of Business Ethics,28(1), 43–58; O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review
of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003.Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.30. See the following: Connelly, S., Helton-Fauth, W., & Mumford,M. D. (2004). A managerial in-basket study of the impact of traitemotions on ethical choice. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 245–267; Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moraldevelopment. 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 sideof 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 cognitiveneuroscience 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 andsocial activism: The case of animal rights. Journal of SocialIssues, 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 moralbeauty? 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: Theoreticaldevelopment and preliminary construct. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 123, 220–238.36. Kyte, R. (2016). Ethical business: Cultivating the good inorganizational culture. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic; Kyte, R.
(2012). An ethical life: A practical guide to ethical reasoning.Winona, MN: Anselm Academic.37. Badaracco, J. L. (2016). Managing in the gray: 5 timelessquestions 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 ofToronto Press.40. Baird, C. A. (2003). Everyday ethics: Making hard choices in acomplex world. Denver, CO: CB Resources.41. Baird (2003), p. 138.42. Goldman, S. M. (2008). Temptations in the office: Ethicalchoices and legal obligations. Westport, CT: Praeger.; Goldman,S. M. (2010, August 5). Loyalty vs. ethics: From the White Houseto the workplace. American Management Association. Retrievedfrom www.amanet.org/training43. Goldman (2008).
7 Exercising Ethical Influence
Learning Objectives> Explain moral frames.> Produce guidelines for selecting ethical compliance gainingtactics.> Contrast verbal aggressiveness and argumentation.> Formulate a strategy for communicating positive expectations tofollowers.> Describe the differences between integrative and distributivenegotiation.> Examine the ethical issues associated with each of the fiveinfluence tools.> Demonstrate how the five mental shortcuts lower resistance toinfluence attempts.The humblest individual exerts some influence, either forgood or evil, upon others.—HENRY WARD BEECHER, 19TH-CENTURYMINISTER AND ACTIVISTManagers get the subordinates they expect.—TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR EMERITUSDOV EDEN
What’s AheadIn this chapter, we’ll explore the ethical issues surrounding fivesets of influence tools that are particularly important to leaders:framing, compliance gaining, the communication of expectations,argumentation, and negotiation. After examining each type oftactic, I’ll end the chapter with a look at how leaders can resistunethical influence attempts.
Ethical Issues in InfluenceLeadership is based on the exercise of influence. Leading meansinfluencing since leaders must modify the attitudes and behaviorsof followers in order to help groups reach their goals. The key forleaders, then, is not whether to exercise influence but how to doso in an ethical manner. Selecting the appropriate tactic is one ofthe most important moral choices facing leaders, helpingdetermine whether they brighten or darken the lives of thosearound them. Ethical considerations should guide the use of thefollowing.
FramingSense making is one of a leader’s most important tasks. Followerslook to leaders to help them interpret the meaning of—to makesense of—mergers, acquisitions, market corrections, newcompetitors and technologies, changes in organizational structureand programs, tax reform, cyber hacks, and other events. Leadersfrequently use framing to make sense or meaning. In framing,leaders create a mental picture of the world and encouragefollowers to accept their frame or interpretation.1 Frames influenceactions by drawing attention to certain elements of a situationwhile diverting attention from others. Moral framing invokes moraland ethical values like respect for the individual, honesty, fairness,concern for the poor, and obligations to society.2As we noted in Chapter 6, many moral issues go unnoticedbecause leaders ignore ethics when interpreting events, whichresults in unethical choices and actions. Framing bribes and underthe table payments as “the cost of doing business,” for example,excuses such behavior. Over time, this frame becomes part of theorganization’s culture. This was the case at Brazil’s Petrobras oilcompany, where officials routinely made payments to politiciansand received kickbacks from corporations doing business with thefirm.3Ethical framing can have a significant positive impact on the moralperformance of organizations and followers. Consider the growingpopularity of triple bottom line accounting, for instance. In thepast, businesses defined success solely in financial terms andonly reported out financial data like profits and losses. Now, byreframing success to include care for communities and theenvironment, many firms publish data on corporate socialresponsibility and sustainability in addition to financialperformance. The result has been greater community outreachand reduced environmental impact.Moral framing begins by asking about the possible ethicalimplications of every event. Don’t remain morally mute but useethical terminology—“values,” “morals,” “duty,” “compassion”—to
interpret the situation. (See the Focus on Followership Ethics boxto see how subtle cues can help change the perception of asituation and change behavior.) Tie frames into the ethical codesand values of the organization. CEOs who take public politicalstances often justify their activism by pointing to core corporatevalues. Starbucks is driven to take stands on immigration issues,race relations, and other issues based on the company’s strongcommitment to social responsibility. Firms who have investedmillions in fostering diverse workplaces, like PayPal, supportdiversity in society. Their leaders oppose bans on Moslemimmigrants and attempts to cut back on LGBT rights.4There is no guarantee that others will accept our meaning.Frames are often contested, with others offering alternativeinterpretations. Fellow leaders and followers may deny that thereis a moral dimension to a situation, sticking to a pragmatic framefocused on cost, efficiency or some other practical consideration.Or they may offer a competing moral frame, as is often the casewhen debating public policy issues. Consider the debatesurrounding stem-cell research. Supporters of stem-cell researchadopt a care frame, emphasizing the lifesaving benefits of thestudies. Opponents use a sanctity frame that claims that suchresearch, because it involves the use of human embryos, violatesthe sanctity and sacredness of human life.5 (We’ll take a closerlook 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 seenas less competent and as less likeable. (This helps explain whymany managers remain morally mute.) Moral talk can be seen asundermining group harmony and may threaten long-standingorganizational unethical practices like nepotism and favoritism.6Focus on Follower Ethics The “Garlic Necklace” of Moral SymbolsThe best way to ward off blood-sucking vampires, according toancient myths, is to wear a necklace of garlic. ResearchersSreedhari Desai and Mayam Kouchaki wondered if moral symbolsmight act like garlic necklaces for followers, warding off unethicalrequests from leaders and improving the overall ethical climate of the
organization. Moral symbols stand for moral concepts and rangefrom material objects like crosses and bronze Buddhas to posterswith inspirational slogans to pictures of moral exemplars likeMahatma Gandhi and Desmond Tutu.To determine if moral symbols function as “garlic necklaces,” Desaiand Kouchaki conducted a series of studies where participantsserved as leaders. Leaders had to decide whether or not to lie and, ifcommunicating with another group, who on their team would carrythe false message. In most of the experiments, ethical followers wereidentified 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, theteam members were represented by avatars, one of whom wore a T-shirt advertising the website YourMorals.org. Leaders exposed to themoral quote and moral T-shirt were significantly less likely to senddeceptive messages themselves or through a follower. When theydid decide to send the false message to another team via a follower,they assigned an ethically neutral team member to the task, not anindividual citing the moral quote or wearing the moral T-shirt. Theresearchers then surveyed subordinate–supervisor dyads in India toestablish whether their findings would hold outside the experimentalsetting. Subordinates displaying pictures of Krishna and other gods,as well as other religious icons, received higher character ratingsfrom their bosses. At the same time, they received fewer unethicaldirectives from their leaders.Desai and Kouchaki conclude that moral symbols ward off unethicalrequests just as garlic necklaces reportedly repel vampires. Becausesuch symbols are seen as a sign of high moral character, leadersmake fewer unethical demands of those who display them. Moralsymbols also remind leaders of the ethical implications of theirbehaviors, reducing the likelihood that they will engage in deceptionand other unethical actions. Moral symbols are subtle and indirect(the researchers describe them as “ethical nudges”) but they canexert powerful upward ethical influence.Source: Desai, S. D., & Kouchaki, M. (2017). Moral symbols: Anecklace of garlic against unethical requests. Academy ofManagement Journal, 60, 7–28.
Compliance GainingCompliance-gaining strategies are the verbal tactics that leadersand others use to get their way. They are designed to achieveimmediate objectives by convincing targets to go along withrequests. Compliance gaining is common in daily life, as in askingto borrow a roommate’s car, convincing a friend to go with you tosee a movie, persuading a neighbor to not park in front of yourdriveway, and enlisting referees for the youth baseball league.Leaders routinely engage compliance gaining as well. Gary Yuklof the State University of New York at Albany and his associatesidentify the following as common proactive managerial influencetactics used in the organizational setting.7 (Complete Self-Assessment 7.1 to examine the compliance messages you sendand receive.)*Rational persuasion. Offering factual evidence, explanations,and logical arguments to illustrate that a proposal or requestwill attain task and organization objectives. Examples:“Customer surveys reveal that the website is hard to navigateand needs to be updated.” “Offering more courses onlineshould increase enrollment.”*Apprising. Explaining how compliance with a request willbenefit the target (e.g., help a career, make a job moreinteresting, bring recognition). Examples: “Taking thisoverseas assignment will put you on the fast track forpromotion to international sales manager.” “Serving on thiscommittee will give you more visibility around the company.”* Inspirational appeals. Generating enthusiasm byappealing to values and ideals; arousing emotions.Examples: “Installing the new emergency communicationsystem will reduce response times and save lives.” “Joiningour medical research team will put you on the front lines inthe fight against Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.”* Consultation. Soliciting support by seeking suggestions forimprovement; asking for input when planning an activity,strategy, or change. Examples: “How do you think we canretain more students?” “Take a look at this agenda for thestockholders meeting and let me know what you think.”
*Collaboration. Providing resources and assistance if thetarget complies with the request. Examples: “I can make thepresentation with you.” “If you agree to head the project, I willmake sure you have no other assignments.”*Ingratiation. Generating positive feelings by the use offlattery and praise before or during the request; expressingconfidence in the target’s ability to fulfill a difficult request.Examples: “Since you know the accounting software muchbetter than I do, you ought to create the financial report.” “Youshould approach the boss with our concerns since she trustsyou.”*Personal appeals. Appealing to feelings of loyalty andfriendship when asking for something. Examples: “Do me afavor and cover the front desk while I am gone.” “We’ve beenfriends for a long time, so I am counting on you to support mynew project.”*Exchange. Providing something the target wants in return forcompliance; trading favors; promising to reciprocate later orto share the benefits when the job is completed. Examples: “Ifyou support my farm bill, I’ll vote for your urban mass transitlegislation.” “Loan me some staff now and I’ll loan you somestaff when your department gets busy.”*Coalition tactics. Enlisting the help of others or the support ofcoworkers to convince that target to go along with therequest. Examples: “The board of directors really likes theexpansion proposal.” “Your colleague Sue from engineeringwas one of the first people to get behind this idea.”*Legitimating tactics. Claiming the right or authority to make arequest; aligning the request with the organization’s rules,policies, and traditions. Examples: “The policy manual states Iam eligible for two weeks’ vacation any time during my firstyear of employment.” “In the past, offices were allocatedaccording to seniority.”*Pressure. Demanding, threatening, checking up; persistentreminders. Examples: “If you don’t consistently make it towork on time, you’ll be fired.” “Have you had a chance toreview that personnel file yet?”Consider the power base of the tactic when selecting acompliance strategy. As we noted in Chapter 1, leaders can use
hard or soft power. Legitimating and pressure tactics (hard powerstrategies which are based on coercion and force) are moresusceptible to abuse. Rational exchange, inspirational appeals,collaboration and consultation strategies, which rely on attractionand positive relationships, are soft power tactics that pose lessdanger. (Yukl reports that they are generally more effective aswell.) However, the morality of a particular strategy rests on theends or goals we seek. We may need to use hard powerstrategies to achieve our ethical goals. Then, too, soft powertactics can be used to support illegitimate requests, such as whenexecutives collaborate with one another to steal from thecompany.John Hunter and Franklin Boster point out that compliance gainersmust decide just how much negative emotion they are willing togenerate in order to get their way.8 Attempts to gain complianceproduce emotional reactions in targets. Prosocial tactics, likerational persuasion, inspirational appeals, collaboration, andconsultation, are widely accepted and are more likely to producepositive feelings. Antisocial strategies such as pressure andlegitimation, which raise threat levels, are more likely to producenegative feelings. The risk of generating negative emotions needsto be balanced against the desired outcome, what Hunter andBoster call the emotional-ethical threshold. In some situations, theemotional-ethical threshold is high, such as when asking for apersonal favor at work. In these cases, we would probably beunwilling to use a strategy that put the other person in a bad moodbecause we are serving our own interests. In other situations, thethreshold is low. For example: when safety is at stake or whendealing with destructive behaviors like stealing, aggression andsexual harassment. In these cases, we are serving the interests ofother people and the organization. The cost of the negativefeelings (anger, resentment) is outweighed by the goals we seek.
Communication of ExpectationsThe expectations of leaders can have a powerful impact onfollowers. That’s because we tend to live up to the expectationsothers place on us. Investigators refer to this tendency as self-fulfilling prophecy or the Pygmalion effect, after the prince inGreek mythology. Pygmalion created a statue of a beautifulwoman, whom he named Galatea. After the figure was complete,he fell in love with his creation. The goddess Aphrodite took pityon the dejected prince and brought Galatea to life.The Pygmalion effect operates in a variety of settings.9 Forexample, patients in medical experiments receiving placebosimprove because they believe they will get better. Militarypersonnel labeled as having high potential live up to theexpectations of their superiors and are more likely to volunteer fordangerous special duty. The high expectations of teachers lead tohigher student test and IQ scores as well as to improvedperformance on cognitive tasks. Clients labeled as “high potential”are less likely to drop out of alcohol treatment programs thanthose described as “unmotivated.” Nursing home residents areless depressed and less likely to be admitted to hospitals whenstaff members believe these clients will respond more favorably torehabilitation. Patterns created through expectations tend topersist over time. One long-term study of 500 high schoolstudents found that their standardized math test scores in thetwelfth grade were influenced, in part, by the expectations theirteachers had of their mathematical aptitude in the fourth grade.10Self-fulfilling prophecies have a greater impact on someindividuals than others. Disadvantaged groups (those stereotypedas low achievers) tend to benefit most from positive expectations,as do those who lack a clear sense of their abilities or findthemselves in a new situation. Men seem to be more influencedby the expectations of their managers than are women.11Followers who believe that their leaders are trustworthy—competent, benevolent, and act with integrity—are moreresponsive to their influence attempts.12 Just as positive
expectations can raise performance, negative expectations lowerit. This is referred to the Golem effect (golem means “dumbbell” inYiddish).Expectations are communicated directly and indirectly. Directmethods include expressing confidence in others’ ability tocomplete the task, offering complements, and saying that youexpect a good final product. However, self-fulfilling prophecies aremore often communicated indirectly because they tend to operateat the subconscious level. Consider, for instance, that manyleaders believe that they treat all their followers the same wayeven when they don’t. They don’t realize that they are using thesefour channels to signal high or low expectancies:131. Climate. Climate describes the social and emotionalatmosphere leaders create for followers. Leaders act in afriendly supportive, accepting, and encouraging manner withpeople they like. They largely do so through nonverbalbehaviors that portray warmth and respect while avoidingbehaviors that communicate disrespect, coolness, andsuperiority. Supervisors and instructors signal positiveexpectations by giving adequate time to employees andstudents, holding appointments in pleasant surroundings,sitting or standing close to workers or class members,nodding and smiling, making frequent eye contact, and usinga warm tone of voice.2. Feedback. Leaders give more frequent positive feedbackwhen they have high expectations of followers, both praisingthem more often for success and criticizing them less oftenfor failure. In addition, leaders provide more detailedperformance feedback to high-expectation followers. Just theopposite occurs with those labeled as poor performers.Organizational supervisors praise their minimal performancemore, reinforcing the impression that they expect less fromthese employees.3. Input. Input refers to the attention and focus given tofollowers. Superiors give more significant projects andassignments to high potential workers. High expectationscreate a positive performance spiral. As employees receiveand successfully complete more tasks, they gain self-
confidence and the confidence of leaders. These outstandingperformers are then given further duties, which they are morelikely to complete as well.4. Output. Those tagged as high performers are given moreopportunities to speak, to offer their opinions, and todisagree. Leaders pay more attention to these followers whenthey talk and offer more assistance to them when they’resolving problems. In the classroom, teachers call on “highachievers” more than “low achievers,” wait less time for lowachievers to answer questions, and provide fewer clues andfollow-up questions to low achievers.14The Pygmalion effect poses some significant ethical dilemmas,starting with deception. Researchers tell leaders that groups differin ability even though members have been randomly assigned.This strategy could be used in organizations by telling managersthat selected subordinates have more potential when, in reality,there is no evidence to support that claim. Some might argue thatthis deceit would be justified because the organization wouldbenefit from the superior work of those labeled as highperformers. Nevertheless, this would mean lying to thesesupervisors, which, as in all cases of deception, demonstratesdisrespect for others and undermines trust.Ability grouping is also problematical. Companies routinely fasttrack some younger employees. Individuals identified as “highpotential” then get special training, are assigned to mentors,receive more challenging assignments, and so on. The fortunatefew selected for these experiences benefit from the Pygmalioneffect while everyone else may suffer from the Golem effect.Those not selected (average or low performers) receive lessencouragement and may live down to reduced expectations.Ability grouping in elementary school can be even more damagingbecause the impact of such labeling is long lasting. Poor readersand test takers grouped together may give up and fall further andfurther behind, never to catch up.Communicating high expectations to everyone in the group ororganization is an ethical alternative to deception and abilitygrouping.15 This approach is more just and encourages everyone
to do her or his best. Strategies for improving organization-wideperformance should focus on building follower self-efficacy or self-confidence. This can be done through (1) breaking down tasksinto manageable segments and providing followers with the timeto practice their skills, (2) delivering constructive suggestionsabout how to improve performance or how to carry out tasks, (3)modeling skills as well as positive thinking and how to deal withfailure, and (4) verbal persuasion (“I know you can do this.”)backed with reasons why the follower will succeed (“You havebeen trained to do this.”). In addition to fostering self-efficacy,encourage a learning orientation that emphasizes improvementtoward goals. Wanting to learn motivates people to develop theirskills and to look for effective task strategies. Mistakes are seenas an opportunity for development. Those who are focused onlearning take satisfaction in mastering challenging tasks. (To applythese 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 tocommunicate positive expectations, not negative ones. We shouldcarefully monitor our behavior, particularly subtle cues, to reduceinequities in our treatment of followers. We can also use theGalatea effect to insulate ourselves from the negativeexpectations of those who lead us. The Galatea effect (namedafter the statue in the Pygmalion myth) refers to the fact that highself-expectation leads to high performance. If we have highexpectations for our own performance, we will strive to reach thatstandard even when our leaders expect little from us. Meeting andexceeding standards encourages leaders to raise theirexpectations of us.16 We can also encourage followers to be theirown Galateas.There is one final ethical issue surrounding self-fulfilling prophecy:Just how high should our expectations be? Setting expectationstoo low frustrates followers and keeps them from reaching theirpotential. Setting expectations too high is unrealistic and unjust.Yet, there are times that leaders can convince followers to achievemore than they ever dreamed possible. That was the case with
Apple’s former CEO Steve Jobs. Time after time, he convinced hisengineers to meet seemingly impossible deadlines while inventingnew technologies. The young company competed successfullywith much larger firms because Jobs was able to persuadefollowers to buy into his vision of the future. Said one employee,“It was a self-fulfilling distortion. You did the impossible, becauseyou didn’t realize it was impossible.”17Obviously, goals that are realistic for one group of followers will bedifferent for another. However, when setting objectives, rememberthat specific goals are more effective than vague ones like “Doyour best.” Goals should be challenging but achievable andfollowers should be rewarded for making progress towardobjectives. Provide ongoing feedback to clarify expectations andto mark progress toward the goal.18
ArgumentationLeaders generally rely on arguments when they want to influenceothers who take a different side on controversial issues likeimmigration reform or tax increases. To succeed, they must builda strong case for their positions while, at the same time, refutingthe arguments of those who take alternative positions.Argumentation is important to leaders in every context. In smallgroups, argumentative members are more likely to emerge asleaders and groups that argue about ideas generate higher qualitysolutions.19 In organizations, supervisors must defend their ownideas and argue on behalf of subordinates.20 In public settings,political leaders, public relations specialists, lobbyists, and othersdebate the merits of raising the minimum wage, increasing foodsafety regulations, reducing carbon emissions, and other policies.(Complete Self-Assessment 7.2 to determine how willing you areto argue.)Ethical argument is based on the recognition of the differencebetween argumentation and verbal aggression. Argumentation isfocused on ideas. Speakers make assertions or claims that theysupport with evidence and reasons. They present and defendpositions with the ultimate goal of reaching the best solution forthe group. Verbal aggressiveness, on the other hand, is hostilecommunication that attacks the self-concepts of others instead of(or in addition to) their stands on the issues. Aggressive tacticsinclude21Competence attacks (“You’re clueless!”)Character attacks (“You’re a liar!”)InsultsTeasingRidiculeMaledictions (statements wishing harm to the other like “Dropdead.”)ProfanityPhysical appearance attacksThreats
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 andproduces a number of positive outcomes.22 Organizationalfollowers give higher ratings to supervisors who are argumentativebut not aggressive, and these leaders enjoy higher salaries andcareer satisfaction. Organizational leaders, in turn, preferfollowers who have similar traits, giving argumentative (but notaggressive) subordinates higher performance reviews. In contrast,verbal aggression demeans the other party while generating ahost of undesirable effects. Verbal aggressiveness has beenlinked, for instance, to spousal abuse and family violence and hasbeen found to reduce student learning and instructor credibility.Employees do not like to work for aggressive supervisors whothreaten their self-concepts.Lack of argumentative competence increases the chances thatleaders and others will engage in verbal aggression. If participantsdon’t know how to make an argument, they are more likely to fallback on insults, competence attacks, and other unethical tactics(including violence) as they to try to win the dispute. According toargumentation expert Dominic Infante, we can improve ourargumentation abilities and thus reduce the likelihood that we willrevert to verbal aggression. Infante outlines five skills that,collectively, make up argumentative competence.23Stating the controversy in propositional form.State the problem in the form of a proposition or proposal to clarifywhat the conflict is about. Framing the argument in the form of aproposal helps identify the sides that people are likely to take onthis issue while clarifying where you stand on the issue. You alsolearn what kind of information you need to gather. Propositions offact deal with what happened in the past (“Our electronic chipcompany failed to recognize that consumers were switching fromlaptops to mobile devices.”), the present (“Company revenues aredown.”), or the future (“Unless the company develops new chipsfor mobile devices, there will be major reductions in our
workforce.”). Propositions of value deal with issues of right orwrong: “CEO salaries are way too high.” “The country shouldaccept more immigrants from Syria.” Propositions of policy dealwith proposed courses of action, such as how to reduce gangviolence or how to secure more funding for social serviceprograms. Generally those making the proposition have theburden to prove that a change is in order.Inventing arguments.Once the controversy is clearly identified, you need to assembleyour arguments. Carefully examine the proposition and develop acase either for or against the proposal. Consider the nature andextent of the problem, who or what is to blame for the situation,possible solutions as well as the best resolution, and theconsequences (good and bad) that come from your solution. (Turnto Box 7.1 for additional information on how to assemblearguments.)Presenting and defending your position.Begin by stating what you want others to accept—the conclusionor 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 commonpatterns of logic include analogical (drawing similarities betweenone case and another), causal (one event leads to another),inductive (generalizing from one or a few cases to many), anddeductive (moving from a larger category or grouping to a smallerone). You can structure your argument by (1) highlighting theproblem and how your solutions will meet the need (problem–solution); (2) comparing the advantages of the proposal againstthe status quo (comparative advantage); (3) specifying the criteriafor an ideal solution and how your proposal meets thosestandards (ideal solution). End your presentation with a summaryof what you have established. You may need to supplement yourposition with further evidence and reason if it comes under attack.Attacking other positions.
This argumentative skill identifies the weaknesses in the evidenceand reasoning of the other party. However, we also have anethical obligation to identify the shortcomings of our ownarguments in order to eliminate them. Look for the followingfallacies of evidence and reasoning in your own position as wellas in the positions of others:24Faulty EvidenceUnreliable and biased sourcesSources lacking proper knowledge and backgroundInconsistency (disagrees with other sources, sourcecontradicts himself or herself)Outdated evidenceEvidence that appears to support a claim but does notInformation gathered from secondhand observersUncritical acceptance of statistical dataInaccurate or incomplete citation of sources and quotationsPlagiarism (using the ideas or words of others without properattribution)Faulty ReasoningComparing two things that are not alike (false analogy)Drawing conclusions based on too few examples or examplesthat aren’t typical of the population as a whole (hastygeneralization)Believing that the event that happens first always causes theevent that happens second (false cause)Arguing that complicated problems have only one cause(single cause)Assuming without evidence that one event will inevitably leadto a bad result (slippery slope)Using the argument to support the argument (begging thequestion)Failing to offer evidence that supports the position (nonsequitur)Attacking the person instead of the argument (ad hominem)Appealing to the crowd or popular opinion (ad populum)
Resisting change based on past practices (appeal totradition)Attacking a weakened version of an opponent’s argument(straw argument)Managing interpersonal relations.Prevent arguments from deteriorating into verbal aggression. Ifothers aren’t as skilled in argument as you, don’t humiliate themby showing off your argumentation skills. Save your best effortsfor those times you are matched with someone of equal ability.Emphasize equality and what you have in common; demonstratethat you are interested in their viewpoints. Let other participantsfinish their thoughts instead of interrupting and deliver yourmessages in a calm voice at a moderate pace. Infante outlines anargumentative response to those who go on the verbal attackagainst you: (1) Refute the verbally aggressive claim underlying apersonal attack; (2) point out the differences between argumentand verbal attack and suggest that the aggressor get back to theargument; (3) do not reciprocate the attack; (4) appeal to reasonby pointing out personal attacks are not rational and that thediscussion should stay on topic; (5) threaten to leave if the attacksdon’t cease (and carry through on your threat if necessary).Box 7.1 The Toulmin ModelProfessor Stephen Toulmin developed one widely used model fordeveloping arguments. In Toulmin’s system (which has elements incommon with Infante’s), the argument begins when an advocatestates a conclusion or claim based on fact (“The United Statesimprisons too many of its citizens.”); definition (“Vaping is a form ofsmoking.”); value (“The government owns too much land in theWest.”); or policy (“Off shore oil drilling should be permitted.”).Grounds or proof then support the claim. Grounding should bereliable, accurate, of high quality, consistent within itself and withother evidence, and acceptable to the audience. The warrant makesthe link from the grounds to the claim. It is the reasoning that justifiesthat the claim is true. Good warrants make sense—appear valid andrational—to listeners.In addition to these three primary elements, Toulmin introduces asecondary triad that can come into play when constructing a unit of
argument. Backing is additional evidence that supports the warrant,often providing important background information. To determine if toomany Americans are in jail, the audience may need to learn aboutthe history of the prison system in the United States, for instance.Qualifiers come into play when arguers need to account forexceptions; they reduce the force of the argument. For example,many abortion opponents argue that abortions should be outlawedexcept in cases of rape or incest. Rebuttals limit claims, showingwhen they might not be accurate as well as anticipating objections.For instance: “Future offshore oil drilling should be permitted, unlessgovernors 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: Anintroduction to argumentation. Boston, MA: Pearson.Along with distinguishing between argument and aggression anddeveloping our argumentative competence, we also need to setsome ethical ground rules for argumentation. German philosopherJürgen Habermas offers one such set of ethical guidelines calleddiscourse ethics.25 Habermas argues that communities—towns,societies, organizations—develop their policies and moral normsby making and refuting claims and assertions. For thesecommunity standards to be valid, everyone impacted by adecision has a right to be involved in making that determination,what Habermas calls the Principle of Universalization (PrincipleU):All affected can accept the consequences and the sideeffects its general observance can be anticipated to havefor the satisfaction of everyone’s interests (and theseconsequences are preferred to those of knownalternative possibilities for regulation).26 (Italics added)According to Principle U, all parties must be free to participate inthe discussion without fear of coercion and have roughly the samepower to influence each other. Participants should also be
prepared to justify their claims and ensure that their statementsare 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 argumentmore likely. In a democracy, the presumption is that citizens havea right to set the rules under which they live. Organizations aretypically less democratic but even then leaders can do their part tofoster ethical discourse. They can try to locate and involve allthose who have a stake in the decision and do their best to ensurethat these groups and individuals have a roughly equal voice.They can encourage employees to voice their concerns and resistthe temptation to suppress the expression of unpopular ideas.Organizational leaders also have an ethical obligation toencourage sound, truthful evidence and reasoning on the part ofall participants.
NegotiationNegotiation, like argumentation, involves influencing those whoactively disagree. However, while the goal of argument is toestablish the superiority of one position over another, the goal ofnegotiation is to reach a settlement that satisfies both sides. Thenegotiation process consists of back-and-forth communicationaimed at reaching a joint solution when people are indisagreement.27 A mix of compatible and incompatible interestsmarks all negotiations. If the parties didn’t share a common goal,they wouldn’t negotiate. On the other hand, they must be dividedby at least one issue or they wouldn’t have to negotiate to reachan agreement. Consider faculty–administration relationships, forinstance. Both sides share a common interest in seeing theuniversity survive and prosper as it carries out its mission toeducate students. However, faculty members seek higher salariesand benefits and want more colleagues so they can expand theirmajors and programs. Administrators, for their part, seek tobalance the budget. Campus executives have to make sure theycan cover not only faculty costs but also pay for other staff,building projects, and other needs. They want to control facultysalaries and hire as few faculty members as possible. Professorsand administrators have to negotiate their differences in order toretain faculty while assuring the school operates within its means.Leaders of all kinds engage in negotiation. Project managementteam leaders negotiate assignments with members. Corporatepurchasing agents settle on the price of goods and services withoutside suppliers. CEOs and boards negotiate the price of thecompanies they want to acquire. Legislators haggle over thefeatures of bills in order to pass them. Small business ownersbargain with commercial property companies over leaseagreements. Entertainment and sports agents, lawyers, andrealtors 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 ofthe settlement on those who are not at the bargaining table.28
Bargainers have a number of decisions to make about the tacticsthey will use. Most of these ethical dilemmas involve forms ofdeceit. Do I declare I will not go above a certain price when I amprepared to go higher? Do I lie about the facts supporting myposition? Do I threaten to pull out of the talks when I don’t intendto do so? Do I claim that my supporters won’t accept the terms ofa settlement that they really would agree to? Do I try to secretlygather information about the other party’s position? Do I makecommitments that my side is not prepared to keep? (For anexample of a leader who failed to keep his negotiation promise,see the Chapter 7 Leadership Ethics at the Movies case on thewebsite.)Some argue that deception is okay because both parties knowthat deceit is to be expected in negotiations. They treat bargaininglike a poker game. Just as we expect poker players to hide theircards and bluff about the hands they hold, when we enternegotiations we should anticipate deceit. However, not everyoneunderstands the “rules” of negotiation. As we’ll see, a cooperativenegotiator operates under a different set of assumptions than acompetitive one. Rules also vary by culture and may not be clearto visitors. Should tourists haggle over the price of bananas at aroadside stand in Honduras, for example? At the very least, deceitshows disrespect for the worth of the other party and thus violatesKant’s imperative to treat people as ends not means. Deceptionreflects self-centeredness, not the other centeredness at the heartof altruism.David Lax and James Sebenius suggest that we consider thefollowing queries when determining if we should use deceit as abargaining 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 havedone? The public?– Does the tactic conform to the norm of reciprocity—that wetreat others like we would like to be treated? How would youfeel if the roles were reversed?– Would you be comfortable counseling someone else to usethis strategy?
– If you were to design a negotiation system from scratch,would you allow this strategy? How would you rule on thistactic if you were an outside arbitrator?– What if everyone used the same method? Would this tacticcreate a desirable society?– Are there alternative tactics you can use to avoid lying anddeception?– How can you create value instead of claiming what youthink is rightfully yours?– Does using this tactic further poison the ethical atmospherefor this type of negotiation or in this industry?In addition to behaving honestly ourselves, we also need topromote honesty in the other party.30 Seek to reduce thedefensiveness that arises out of mutual suspicion by beingtrustworthy and by being willing to trust. Build a sense of mutualbenevolence or concern (“we-ness”). Look for similarities (e.g.,family and community ties), socialize with the other party, and holdprenegotiation sessions in neutral locations.Create opportunities for displaying trust by breaking thenegotiation process into stages. Demonstrating trust in one stepmakes it easier to trust in the next stage. Model trustworthiness bykeeping your promises, providing information and standing behindyour 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 negotiationwill impact future negotiations. If, despite your best efforts, youbelieve the other negotiator is lying, try the following tactics:31– Ask probing questions to reveal otherwise undisclosedinformation.– Phrase questions in different ways. For example, asking“How is the equipment?” when buying a manufacturing facilitymight elicit a technically true statement (“The equipment isworking fine.”). However, this reply may be hiding the truthyou really want to know. Ask how long the equipment isexpected to last instead. The answer might be “Theequipment is working well now but will have to be replaced intwo years.” That information could change your decision
about whether or not to purchase the plant and how muchyou would be willing to pay.– Force the other party who is evasive to tell an outright lie orto back down from the falsehood. Most people prefer todeceive by omission, which is leaving information out of themessage, 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 youalready know the answer. His or her answer will reveal his orher trustworthiness.– Call attention the fact that you believe the other party isbluffing or lying.– Ignore the deception if it is only a minor part of thenegotiation. Some people believe that bluffing and lying areexpected in negotiation. They may become more cooperativelater in the negotiation process.The second set of ethical issues in negotiation concerns how theoutcomes of the negotiation are distributed. Unequal settlementsare condemned as unfair. For example, Walmart has beencriticized for squeezing the last penny out of its suppliers. In somecases, Walmart buyers refuse to pay more for products evenwhen they cost more to make.32 Some vendors have gone out ofbusiness as a result. (Case Study 7.2 describes another companyaccused of using unfair tactics to generate of unfair outcomes.)Determining exactly what is fair can be difficult, but making sureall sides benefit is a good start.33 Also, some of the questionsabout tactics can be applied to determining fairness as well. Doesthe settlement violate norms of reciprocity? Would you counselothers to follow the same approach? What if everyone claimed adisproportionate amount of the benefits? What kind of societywould that create? Remember, too, that the structure of thebargaining process can be problematic. That’s why it is hard for anillegal farm worker to bargain with a fruit grower who can have himdeported. Walmart can dictate terms to suppliers because it is sobig and accounts for so much of their business. When thebargaining table is so uneven, make additional effort to ensure theprocess is conducted as fairly as possible.
The third set of ethical issues shifts attention beyond thosedirectly involved in the negotiation. Decisions made by bargainerscan have a negative impact on outside groups. For instance,when the local city council agrees to pay much more for garbageremoval, all citizens pay the higher rates. Then, too, settlementscan adversely impact the environment and future generations.Take the case of landowners who negotiate agreements with oilcompanies who use fracking to release gas and oil. The propertyowners may get generous settlements, and the firms gain accessto the energy they need to generate profits. However, fracking,which involves injecting water deep underground, cancontaminate water sources, release radioactive materials fromshale, and cause small earthquakes. One way to minimize thepotential damage of a settlement is to keep the interests ofoutside stakeholders—current and future—in mind. Consider thelegacy you want to leave behind. Would you want to be knownand remembered for the terms of this settlement?Bargainers typically adopt either a distributive or integrativeapproach to negotiation.34 Distributive negotiators think in win–lose terms. They assume that they are locked in a battle over afixed “pie” or value. To them, any gains by one party come at theexpense of the other party. Integrative negotiators adopt a win–win approach. They are convinced that the pie can be expandedand that both parties can benefit. They view negotiation as jointproblem-solving sessions. These contrasting perspectivesgenerate very different behaviors:Integrative NegotiationDistributive NegotiationOpen sharing of informationHidden informationTrade of values interestsDemand of interestsInterest-based discussionPositional discussionMutual goalsSelf goals
Integrative NegotiationDistributive NegotiationProblem solvingForcingExplanationArgumentRelationship buildingRelationship sacrificingHard on problemHard on peopleSource: 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 distributivebargainers are more likely to engage in unethical negotiationbehavior. They are tempted to deceive, generate unfairsettlements and enter into agreements that have negativeconsequences for outsiders. Leaders, then, should adopt anintegrative approach whenever possible. Nonetheless, there doappear to be times when the situation calls for a win–loseapproach, such as when buying a used car. We also risk beingtaken advantage of if we come to the table with an integrativeapproach and the other party is to get as much as she or he can.Harvard negotiation experts Roger Fisher, William Ury, and BrucePatton developed one widely used integrative approach thatequips negotiators to take a win–win approach while protectingthemselves from being victimized. They call their problem-solvingapproach the principled negotiation model. Here are the four stepsof principled negotiation:351. Separate the people from the problem. Make sure youaddress the human side of negotiation. Try to build a goodworking relationship from the start. (See Box 7.2 for moreinformation on how the identities of negotiators canundermine relationship building.) Visualize yourself sitting atthe same side of the table as the other person, working
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 buttry to understand his or her perspective. Deal with anymisconceptions they have of you. Recognize and address theemotions both sides feel. Don’t react to emotional outburstsbut let the other party let off steam. Actively listen; addressthe other party directly (not outsiders); use “I” language (“I amdisappointed with your latest offer”) rather than “you”language (“You are trying to take advantage of me”); andthink carefully about what you want to say.2. Focus on interests, not positions. A bargaining position is thenegotiator’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 thenegotiator takes that position. Focusing on positions blindsnegotiators to the fact that an interest can be met severalways. In the salary example, the interest of the employee ishaving enough money to afford housing in an expensive city.This interest could be met with a smaller salary combinedwith a housing allowance. Or perhaps the company couldloan the money for down payment on a house, a loan that isforgiven after several years of employment. In the case of aborder wall, the underlying interest is border security. Bordersecurity can be enhanced, not just by a wall, but byreinforcing current barriers; making more use of drones,lasers, and other high tech devices; beefing up checkpointswhere drugs flow in; increasing the number of border agentsand immigration judges; and helping Mexico provideopportunities for Central American refugees on their side ofthe border.Remember that basic human needs like security, well-being, belonging, control over one’s life, and recognitioncan play an important role in negotiations. In talksbetween the United States and Mexico, for example, theU.S. Secretary of Energy refused to pay a higher pricefor natural gas, a price negotiated earlier by an oilconsortium. The energy secretary (who assumed that thenegotiation was about money only) thought that theMexicans would give in and lower the price because they
didn’t have another buyer. But the Mexicans also had aninterest 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 optionsleads to decisions that are better for both sides.Nevertheless, negotiators often skip this step because theycome to premature judgment, look for one single answer,assume that there is one fixed pie, and believe that the otherside is responsible for solving their own problems. Toovercome these obstacles, bargainers need to separateinventing options from deciding on them, broaden theiroptions, look for mutual gain, and provide other parties with adecision that is easy to accept. Consider the creative solutiongenerated by a man and a woman in a wine shop. They bothreached for the last bottle of a particular vintage. Neither waswilling to give up the prize. The man wanted the winebecause he and his wife drank this particular wine on theirfirst date and they were going to celebrate their firstanniversary. The woman, who was a bottle collector, neededthis wine bottle for her collection but she didn’t drink wine. Inthe end, they decided to share the cost of the wine. Thehusband promised to send the bottle to the collector after heand his wife consumed its contents.364. Insist on objective criteria. Don’t get into a battle of wills asyou approach the final agreement, as one of you will have toback down. One party may force the other into anunsatisfactory solution as a result. Instead, agree on a set ofcriteria when coming to a settlement. Employ fair standards.This might include referring to the Kelly Blue Book for usedcar prices, for instance, or the Zillow real estate website forarea home values. Use fair procedures—taking turns, turningto an outside expert—as well. One fair procedure is theforced-choice technique. When you were young, your mom ordad may have used this strategy to divide up cakes and pies.In this procedure, one child cuts the pie and the other getsthe first choice of which slice to take. Bargainers used thesame approach to divide up deep seabed mining sites in theLaw of the Sea negotiations. Half of the mining sites were tobe mined by private companies from richer nations and the
other half by the United Nations on behalf of poorer countries.The poorer nations worried that the private miningcompanies, which were more knowledgeable, would keep thebest sites to themselves. To break the deadlock, negotiatorsdetermined that the private firm would present the UN groupwith two sites and the UN would then select one. The privatecompany thus had incentive to offer two promising locationssince it didn’t know which site it would get.Box 7.2 Stepping Beyond Our Tribal MindsBuilding a negotiating relationship with the other party is nearlyimpossible if we are trapped by our identities. Identities are made upof (1) beliefs, (2) rituals (holidays, daily prayers, dinners withcolleagues), (3) allegiances or loyalties to individuals or groups (pastor present), (4) values, and (5) intense emotional experiences (lifechanging events that define us). According to Daniel Shapiro,founder of the Harvard International Negotiation Program, identitiesare tribal. That is, our identities bind us to groups or tribes. We defineourselves as Irish Catholics, gays, engineers, Googlers (Googleemployees), New Yorkers, gun owners, and so on. Our identitiesoften keep us from understanding the perspective of the other partyand heighten conflict rather than building collaboration. Shapiroargues that identities do the most damage in emotionally chargedconflicts, such as between work team members divided alongcultural lines, senior corporate leaders battling over budgets andvalues, and neighborhoods divided into racial and ethnic groups.To step beyond our tribal minds, we need to1. Stop vertigo. Vertigo is a warped or dizzying sense ofconsciousness where the relationship with the other partyconsumes all of our emotional energies. (You may haveexperienced this sensation when breaking up with a partner orin a confrontation with a coworker.) We fixate on the conflictand get trapped into unhealthy patterns, focusing on thenegative (even from the distant past). To step out of thistrancelike state, recognize the symptoms and try to reframe therelationship through such tactics as making an unexpectedapology, 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 dealwith the negative.
2. Resist the repetition compulsion. Shapiro defines the repetitioncompulsion as “a dysfunctional pattern of behavior that you feeldriven to repeat.” This compulsion prompts us to hide painfulfeelings, to avoid dealing with conflict or to lash out during anegotiation. We repeatedly engage in these behaviors even ifwe have vowed not to do so again. To break the pattern, bealert to topics that trigger the cycle and preempt them (changewhen you address money or other emotional issues, forinstance). Try a new behavior instead of repeating the old one.For example, talk about painful emotions rather than hidingthem.3. Acknowledge taboos. Taboos identify actions, feelings, andthoughts that are off-limits, creating boundaries between theacceptable and the forbidden. Families have many suchtaboos: “Don’t have sex outside of marriage.” “Don’t have anycontact with the sister who is alienated from the rest of thefamily.” “Don’t criticize dad for smoking.” Violations bringpunishments (feelings of guilt, excommunication, publiccriticism). Taboo organizational issues generally center around(1) personal expression (“Don’t share company secrets withoutsiders.”), (2) blasphemy or disrespect for the sacred (“Don’tdisrespect the company founder.”), or (3) association (“Don’tdate a person from the firm’s major competitor.”). Recognizethe power of taboos over your behavior and that of the otherperson. Establish a safe zone where sensitive topics can betemporarily discussed without repercussions. Consider whetherto accept the taboo, to slowly break it down, or to completelyeliminate it.4. Respect the sacred. The sacred refers to our deepest beliefs,what we believe has “divine” significance. Divine can refer tothe religious (the Buddha, the Passover, the Bible) or to thesecular (a beloved leader, a family member or an event like the911 terror attack). The power of the sacred can be seen in theoutrage sparked by author Salmon Rushdie. He was marked fordeath when he violated what many Moslems view as sacred inhis book The Satanic Verses. Rushdie risked death because heviewed artistic freedom as sacred.Be sensitive to the sacred when negotiating. Recognizethe issues that spark the passion of the other party. Listento their stories. Note when the other party sets aside timefor sanctified activities, as well as places—mosques,synagogues, temples, schools, hospitals—that serve assacred sanctuaries and cannot be desecrated. Speaksacred, not secular language. Instead of talking abouttangibles like money, terms, and contracts, speak of moral
and spiritual values and concerns and draw on metaphorand narrative.5. Use identity politics to unify. Employ your identity to achieveyour political purpose. Be aware of the political landscape—centers of power, influential formal and informal leaders, whomthe other party reports to. Instead of defining yourself by whatyou stand against, create a positive identity—honest,trustworthy, values driven—that will help you in futurenegotiations.“Emphasize the relentless we” in negotiations bycontinually reinforcing the message that you and the otherparty are working together to come up with a solution.Design an inclusive decision-making process byidentifying what is to be decided, who will be affected, andhow much input each stakeholder should have in makingthe decision. Some parties will be excluded from thenegotiation; others will be consulted; others will conductthe negotiation; and still others will need to be informedafter the decision has been reached.Source: Shapiro, D. (2017). Negotiating the nonnegotiable: How toresolve your most emotionally charged conflicts. New York, NY:Penguin.
Resisting InfluenceUp to this point our focus has been on making ethical use ofinfluence strategies. However, along the way I noted that, asleaders, we must also resist unethical influence attempts. Wemust be prepared to resist the power of low expectations. Whenfaced with verbal aggression, we need to respond withargumentative competence. When negotiators try to takeadvantage of us, we should refuse to be victimized. Our groupsand organizations suffer if we fail to resist unethical influence.Possible costs include engaging in unethical and illegal (and evendeadly) activities, hiring the wrong employees, paying too muchfor goods and services, giving to unworthy causes, underminingthe organization’s mission and values, and taking unnecessaryrisks.Recognizing our vulnerability to persuasive attempts lays thefoundation for resisting them. Unfortunately, just as weoverestimate how ethical we are (see Chapter 6), we alsooverestimate our ability to resist influence. Researchers describethis overconfidence as the illusion of invulnerability. We believethat while others can be fooled by salespeople and otherpersuaders, we are immune to such manipulation. But we aremistaken.37 We have probably all have regretted giving intounreasonable requests, purchasing products that didn’t live up totheir hype or supporting politicians who made promises theycouldn’t possibly keep.Acknowledging that we can be victimized should put us on thealert, thus increasing our resistance.38 This recognition is criticalgiven the fact that persuaders often take advantage of mentalshortcuts to exert unethical influence. Arizona State socialpsychologist Robert Cialdini describes these intuitive shortcuts as“automatic, click-whirr responses.”39 Such shortcuts are becomingincreasing important as technology increases the pace of life. It isimpossible to carefully evaluate every piece of information thatcomes to us through Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, websites, digitalbooks, papers and magazines, cell phones, cable television,streaming video, and other sources. To cope with this flood of
data, we frequently make decisions based on a single piece ofinformation instead of considering the entire situation. Thesemental shortcuts help us deal with information overload and savetime. For example, many of us associate price with quality (“If it isexpensive it must be better.”) and believe that putting somethingon sale automatically makes it a bargain. Automatic responsesproduce poor choices if profiteers and others take advantage ofthe shortcuts to their advantage. Higher price doesn’t guaranteequality and the item on sale may have been grossly overpriced tobegin with, meaning it still isn’t a bargain.Recognizing the triggers that activate our click-whirr responsesshould prompt us to take a critical look at persuasive attempts andto avoid costly missteps. Important triggers include the following.
Reciprocation (Give-and-Take)Reciprocation—the obligation to repay others—is a universalnorm of human society that encourages cooperation. We feelobligated to respond in kind to the help that we have receivedfrom others. The power of reciprocation is long lasting. FollowingHurricane Katrina in 2005, the Netherlands provided floodassistance to New Orleans to repay the city for the help itprovided to the Dutch after a 1953 flood.Marketers, salespeople, and public relations professionals arewell aware of this standard of human behavior. The AudubonSociety, the March of Dimes, and other charities send out freeaddress labels, calendars, and even stamps in hopes thatrecipients will return the favor by making a donation. Go towarehouse retailer Costco on a weekend and you might be able toeat an entire lunch made up of free samples of cheese, crackers,fruit, sausage, pizza, juice, smoothies, and other foods. Shoppersoften respond by buying the items, not because they always tastegood, but because they feel a sense of obligation. Lobbyistsdonate to Congressional representatives in hopes they willreciprocate 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, asa result, targets are more likely to comply with it. Also, the followup request appears more reasonable than the first one. Cialdinifell victim to this tactic when a Boy Scout approached him tospend $5 on tickets to a circus. He refused. However, when theScout then asked him to buy $1 candy bars, he agreed eventhough he doesn’t like chocolate bars. On a more serious note,rejection and retreat may have been behind the Watergatescandal. Nixon’s reelection committee agreed to this $250,000plan by G. Gordon Liddy to break into Democratic partyheadquarters after first rejecting his earlier proposals for two muchmore elaborate plans to carry out campaign dirty tricks. Oneearlier plan would have cost $1 million and the other $500,000.
Committee members probably thought the $250,000 Watergateproject was a bargain.The reciprocity norm can lead to disastrous decisions, as theWatergate Scandal demonstrates. It can also produce unwanteddebts and trigger unequal exchanges. Concerns about reciprocityare behind attempts to limit political contributions, to limit the sizeof gifts that buyers can receive from suppliers, and to preventmedical school faculty from working for drug companies.One way to resist the power of reciprocity is by turning down theinitial favor. Don’t take free samples at the store, don’t accept freetrials of Amway products, turn down contributions fromcontroversial donors, don’t accept golf outings and lavish dinnersfrom suppliers, and so on. Another strategy is to determine if theoffer is genuinely offered. If it is genuine, then reciprocate. If it is atrick, then you are under no obligation to return the favor. Finally,you can turn the tables on unethical influencers. Use the addresslabels, eat the free cheese and crackers, accept a road atlas, andattend a free financial planning dinner and presentation but don’tgive anything in return.
Commitment and ConsistencyThe second mental shortcut comes out of the desire to appearconsistent with previous choices and actions. Consistencyreduces the need for careful thought and reduces the likelihood ofregret or dissonance after making a decision. Commitments playan important role in consistency. Once we make a commitment,no matter how minor, we want to remain consistent. Using smallcommitments to leverage bigger ones is called the foot-in-the-doorstrategy. Donors who give small amounts at first are likely to followup with larger contributions and may even volunteer for theorganization. Small sales convert prospects into customers whoare likely to make further purchases. Writing down goals increasesthe likelihood that individuals will follow through and reach thoseobjectives.Public statements increase the power of commitment. During theKorean War, some American prisoners made pro-communiststatements. When their comments were posted around camp orbroadcast on the radio, these captives stood by their declarations.Those who want to lose weight or quit smoking are more likely tosucceed if they publicly commit to do so. In addition, the greaterthe effort that goes into the commitment, the more likely that theindividual will stay the course. Fraternity hazing ritualsdemonstrate this principle. During Hell Weeks at some colleges,initiates stand in the snow, suffer beatings, drink until they passout, are locked in dark rooms, and so on. These hardshipsincrease, not decrease, their loyalty to the group and they areeager to make next year’s pledges undergo the same painfulexperiences. (Case Study 7.3 examines the power of hazing inmore detail.)Finally, when an attitude is internalized through commitment, it ishighly resistant to change. The power of internalization wasdemonstrated in one experiment designed to promote energysaving. Investigators promised Iowa homeowners that if theysaved energy their names would be put in the local newspaper.When the experimenters withdrew the promise of publicity (an
external reward), the homeowners actually increased their energysaving because they had internalized the commitment to do so.The commitment trigger can be used for good ends, such as toincrease contributions to charities and to recruit more volunteers.Nonetheless, unscrupulous persuaders often use this tactic to getus to buy unneeded items, to go along with unethical requests andso on. Cialdini admits that it would be impossible (andundesirable) to eliminate this shortcut from our lives. However, heurges us to avoid dangerous consistency by listening to ourstomachs 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 youare aware of his or her methods. If we feel a momentary doubtabout our decision, ask, “Would I make the same choice again?” Ifnot, then don’t make the decision in the first place.
Social ProofIn many social situations, we look to others to determine how weshould behave, a fact that advertisers seize on to declare thatproducts are “best sellers” or to declare that they are the “fastestgrowing” companies. Uncertainty increases the impact of socialproof. If we don’t know how to interpret the situation, we are morelikely to look to others for guidance. This helps account for the factthat so many act as passive bystanders. (See the discussion forbecoming an active bystander in Chapter 4.) Onlookers fail tointervene to help shooting victims or those suffering from strokesor other health emergencies. In many cases, passersby are notsure if the individual is hurt. If others walk on, they assume thatthere is no emergency and pass by themselves. This is morelikely in crowded cities where citizens are distracted and are lesslikely to know one another.Due to the power of social proof, one well publicized suicide orschool shooting is often followed by copycat suicides and massshootings. Social proof also helps bind members, who may beisolated and uncertain how to act, to extremist groups andreligious cults.To resist the social proof trigger, disengage the automatic pilot.Recognize counterfeit evidence of social proof. Actors, forexample, give many commercial testimonials and laugh tracksdon’t mean a situation comedy is funny. Recognize, too, that thereis “pluralistic ignorance” that can lead us to the wrong conclusion.A respected bank in Singapore saw a run on its funds for noparticular reason. Why? During a bus strike a large crowdgathered at a bus stop in front of the bank. Passersby panicked,thinking that that the crowd was there to withdraw funds from afailing bank. Other passersby then got in line to take out funds andthe bank was forced to close in order to avoid a complete crash.
LikingMost of us recognize that we are more likely to comply with therequests of people we like. This helps explain the success of theDiscovery Toy party where acquaintances buy from friends andneighbors who host the gatherings. Liking is based on a numberof factors, including (1) physical appearance (more attractivepeople are more likely to get elected, to avoid jail, and to gethelp), (2) similarity (in dress, hobbies, age, religion, habits,political party), (3) compliments (statements of liking,complements, praise), (4) contact and cooperation (familiaritybreeds 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 thosein their social circles, convincing fellow church members, friends,club members, and others to put their money into worthlessinvestments.Liking is a powerful force that is almost impossible to resist.Rather than spend energy on resisting, determine instead if theliking is justified. Do you like the persuader more than you should,given the circumstances? If so, then separate the person from theproposal. Focus on the merits of the deal instead.
AuthorityObeying authority allows organizations, communities, andsocieties to coordinate their activities. However, blind obediencecan be disastrous, such as when nurses obey the misguideddirectives 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 realauthority. We are more likely to obey when persuaders haveprestigious titles (MD, Professor, Reverend), are dressed in thecloak of authority (suits, uniforms), and are surrounded by statussymbols like fancy jewelry, spacious corner offices and largehouses.When confronted with an authority figure’s influence attempt, ask,“Is this authority truly an expert?” Consider both the person’scredentials as well as the relevance of the credentials to the issueat hand. Consider the trustworthiness of the source as well. Evenif the expert is truly an expert, she or he may not act in your bestinterest. A financial planner might put you in a poor investment, forexample, if she or he gets a generous commission for selling thisparticular product.
ScarcityThe scarcity principle is based on the notion that whenopportunities are less available, they appear more valuable.Companies take advantage of this shortcut when they declare, forinstance, that there are limited seats left on a particular flight orthat the mattress sale ends soon. Scarcity gains its power fromthe fact that things that are tough to get are generally better butalso from the fact that we react against restrictions on ourfreedoms. Gun sales soar when new regulations are proposed(even if there is little chance that they will pass). Censoring sexualcontent can make it more desirable.The scarcity principle exerts the most influence when items orinformation are newly scarce, such as when a government grantsrights to traditionally oppressed groups. If these new rights arerestricted, the dispossessed are more likely to rebel. Competitionamps up the impact of scarcity. Consider, for example, thestampede of customers at retailers during Black Friday sales.Occasionally individuals are crushed to death as shoppers battlefor bargains. A number of firms use competitive games to boostemployee engagement and productivity. Employees, who canmeasure their progress against their coworkers, compete forprizes or enter lotteries to win gifts and bonuses.40 Leaders canalso find themselves caught up in competition that clouds theirjudgment. CEOs competing with rivals to buy another firm mayoffer too much. Sports executives can find themselves payingexorbitant amounts for free agents when they bid against otherteams.Because scarcity muddles our thinking, this trigger is hard toresist. We often find our blood pressure rising when we compete.Yet, this physical reaction should signal us to calm down andproceed with caution. Consider the fact that function, not scarcity,brings value. An item, person or entity has value because of itsusefulness, not because of how scarce it is. Pay only what theitem, company, or free agent is worth to you and your organizationregardless of its limited availability.
Implications and ApplicationsSelecting the appropriate influence tactic is one of the mostimportant 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’smost important tasks. Leaders create mental pictures or framesto help create meaning. Frames influence actions by drawingattention to certain elements of situations while divertingattention from others. Moral frames, which invoke moral andethical values, can have a significant positive impact on moralperformance. To create a moral frame, look for the ethicalimplications of every event, use ethical terminology, and tie theframe into the ethical codes and values of the organization.Compliance-gaining tactics are direct attempts to get targets togo along with requests. Prosocial strategies (rationalpersuasion, inspirational appeals, coordination, collaboration)are based on soft power and are more likely to generatepositive emotions in receivers. Antisocial tactics (legitimating,pressure) are more threatening and generate negative feelings.Be cautious about using antisocial tactics but recognize that themorality of a strategy depends on the ends it serves. Consideryour emotional-ethical threshold—how far you are willing to goto generate negative emotions in order to get your way.Your expectations as a leader can have a powerful impact onyour followers who live up or down to your expectancies.Positive self-fulfilling prophecies (the Pygmalion effect) improveperformance. Negative prophecies (the Golem effect) lowerperformance. You can combat the negative expectations thatyour leaders have of you by having high expectancies ofyourself (the Galatea effect).Use direct and indirect methods to communicate positiveexpectations. Direct means include statements of support andcomplements. Indirect channels include (1) climate (positivesocial 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, abilitygrouping and setting unrealistic expectations. Instead, seek toraise the performance of the entire group through building self-efficacy and promoting a learning orientation. Set specific,challenging yet reasonable goals. Provide ongoing feedbackand reward progress toward the objectives.Argumentation is the key to influencing others who takeopposing positions on controversial issues. To engage in moralargument, first recognize the difference between constructive
argumentation, which focuses on ideas, and destructive verbalaggression, which attacks the self-concepts of others.You are more likely to engage in argument, not verbalaggression, if you develop your argumentative competence.Competent argument is based on five skills: (1) stating thecontroversy in propositional form, (2) inventing arguments, (3)presenting and defending your position, (4) attacking otherpositions, and (5) maintaining positive relations with otherarguers.Setting ethical ground rules can increase the likelihood thatparticipants will engage in moral argument. Try to include thosewho are impacted by the decision in the discussion, allow allvoices to be heard, and monitor the quality and truthfulness ofclaims, evidence and logic.Negotiation is back and forth communication designed to reacha settlement that satisfies both sides when parties sharecompatible and incompatible interests. Keep in mind the threeethical issues you’ll face as a negotiator: choice of tactics, thedistribution of benefits, and the impact of the settlement onoutsiders. Avoid deception and promote honesty in the otherparty. Ensure fair distribution of outcomes. Minimize damage tooutside stakeholders.Avoid distributive bargaining, a win–lose approach tonegotiation, which may tempt you to engage in unethicaltactics. Take an integrative or win–win approach that promotesethical behaviors instead.Principled negotiation is one integrative approach to negotiationthat protects bargainers from being taken advantage of. Toengage in principled negotiation (1) separate the people fromthe problem; (2) focus on interests, not positions; (3) inventoptions for mutual gain; and (4) and insist on objective criteriawhen reaching a settlement.As a leader, you will need to resist influence as well as exertinfluence. Mental shortcuts make us vulnerable to unscrupulouspersuaders and can be costly to our groups and organizations.Defend against triggers that generate automatic and sometimesfaulty (costly, unethical) compliance: reciprocation (give-and-take), commitment and consistency, social proof, liking,authority, and scarcity.For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment1. Think of a major change or event in your college or otherorganization. How is this development being framed? Are there
competing frames and who is offering them? How do theseframes shape how members understand and respond to thechange or event? Do any of the frames invoke moral values?Write up your findings and share them with other classmembers.2. What expectation does your leader have of you? How does sheor he communicate these expectations? If these expectationsare low, how can you counteract their effect and raise theexpectancies of your leader? Write up your conclusions.3. What has been your experience with ability grouping? Is thisstrategy unethical? Share your thoughts with a partner.4. Identify forms of faulty evidence and reasoning in a publicargument about an ethical issue. Draw from websites, blogs,newspaper editorials, speeches, interviews, debates,congressional hearings, and other sources. Possible topicsmight include gun control, capital punishment, geneticallymodified foods (GMOs), dam removal, global warming, andnational health insurance. Evaluate whether the sources areengaged in ethical argument according to the guidelines ofdiscourse ethics.5. Develop an argument based on a topic assigned by yourprofessor. Join with others who take the same side as you andpresent and defend your position.6. Pair off with someone else and compare your responses onSelf-Assessment 7.1 or Self-Assessment 7.2. Describe yourconclusions and what you learn from completing the exercise.7. Prepare for a negotiation using the steps of the PrincipledNegotiation method. How will you separate the people from theproblem? Identify your interests while acknowledging theirinterests? What might be some creative win–win options forsettlement? What might be objective criteria that could be usedto reach a fair agreement?8. Identify the influence triggers used in the commercials in anhour of television. Are the advertisers making unethical use ofthese strategies? Does identifying the short cut increase yourresistance to the influence attempt?Student Study SiteVisit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGEjournal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.
Case Study 7.1Going DigitalAfter 125 years, the South Town Press is going digital. A largeConnecticut-based newspaper chain recently purchased South Town,which is the only paper in a medium-size Alabama city. Soon South Townwill be converting from traditional daily paper delivery to an online format.Executives at headquarters decided to make this change at all of thechain’s papers in response to shifting reading habits. The subscriber basefor traditional newspapers is shrinking as more people access their newsthrough phones, tablets, and computers. The chain’s owners believe thatgoing to a digital format will ensure that its publications survive.Converting to a digital format is a major challenge, particularly for anewspaper with a long history like South Town. Every aspect of theoperation 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 technicalsupport staff will be hired.Alicia Pia has been assigned as the new publisher at South Town Pressto oversee the transition. Pia has a long history in the newspaperbusiness. She believes that journalism is more important than ever givenrecent attacks on the media. Alicia recently led the move to digitalpublishing at another of the company’s papers in the Midwest. Thattransition succeeded but at a high cost. Employees didn’t think they couldmake the change, which slowed the process, and some quit. Salespeoplestruggled to sell digital ads and the number of online subscriptions waslow at first, though circulation eventually rebounded. Some of the initialdigital editions of the paper crashed due to technical problems.Alicia wants to learn from her prior experience to ensure a smootherswitch over at South Town Press. She believes that South Townemployees have the ability to make the change but, like the staff at herlast post, lack confidence in their ability to do so. She also knows thatlayoffs will initially lower employee morale.Pia takes a couple of days before arriving at South Town to develop astrategy for the transition. In addition to all the technical details, she givescareful thought to whom she needs to influence and what she wants tocommunicate to each group and individual. She knows she wants toboost the confidence of both the entire staff of 40 while setting a highstandard for her leadership team made up of the news editor, informationsystems manager, circulation manager, and advertising manager. She
wants all employees to know that they are doing important work thatsupports a greater cause—a free press. However, she is not sure how heshould go about conveying these messages to her staff and team.
Discussion Probes1. How should Alicia frame this change to employees at South TownPress? What ethical messages should she communicate? Whatalternative frames might be offered by workers and subscribers?How should she respond to these interpretations?2. What obstacles does Pia face in communicating high expectationsto 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 highexpectations to each individual member of her leadership team?
Case Study 7.2Don’t Mess With the Mouse: LaborNegotiations at DisneyDisney employees were excited to learn that they would be getting a$1,000 bonus after the federal government lowered the tax rate for majorcorporations. The Disney company announced that it would give a portionof a $1.6 billion tax windfall to 125,000 nonmanagement workers. Theexcitement was short-lived, however, for the company’s union employees.Disney officials threatened to withhold the bonus unless members of theService Trades Council Union representing housekeepers, kitchen staff,shop clerks, and other low-wage employees ratified the company’s latestcontract offer. Ninety-three percent of the union membership hadpreviously rejected the contract proposal, which called for a 50-cent anhour 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 contractproposal. The union representing employees at Disneyland Resort filed acomplaint under the National Labor Relations Act, alleging that Disneywas withdrawing the bonus as a threat against workers. For its part,Disney claimed that the bonus should be included as part of anysettlement.Those familiar with Disney’s history shouldn’t be surprised by the latestlabor 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 theHouse Un-American Activities Committee as a platform to condemn thestrikers as Communists. In 2008, visitors to Disney parks were greeted byunion protestors dressed as Snow White, Tinkerbell, and other Disneyfigures holding picket signs. In 2017, the company was forced to pay16,000 Florida employees $3.8 million in back wages for illegally chargingthem for costumes. Lawsuits by laid off technology employees claim thatDisney illegally replaced them with foreign workers.While labor conflict is nothing new to the home of Mickey Mouse, recentnegotiations were particularly tense. That’s because the company took ahard-line stance even as corporate profits and executive salaries soared.Of the company’s recent $10.7 billion profit, $2.2 billion came from itstheme parks. (Disney raised prices on daily and multiday ticket packagesto its properties.) Disney CEO Robert Iger made $43.9 million, chief
operating officer Tom Staggs received $15.6 million, and chief financialofficer Christine McCarthy took home $10.2 million.In addition to holding public protests and sponsoring a rally featuringBernie Sanders, union leaders commissioned a report by researchers atOccidental College. The investigators found that most union employeeshave been unable to keep up with soaring housing costs in OrangeCounty, California, where Disney is the largest employer. Eighty-fivepercent earn less than $12 an hour, which puts them below the povertyline for a family of four. Many are homeless, living out of their cars or atthe homes of friends and relatives. Three quarters say that they do notearn enough to meet basic expenses. Sixty percent said the food theybought 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 approximately30,000 people who work there, it is not the happiest place towork. Despite steep increases in the cost of housing and othernecessities, Disneyland workers have suffered steady pay cutsand are struggling to make ends meet.Spurred by the report’s findings, Disney labor leaders in Anaheim placeda “living wage” initiative on the ballot, which proposed raising theminimum wage to $15 and then $18 an hour for hospitality companiesreceiving a city tax subsidy. Disney settled with the Disney World andDisneyland unions before the initiative came to a vote. Disney boostedstarting wages to $15 an hour at both theme parks and guaranteed futureraises over the life of the contract. The living wage ballot measure thenpassed by a comfortable margin. The head of the Anaheim Chamber ofCommerce called the ballot result a “tragic outcome” that would driveaway future hospitality projects, costing jobs. A union spokespersoncalled his claim “laughable.”
Discussion Probes1. Are you surprised that Disney has a history of labor unrest? Are youless likely to go to Disneyland and Disney World knowing howworkers have been treated by management in the past?2. Does the wide gap between the pay of low wage employees andDisney executives cast the shadow of privilege? Is such a wide gapethically justified?3. Was withholding the bonus from union employees an unfairnegotiation 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 ithadn’t been for the threat of the ballot initiative? Was this an unfairnegotiation tactic?6. Should all workers be guaranteed a “living wage”? What impactwould raising the minimum wage have on business and theeconomy?
SourcesBergfeld, K., & Bergfeld, M. (2017, November 21). Cartoons and classstruggle. Jacobin.Calfas, J. (2017, March 17). Disney is going to pay $3.8 million toemployees who were charged for their costumes. Fortune. Caron, C.(2018, August 25). Walt Disney World workers reach deal for $15minimum wage by 2021. The New York Times.Isidore, C. (2018, February 20). Union workers want Disney to pay $1,000tax cut bonuses. CNNMoney.Madrid, M. (2018, February 23). The happiest place on earth? Not forDisney employees. The American Prospect. Martin, H. (2018, November12). Anaheim’s “living wage” initiative is expected to pass. A businessadvocate calls it a “tragic outcome.” Los Angeles Times.Medina, J. (2018, February 28). Trying to make ends meet with job at thehappiest place on earth. The New York Times, p. A1.Noguchi, Y. (2018, February 22). Disney says promised bonus dependson 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 replaceU.S. workers with immigrants. The New York Times.Rainey, J. (2017, January 13). Robert Iger’s pay as Disney CEO dipsslightly in 2016 to $43.9 million. Variety.Roosevelt, M. (2018, February 27). Disneyland Resort workers struggle topay for food, housing and medical care, union survey finds. OrangeCounty Register.Roosevelt, M. (2018, February 28). Disney unions ballot drive seeks $18an hour at hospitality companies that receive Anaheim subsidies. OrangeCounty Register.
Case Study 7.3Rooting Out the Weed of HazingJoining a sorority or fraternity could be hazardous to your health. Anumber of Greek societies put pledges through dangerous initiationrituals. Some victims of hazing suffer posttraumatic stress, injuries,paralysis, and scarring. A few die. At least one hazing death has beenrecorded every year in the United States from 1967 through 2017,according to hazing expert Hank Nuwer, a journalism professor atFranklin College. (The streak extends back to 1954 if Canada is includedin the count.) Since the first known hazing death in the United States in1873, pledges have perished from a variety of causes, including, forexample,– 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– gunshotsWhile the vast majority of deaths are tied to fraternities, deaths of sororitysisters have also been reported.Recent (and particularly callous) deaths have heightened publicawareness of the dangers of hazing. In one well-publicized case, BaruchCollege freshman Chun “Michael” Deng, who was pledging Pi Delta Psi,an Asian American fraternity, died of brain trauma. He was beaten todeath by fraternity officers and members at a house in Pennsylvania whilewearing a 20-pound backpack. Fraternity brothers delayed calling anambulance because it was too expensive. A national fraternity officialadvised members over the phone to hide anything with the fraternity’slogo. Four fraternity Pi Delta members pled guilty to voluntary homicideand the fraternity was banned from the state of Pennsylvania for 10 years.During her ruling, the judge noted, “This has proved to be the mosttroubling case to me in 19 years.”1
Penn State freshman Timothy Piazza died from a fall down a flight ofstairs after he ran “the gauntlet,” consuming 18 drinks in 82 minutes (eventhough the Beta Theta Pi chapter was banned from serving alcohol).Piazza suffered a fractured skull and a ruptured spleen. Instead of calling911, fraternity brothers placed his limp body on a basement couch. (Aphysician believes that he would have survived had he had been taken tothe hospital immediately.) They lied to investigators, erasing a securitytape while claiming that the tape machine wasn’t working. The video,restored by the FBI, shows members “prodding, photographing, andignoring the injured pledge.”2 In a Today show interview, Tim’s fatherdeclared, “What happened throughout the night was just carelessdisregard for human life. They basically treated our son as roadkill and arag doll.”3 Twenty students face charges in this incident.In a third incident, LSU freshmen Max Gruver died of alcohol poisoningafter participating in a “Bible Study” session where Phi Delta Thetapledges were quizzed about Greek life and the Greek alphabet. WhenGruver answered incorrectly, he was pelted with hot sauce and mustardand forced to chug 190-proof liquor. He died of alcohol poisoning with ablood 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 drinkthat much without being forced to do so. Ten current and former studentsfaced charges; one was convicted of negligent homicide.In response to these and other deadly hazing incidents, Penn State shutdown the Beta Theta Pi chapter and put all Greek organizations underuniversity, not student, governance. LSU closed the Phi Delta Thetachapter, temporarily shut down all Greek activities, and formed a taskforce to study Greek associations. Ohio State, the University of Michigan,Florida State, and Texas State temporarily halted Greek activities. Theparents of Deng, Piazza, and Gruver have called for stricter antihazinglaws in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana. Bills introduced in thestate legislatures of these states would increase criminal penalties forhazing (44 states currently have antihazing laws on the books), and openthe way for civil penalties for perpetrators, universities, and nationalGreek organizations. One activist proposed a law requiring colleges toreport instances of criminal hazing (similar to requirements to post dataon sexual crimes) and to present educational programs on hazing. Otherrecommendations include banning same-sex fraternities and betterenforcement of sanctions.While such steps may reduce hazing, they likely won’t eliminate thepractice altogether. Hazing has been around almost as long as education.For example, St. Augustine complained about “riotous destroyers” whotormented students at his school in ancient Carthage. So far hazing hasresisted the attempts by groups like HazingPrevention.org, and college
administrators to eliminate the practice. Help (not Hell) weeks, alcoholbans, and other efforts have been unable to kill what an 1860 Harvardprofessor called a “weed in the garden of academe.”4 Seventy-threepercent of fraternity or sorority members have experienced hazing,according one survey, but only 5% have reported hazing incidents tocollege administrators or law enforcement. Fraternity members are morelikely to drink heavily than their nonfraternity peers and to have moreproblems with alcohol.Powerful forces keep the hazing custom alive. Hazing is designed todemonstrate that initiates are worthy by meeting a series of challenges.Hazing rituals serve as a rite of passage and hazing symbols—pledgepins, paddles, shared liquor—bind members together. Fraternities oftendemonstrate groupthink, what Nuwer calls “Greekthink.” Participantsbelieve they are invincible, put the group before the individual, and denyabuse. Then, too, hazing incorporates several influence triggers. Inaddition to the desire for commitment and consistency, which increasesthe investment of fraternity brothers in the practice, hazing invokes (1)reciprocity (pledges need to reciprocate by undergoing the sameexperience as current members), (2) social proof (hazing must be okay ifothers go along), (3) liking (pledges are attracted to fraternity brothers andwill 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 fairprice to pay for joining the group).Professor Nuwer holds out hope for greatly reducing Greek hazing deathsdespite all the forces keeping it in place. He describes recent attempts tolimit hazing as the “biggest blowback” he’s seen in his 40 years ofstudying hazing rituals. He notes that one form of hazing has been almostentirely eliminated from U.S. campuses. Prior to the late 1920s, deathsfrom freshman–sophomore class hazings (where sophomores wouldinitiate the freshman class) were greater than those from fraternity hazing.Students led a successful nationwide movement to end dangerousnonfraternity hazings. Since 1928, there has been only one death fromthese classwide hazings.
Discussion Probes1. Have you had any experience with hazing as a student, member ofthe military, or member of another organization (Boy Scouts, GirlScouts, Masons)? Did this experience pose any danger to you andother participants?2. Why do you think hazing remains widespread despite all the effortsto eliminate it? Can you think of any justification for hazing?3. Do you think hazing can ever be eliminated from colleges anduniversities?4. Has your college or university (if it has Greek societies) doneenough to stop hazing on your campus? What additional steps couldit take?5. How could fraternity and sorority leaders combat hazing in theirchapters? What might happen if they tried to do so?6. What could you do to help end hazing on your campus?
Notes1. Rojas, R. (2018, January 8). Fraternity is banned from Pennsylvaniaafter student’s hazing death. The New York Times.2. Nuwer, H. (2017, September 3). College hazing continuously results indeath. 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 ofEden that suffocates us all. The StatehouseFile.com.
SourcesAnderson, N. (2018, March 20). Hazing deaths: Colleges, others couldface civil penalties under bill that clears legislative hurdle.TheAdvocate.com.Haag, M. (2017, November 13). 10 additional Penn State studentscharged in hazing death of pledge. The New York Times.Nuwer, H. (2018, September 18). Hazing deaths. Retrieved fromwww.hanknuwer.com/hazing-deaths/Reilly, K. (2017, October 11). College students keep dying because offraternity hazing. Why is it so hard to stop? Time.Reilly, K. (2017, December 21). “Those families are changed forever.” Adeadly year of fraternity hazing comes to a close. Time.Saul, S. (2017, October 11). 10 arrested in death of L.S.U. student afterfraternity drinking ritual. The New York Times.Strauss, V. (2017, November 16). Are colleges really doing enough tostop fraternity hazing deaths? The Washington Post.SELF-ASSESSMENT 7.1 Compliance-Gaining Tactics
InstructionsThink of THREE incidents when you attempted to get others tocomply to your requests or when you were the target of compliancemessages. Describe each incident in a paragraph or two. Selectincidents that required one of the parties to provide significantassistance/support or involved important issues.
AnalysisAfter 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 theinfluence agent?4. How did the status of the parties (peer, follower, leader)influence the type of strategy used?
EvaluationConclude with an evaluation of these incidents and what they revealabout you as a compliance gainer or compliance target. Evaluate theethics of each tactic based on its power base, objective, andemotional-ethical threshold. Which tactics, in general, appear to bemost effective and ethical? What tactics do you prefer to use orprefer 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 & OrganizationManagement, 18, 5–28.SELF-ASSESSMENT 7.2 The Argumentativeness ScaleInstructions: This questionnaire contains statements about arguingcontroversial issues. Indicate how often each statement is true foryou personally by placing the appropriate number in the blank to theleft of the statement. Use the following scale:1 = almost never true2 = rarely true3 = occasionally true4 = often true5 = almost always true_____ 1. While in an argument, I worry that the person Iam arguing with will form a negative impression of me._____ 2. Arguing over controversial issues improves myintelligence._____ 3. I enjoy avoiding arguments._____ 4. I am energetic and enthusiastic when I argue._____ 5. Once I finish an argument, I promise myself thatI will not get into another._____ 6. Arguing with a person creates more problems forme than it solves._____ 7. I have a pleasant, good feeling when I win apoint in an argument._____ 8. When I finish arguing with someone, I feelnervous and upset._____ 9. I enjoy a good argument over a controversialissue._____ 10. I get an unpleasant feeling when I realize I amabout to get into an argument._____ 11. I enjoy defending my point of view on an issue.
_____ 12. I am happy when I keep an argument fromhappening._____ 13. I do not like to miss the opportunity to argue acontroversial issue._____ 14. I prefer being with people who rarely disagreewith me._____ 15. I consider an argument an exciting intellectualchallenge._____ 16. I find myself unable to think of effective pointsduring an argument._____ 17. I feel refreshed and satisfied after an argumenton 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 aconversation 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) totalScoreIf the result is any number between +14 and +40, you may have ahigh motivation to argue.If the result is any number between -4 and + 13, you may have amoderate motivation to argue.If the result is any number between -5 and -25, you may have a lowmotivation to argue.Source: Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualizationand measure of argumentativeness. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, pp. 72–80. Copyright 1982 by Erlbaum. Used bypermission.
Notes1. Fairhurst, G. T. (2011). The power of framing: Creating thelanguage of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley; Fairhurst, G. T.& Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language ofleadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.2. Kreps, T. A., & Monin, B. (2011). “Doing well by doing good”?Ambivalent moral framing in organizations. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 31, 99–123.3. Schubert, S., & Miller, T. C. (2008, December 21). Wherebribery was just a line item. The New York Times, p. BU1.4. McGregor, J., & Dworkin, E. (2017, February 17). The cost ofsilence: Why more CEOs are speaking out in the Trump era. TheWashington Post.5. Rainer, C., & Motyl, M. (2015). Moral concerns and policyattitudes: Investigating the influence of elite rhetoric. PoliticalCommunication, 32, 229–248.6. Kreps & Monin.7. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J.Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behaviors for managers. Groupand 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: Whypeople say what they do when trying to influence others.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.9. See, for example Eden, D., & Shamir, A. B. (1982). Pygmaliongoes to boot camp: Expectancy, leadership, and traineeperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 194–199; Eden,D. (1990). Pygmalion in management. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books/D. C. Heath; Eden, D. (1993). Interpersonal expectations inorganizations. 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 someconsequences. 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 propheciesaccumulate, dissipate, or remain stable over time? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 77, 548–565.11. White, S. S., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Problems with thePygmalion effect and some proposed solutions. The LeadershipQuarterly, 11, 389–415; Divir, T., Eden, D., & Bano, J. L. (1995).Self-fulfilling prophecy and gender: Can women be Pygmalion andGalatea? Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 253–270; McNatt, D.B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: Ameta-analysis of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,314–322.12. Karakowsky, L., DeGama, N., & McBey, K. (2012). Facilitatingthe Pygmalion effect: The overlooked role of subordinateperceptions of the leader. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology 85, 579–599.13. Rosenthal, R. (1993).14. Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1980). Educational psychology: Arealistic approach. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.15. White & Locke (2000).16. Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecy as a managementtool: Harnessing Pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 9,64–73.17. Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York, NY: Simon &Schuster, p. 119.
18. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal settingand task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Locke,E. A., & Latham, G. P. (Eds.). (2013). New developments in goalsetting and task performance. New York, NY: Routledge.19. Schultz, B. (1982). Argumentativeness: Its effect in groupdecision-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, communicationapprehension, and verbal aggressiveness in work groups.Southern Communication Journal, 70, 123–133; Schweiger, D. M.,Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. (1989). Experiential effects ofdialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches tostrategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32,745–772.20. Infante, D., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness andverbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. InB. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 319–351).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.21. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative andaggressive 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). Criticalthinking and communication: The use of reason in argument (5thed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.25. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness andcommunicative action (C. Lehhardt & S. Weber Nicholsen,Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Leeper, R. V. (1996). Moralobjectivity, Jürgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, and publicrelations. Public Relations Review 22, 133–150; Meisenbach, R.J. (2006). Habermas’s discourse ethics and principle of
universalization as a moral framework for organizationalcommunication. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 39–62; Stansbury, J. (2009). Reasoned moral agreement: Applyingdiscourse ethics within organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly,19, 33–56.26. Habermas (1990), p. 66.27. Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager asnegotiator: Bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. NewYork, NY: The Free Press.28. Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2004). Three ethical issues innegotiation. In C. Menkel-Meadow & M. Wheeler (Eds.), What’sfair: 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 innegotiation: 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 inpractical 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’smost powerful company really works and how it’s transforming theAmerican economy (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Penguin.33. Wheeler, M. (2004, March). Fair enough: An ethical fitnesstest 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 integrativenegotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories.
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). Communicationskills for effective management. Houndmills, England: PalgraveMacmillan, pp. 177–178.37. Sagarin, B. J., Cialdini, R. B., Rice, W. E., & Serna, S. B.(2002). Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: The motivationsand mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. Journal ofPersonality 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). Thebusiness of influence: Principles that lead to success incommercial settings. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), Thepersuasion 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 synthesesof 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.
8 Normative Leadership Theories
Learning Objectives> Contrast transformational, pseudo-transformational, andtransactional 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 amoral manager.> Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each of the sixnormative leadership theories.> Analyze the similarities and differences between the six normativeleadership theories.The whole point of studying leadership is to answer thequestion “What is good leadership?”—PHILOSOPHER AND ETHICIST JOANNE CIULLAThe first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. Thelast is to say thank you. In between the two, the leadermust become a servant and a debtor.—CEO AND AUTHOR MAX DEPREE
What’s AheadIn this chapter, we will look at leadership theories specificallydesigned 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 makesome suggestions for applying it as a leader. I’ll also offer somecautions about the limitations of each approach.Theories are key to the study of any discipline, includingleadership. They organize knowledge in a field, explain therelationships between important concepts and variables, and helpscholars and practitioners make predictions about what strategieswill be effective. Theoretical approaches to leadership generallyfall into one of two categories: descriptive and normative.Descriptive theories, as the name implies, describe how leadersact. Early researchers at Michigan and Ohio State, for instance,identified two underlying dimensions to leadership styles: task andrelationship.1 They found that some leaders are more focused onthe task while others are more focused on building relationshipswith followers. Normative leadership theories, on the other hand,tell leaders how they ought to act. They are (1) explicitly built onmoral principles or norms and (2) provide guidelines for promotingethical leader behavior. In this chapter, I’ll introduce severalnormative leadership theories that can help you cast more lightthan shadow. As you read, note similarities and differencesbetween the theories and consider how each can help youbecome a more ethical leader. (Application Exercise 1 asks you tosummarize your conclusions.)
Transformational Leadership:Raising the Ethical BarInterest in transformational leadership began in 1978 with thepublication of the book titled Leadership by James MacGregorBurns, a former presidential advisor, political scientist, andhistorian.2 Burns contrasted traditional forms of leadership, whichhe called “transactional,” with a more powerful form of leadershiphe called “transforming.” Transactional leaders appeal to lower-level needs of followers—that is, the need for food, shelter, andacceptance. They exchange money, benefits, recognition, andother 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 asesteem, competency, self-fulfillment, and self-actualization. In sodoing, they change the very nature of the groups, organizations,or societies they guide. Burns pointed to Franklin Roosevelt andMahatma Gandhi as examples of leaders who transformed thelives of followers and their cultures as a whole.Moral commitments are at the heart of Burns’s definition oftransforming leadership. “Such leadership,” states Burns, “occurswhen one or more persons engage with others in such a way thatleaders and followers raise one another to higher levels ofmotivation and morality.”3 Transformational leaders focus onterminal values such as liberty, equality, and justice. These valuesmobilize and energize followers, create an agenda for action, andappeal to larger audiences.4 Transforming leaders are driven byduty.5 They are guided by universal ethical principles, feel a senseof obligation to the group, and treat followers with respect. Theyare also altruistic, making sacrifices for followers, empoweringothers, and focusing on shared goals and objectives.Transformational leaders engage in higher-level moral reasoning,demonstrate greater integrity, are more successful at leadingorganizational ethical turnarounds, encourage the development ofpositive ethical climates, institutionalize ethical practices, andfoster corporate social responsibility.6
In contrast to transformational leaders, transactional leadersemphasize instrumental values, such as responsibility, fairness,and honesty, which make routine interactions go smoothly. Theytake a utilitarian approach, judging the morality of actions basedon their outcomes. They use their power and position to convincefollowers to comply so that both they and their subordinates willbenefit. More focused on the self, transactional leaders areconcerned with protecting their interests rather than in promotingthe interests of the group. They are more likely to be controllingthan empowering.In a series of studies, leadership experts Bernard Bass and hiscolleagues identified the factors that characterize transactionaland transformational forms of leadership and demonstrated thattransformational leaders can be found in organizations.7 Theydiscovered that transactional leadership has both active andpassive elements. Active transactional leaders engage incontingent reward and management by exception. They providerewards and recognition contingent on followers’ carrying out theirroles and reaching their objectives. After specifying standards andthe elements of acceptable performance, active transactionalleaders then discipline followers when they fall short. Passive-avoidant or laissez-faire leaders wait for problems to arise beforetaking action, or they avoid taking any action at all. These leadersfail to provide goals and standards or to clarify expectations.According to Bass and Avolio, transformational leadership ischaracterized by the following:Idealized influence. Transformational leaders become rolemodels for followers who admire, respect, and trust them.They put followers’ needs above their own, and their behavioris consistent with the values and principles of the group.Inspirational motivation. Transformational leaders motivate byproviding meaning and challenge to the tasks of followers.They arouse team spirit, are enthusiastic and optimistic, andhelp followers develop desirable visions for the future.Intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders stimulateinnovation and creativity. They do so by encouragingfollowers to question assumptions, reframe situations, and
approach old problems from new perspectives. Transformingleaders don’t criticize mistakes but instead solicit solutionsfrom followers.Individualized consideration. Transformational leaders act ascoaches or mentors who foster personal development. Theyprovide learning opportunities and a supportive climate forgrowth. Their coaching and mentoring are tailored to theindividual needs and desires of each follower.Burns believed that leaders display either transactional ortransformational characteristics, but Bass found otherwise.Transforming leadership uses both transactional andtransformational elements. Explains Bass, “Many of the greattransformational leaders, including Abraham Lincoln, FranklinDelano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, did not shy away frombeing transactional. They were able to move the nation as well asplay petty politics.”8 The transformational leader uses the activeelements of the transactional approach (contingent reward andmanagement by exception) along with idealized influence,inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualizedconsideration.9The popularity of the transformational approach probably hasmore to do with practical considerations than with ethical ones.Transforming leaders are generally more successful than theirtransactional counterparts.10 Their followers are more committed,form stronger bonds with colleagues, work harder, go beyond theirjob duties, and persist in the face of obstacles. As a result, teamsand organizations led by transforming figures often achieveextraordinary results: higher quality, greater profits, improvedservice, military victories, and better win–loss records.Burns originally believed that the transforming leader is a moralleader because the ultimate product of transformational leadershipis higher ethical standards and performance. However, hisdefinition didn’t account for the fact that some leaders can usetransformational strategies to reach immoral ends. A leader canact as a role model, provide intellectual stimulation, and bepassionate about a cause. Yet the end product of her or his efforts
can be evil. Hitler had a clear vision for Germany but left a trail ofunprecedented death and destruction.Acknowledging the difference between ethical and unethicaltransformational leaders, Bass adopted the terms authentic andpseudo-transformational to distinguish between the twocategories.11 Authentic transformational leaders are motivated byaltruism and marked by integrity. They engage in self-sacrificialbehaviors (see Box 8.1). These leaders raise awareness of moralstandards and create ethical climates. Followers are viewed asends in themselves, not as a means to some other end, and areallowed freedom of choice. Cooperation and harmony mark thegroups they lead. Pseudo-transformational leaders are self-centered. They encourage dependency and manipulate followersin order to reach their personal goals. They inspire followers butfall short on the other three components of transformationalleadership: idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, andindividualized consideration.12 Competitiveness, conflict, envy,greed, anger, and deception mark the groups they lead. MahatmaGandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. deserve to be classified astransformational because they promoted universal brotherhood.ISIS leaders are pseudo-transformational because, although theyattract highly committed followers to their vision of an Islamicstate, they engage in brutality and reject any other belief systembut their own. (Turn to Case Study 8.1 and determine if this leadershould be classified as authentic transformational or pseudo-transformational.)
Applications and CautionsApplicationsStart small.Employ the full range of leadership behaviors.Recognize the universal appeal of transformationalleadership.Transformational leadership can seem intimidating at first. Itsproponents set a lofty standard—raising the level of morality in anorganization or society while transforming its performance.However, you can act as a transformational leader no matter howmodest your leadership role. Chances are, you have benefittedfrom the influence of lower-level transformational leaders. You canprobably think of a coach, teacher, shift manager, counsellor,pastor or other figure that had a lasting impact on you and yourteam. You can exert similar positive influence by engaging in thebehaviors that demonstrate idealized influence, inspirationalmotivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualizedconsideration. Keep in mind that transformational leaders alsomaster active transactional tactics. Be prepared to penalize thosewho fall short of performance standards or break the rules, rewardthose who reach their objectives, and so on.The good news is that you can use transformational behaviors inmany contexts, ranging from small informal groups and militaryunits to large complex organizations. Furthermore, transformingleadership appears to be effective in a variety of cultures.Researchers at the Global Leadership and OrganizationalBehavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Project askedmanagers in 62 cultures to identify the characteristics ofsuccessful leaders. Nine transformational attributes wereuniversally associated with outstanding leadership: motivearouser, foresight, encouraging, communicative, trustworthy,dynamic, positive, confidence builder, and motivational.13 Otherresearchers report that transformational leadership enhancesfollower and organizational performance in a variety of cultural
settings, including, for example, Pakistan, India, Egypt andChina.14CautionsEquating success with transformationLeader centricFosters dependencyOffers no guarantee against unethical behaviorUnfortunately, many writers and researchers appear moreinterested in what works than in what is right. To them,transformational leadership equates with successful or effectiveleadership; leaders are transforming because they achieveextraordinary, tangible results, such as rescuing failingcorporations or winning battles. These theorists are lessconcerned with whether leaders foster higher moral standards orwhether transforming tactics serve ethical ends.It should be noted that transformational theorists have beenlabeled as “leader-centric” for paying too much attention toleaders while downplaying the contributions of followers. Onecritic describes the image presented by transformational theoriststhis way: “The picture is one in which extraordinary leadersexercise a unidirectional influence on more-or-less willingfollowers, who are presumably little more than empty vesselsawaiting a transfusion of insight from their betters.”15 Thesesceptics have reason for concern. Burns, Bass, and otherproponents of transformative leadership argue that leaders playthe most important role in determining group morality andperformance. Leaders craft the vision, challenge the status quo,and inspire. At times, they may decide to transform theorganization despite, not because of, followers, as in the case ofthe CEO who overrules his staff in order to bring about change.Critics of transformational leadership argue that followers are justas important to the success of a group as leaders, if not more so.After all, followers do most of the work. Worse yet, transformingleaders can silence dissent and encourage subordinates tosacrifice their legitimate self-interests in order to meet the needs
of the group. Or they may encourage their followers to engage inunethical behavior that promotes the organization’s success.16So much focus on the leader can create dependency andundermine such values as shared decision making andconsensus. Followers won’t act independently if they continuallylook to you for guidance. You may also get an inflated sense ofyour own importance, tempting you to cast shadows. Bassbelieved that the distinction between pseudo-transformational andauthentic transformational leadership addresses these concerns.Transforming leaders are much less prone to ethical abuses, heasserted, because they put the needs of others first, treatfollowers with respect, and seek worthy objectives. You’ll need todecide for yourself whether transformational theorists haveadequately responded to the dangers posed by their perspective.Then, too, recognize that transformational leadership does notmake leaders immune to ethical temptations.Box 8.1 The Power of Self-SacrificeSelf-sacrifice is a powerful tool for increasing leader effectivenessand the moral performance of followers. Self-sacrificing leaders putaside their personal interests in order to meet the needs of the group.Self-sacrificing leader behaviors typically fall into one of threecategories: division of labor, distribution of rewards, and the exerciseof power. Self-sacrifice in the division of labor involves volunteeringfor riskier or difficult, unpleasant tasks, such as when a military officerleads a dangerous mission against the enemy or when a crew leaderdoes the dirtiest clean up job. Assuming blame or responsibility formistakes or failures also falls into this category. Coaches often takethe blame for a team’s poor performance rather than criticizing teammembers.Self-sacrifice in the distribution of rewards is willingly postponing orgiving 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 thefortunes of the firm rebounded. Self-sacrifice in the exercise of poweris voluntarily refraining from using personal power and privileges forpersonal benefit but employing them for the benefit of others instead.Gandhi, for example, wouldn’t eat until his followers were fed. Arcticexplorer Ernest Shackleton made sure his men got the warmestsleeping bags.
Followers respond positively to sacrificial leaders. When leaderssacrifice, their subordinates are more likely to (1) cooperate withother group members, (2) engage in organizational citizenshipbehaviors (see Chapter 5), (3) be engaged in their work andcommitted to their organizations, (4) take initiative, (5) have a highersense of self-esteem, and (6) identify with the group. What accountsfor these effects? Researchers speculate that self-sacrificial behaviorsignals that the leader is dedicated to the group and concernedabout its welfare. This perception fosters hope and trust, whichencourages members to work together and to focus on the groupinstead of the self. Sacrificial leaders also act as role models andmembers 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 leadershiptheories. Servant leaders, for example, often set aside personalconcerns to ensure that followers succeed, as in the case of theleader who voluntarily steps aside to let others exercise theirleadership skills. Benevolent leaders sacrifice time and money for thebenefit of followers. Investigators have been most interested in therelationship between self-sacrifice and transformational/charismaticleadership. Self-sacrificial leaders are rated as more charismatic andinspiring. Their sacrifices demonstrate their commitment to theirvision and direct attention to the group’s goals. Self-sacrifice is seenas unconventional (because many leaders use their positions forpersonal gain). Unconventional behaviors, in turn, are a hallmark ofcharismatic leaders who have a significant impact on others.Self-sacrifice opens the way for ordinary individuals, not justhistorical figures or top-level executives, to function astransformational leaders. Any leader at any level can take practicalsteps to benefit the collective at cost to the self, by workingunpleasant hours, taking criticism, sharing profits, eating with troopsin the field and so on.While self-sacrifice is a powerful strategy for practicing ethicalleadership, it can be misused. A leader may only pretend to sacrifice,as in the case of the CEO who temporarily takes a reduced salarybut then more than makes up for the loss with a later bonus. Orunethical leaders may use self-sacrifice for selfish purposes. Aproject leader may work weekends to encourage her team membersto do the same. However, the rewards for successfully completingthe project—a salary increase and promotion—will go to her and notto the team if the project succeeds. Then, too, there is the dangerthat pseudo-transformational leaders will use self-sacrifice toencourage commitment to destructive causes like terrorism andracial supremacy.
Sources:Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function ofself-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. LeadershipQuarterly, 10, 397–421.De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Cooperation as afunction 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: Whencollective identification matters. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,and Practice, 10, 233–245.Li, R., Zhang, A.-Y., & Tian, X.-M. (2016). Can self-sacrificialleadership promote subordinate taking charge? The mediating role oforganizational 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-sacrificialleadership: A behavioural comparison of two follower-orientedleadership theories. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2,36–51.Singh, N., & Krishman, V. R. (2007). Self-sacrifice andtransformational 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 leaderprototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37.Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect ofleader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions ofcharisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 428–436.Zhou, R., Long, L., & Hao, P. (2016). Positive affect, environmentaluncertainty, and self-sacrificial leadership influence follower’s self-sacrificial behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality, 44, 1515–1524.
Servant Leadership: Put the Needsof Followers FirstServant leadership has roots in both Western and Easternthought. Jesus told his disciples that “whoever wants to becomegreat among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to befirst must be slave of all” (Mark 10:43–44, New InternationalVersion). Chinese Taoist philosophers encouraged leaders to behumble valleys. Robert Greenleaf sparked contemporary interestin leaders as servants. Greenleaf, who spent 40 years inresearch, development, and education at AT&T and 25 years asan organizational consultant, coined the term servant leader in the1970s to describe a leadership model that puts the concerns offollowers first.17 Later he founded a center to promote servantleadership. A number of businesses (The Container Store,Popeye’s Chicken), nonprofit organizations, and communityleadership programs have adopted his model.18 MargaretWheatley, Peter Block, Max DePree, and James Autry have joinedGreenleaf 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 thestandard by which leaders are judged. When evaluating a leader,says Greenleaf, we ought to ask, “Do those served grow aspersons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser,freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to becomeservants?”19 Operating as servant means shifting from a focus onself to a focus on others. According to servant leadership expertJim Laub, this mindshift involves (1) Viewing and treating followersas adult partners. Value followers for who they are, not for whatthey can contribute to the organization. Encourage them to sharetheir ideas and critiques. At the same time, followers should takeinitiative and be accountable for their actions and decisions. (2)Viewing trust as a gift and a choice. Don’t limit followers toimplementing plans. Instead, involve them in setting visions andstrategies. (3) Viewing others through the lens of freedom and
potential. Followers resist control but respond well to opportunitiesto grow and develop. Provide followers with the freedom toperform at their highest level. (4) Practicing humble inquiry overtelling. Ask more than tell. Listen and draw others out.Acknowledge personal limitations and be open to suggestions andconcerns.20By continually reflecting on what would be best for theirconstituents, servant leaders are less likely to cast shadows bytaking advantage of the trust of followers, acting inconsistently, oraccumulating money and power. Theorists have identified anumber of attributes that characterize servant leaders—see Box8.2. While the lists of attributes vary, five related concepts appearcentral to servant leadership:1. Stewardship. Being a servant leader means acting on behalfof others.21 Leaders function as the agents of followers, whoentrust them with special duties and opportunities for a limitedtime. Servant leaders are charged with protecting andnurturing their groups and organizations while making surethat these collectives serve the common good. Stewardshipimplies accountability for results. However, stewards reachtheir objectives through collaboration and persuasion ratherthan through coercion and control.2. Obligation. Servant leaders take their obligations orresponsibilities seriously. Leaders owe followers financialstability; adequate tools, equipment, and facilities; clearinstitutional values; a healthy culture, civility; freedom toexpress themselves and reach their potential; andunderstanding of organizational programs and relationships.Followers also expect a certain level of maturity from theirleaders. Mature leaders have a clear sense of self-worth,belonging, responsibility, accountability, and equality.223. Partnership. Servant leaders view followers as partners, notsubordinates. As a consequence, they strive for equity orjustice in the distribution of power. Strategies for empoweringfollowers include sharing information, delegating authority tocarry out important tasks, and encouraging constituents todevelop and exercise their talents. Concern for equityextends to the distribution of rewards as well. For example,
both employees and executives receive bonuses when thecompany prospers.4. Emotional healing. Servant leaders help followers andorganizations recover from disappointment, trauma, hardship,and broken relationships.23 They are both empathetic andhighly skilled as listeners. They create climates that facilitatethe sharing of personal and work-related feelings and issues.Emotional healing restores a “sense of wholeness” to bothindividuals and organizations.5. Elevating purpose. In addition to serving followers, servantleaders also serve worthy missions, ideas, and causes.Seeking to fulfill a high moral purpose and understanding therole one plays in the process make work more meaningful toleaders and followers alike. Consider the example of threebricklayers at work in the English countryside. When askedby a traveler to describe what they were doing, the firstreplied, “I am laying bricks.” The second said, “I am feedingmy family by laying bricks.” The third bricklayer, who had aclearer sense of the purpose for his labor, declared, “Throughmy work of laying bricks, I am constructing a cathedral, andthereby giving honor and praise to God.”Box 8.2 Servant Leader Attributeslisteningvisionempathyhonestyhealingintegrityawarenesstrustpersuasionserviceconceptualizationmodelingforesightpioneeringstewardshipappreciation of others
commitment to theempowermentgrowth of peoplecommunicationbuilding communitycredibility(Spears, 2004)competencevisibilitysystems thinkerinterpersonal supportinfluencebuilding communitypersuasionaltruismlisteningequalitarianismencouragementmoral integrityteaching(Reed, Vidaver-Cohen,delegationColwell, 2011)(Russell & Stone, 2002)empowermentvalue peopleempathyaltruistic callingintegrity/honestyemotional healingcompetencewisdomagreeablenesspersuasive mapping(Washington, Sutton,&Feild, 2006)organizational stewardship (Babuto& Wheeler, 2006)person of charactertransforming influenceputs people firstvoluntary subordinationskilled communicatorauthentic self
compassionatecollaboratortranscendental spiritualityforesightcovenantal relationshipresponsible morality moral authority(Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008)(McCarren et al., 2016) accountabilitydevelop peoplestanding backbuild communityhumilitydisplay authenticityauthenticityprovide leadershipcourageshare leadershipinterpersonal(Laub, 1999)acceptance stewardship (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011)
Sources:Babuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development andconstruct clarification of servant leadership. Group & OrganizationManagement, 31, 300–326.Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development ofthe 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 feedbackassessment for the development of servant leaders at the VeteransHealth Administration. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice 3, 12–51.Reed, L. L., Vidaver-Cohen, & Colwell, S. R. (2011). A new scale tomeasure executive servant leadership: Development, analysis, andimplications for research. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 415–434.Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadershipattributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 23(3), 145–157.Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining andmeasuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal ofManagement Studies, 45, 402–424.Spears, L. C. (2004). The understanding and practice of servantleadership. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Practicing servantleadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness (pp. 9–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadershipsurvey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure.Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 249–267.Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Individualdifferences 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’searly history, consisting largely of lists of servant characteristicsand examples of servant leaders. Now scholars subject servantleadership to empirical testing. Servant leadership questionnaireshave been developed, and researchers are exploring the impact
of servant leadership on followers and organizationalperformance. So far they have discovered that– servant leaders help satisfy follower needs and boost theirjob satisfaction and job performance.– followers give servant leaders higher character ratings.– top level servant leaders encourage lower level leaders toact as servants.– servant leadership prompts employees to go beyond theirjob descriptions to help others.– those led by servant leaders are less likely to quit and aremore committed to their supervisors.– servant leadership creates an ethical, trustingorganizational climate.– servant leadership can increase sales and profits.– servant leaders help team members believe their group’sability to accomplish their tasks.– servant leadership is effective in many differentorganizational 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 servantleadership vary between societies.24
Applications and CautionsApplicationsFocus on followers.Act as a steward.Cultivate self-awareness.Pursue elevating purposes.Servant leadership is founded on altruism which, as we saw inChapter 5, is essential to ethical leadership. You can serve only ifyou commit yourself to the principle that others should come first.You are far less likely to cast shadows if you approach yourleadership roles with one goal in mind: the desire to serve. A greatnumber 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 largercommunity. Remember what you “owe” followers. Share, ratherthan 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 toothers, take time for reflection, and recognize the importance ofspiritual resources.They are also acutely aware of the importance of pursuing ethicalpurposes that bring meaning and fulfilment to work. Serving atranscendent goal means that every act of leadership has a moraldimension.CautionsSeems unrealisticMay not work in every contextPoses the danger of serving the wrong cause or offeringunwise serviceThe term servant carries a negative connotation
Servant leadership has not met with universal approval. Cynicismis often the first response when this model is presented. “Soundsgood in principle,” listeners respond, “but it would never work atmy company, in my family, at my condominium associationmeeting, or ______________” (fill in the blank). Like othersceptics, you may have been “walked on” whenever you tried tobe nice to poor performers at work, rebellious teenagers, or nastyneighbors. You may agree with others who equate a servantattitude with passivity.Scepticism about servant leadership may stem in part from amisunderstanding that equates service with weakness. Servantleaders need to be tough. Sometimes the best way to servesomeone is to reprimand or fire that person. Nevertheless, theremay be situations in which servant leadership is extremely difficult,if not impossible, to implement, such as in prisons, military bootcamps, and emergencies.Misplaced goals are problems for servant leaders and followersalike. Followers of Indian holy man Gurmeet Ram Rahim continueto treat him as a god even though he has been convicted of rapeand ordering a murder. He is also accused of urging the faithful tocommit suicide to protest his imprisonment.25 The desire to servemust be combined with careful reasoning and value clarification.You need to carefully examine who and what you serve, askingyourself questions such as the following: Is this group, individual,or organization worthy of my service? What values am Ipromoting? 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 todo their homework. After the earthquake in Central Asia in 2005,for example, outdoor manufacturers donated high-techmountaineering tents to victims. Unfortunately, these tents arehighly flammable and caught fire from candles, kerosene lanterns,and cooking fires, burning and killing adults and children. After amajor earthquake in Haiti, a group of Idaho church members wasjailed after trying to take orphans out of the country. It turns outthat the children weren’t orphans after all. Some humanitarianefforts are wasted. Worse yet, they can make problems worse and
foster dependency in recipients.26 (The Leadership Ethics at theMovies case on the student study site describes one group ofhumanitarians who don’t always provide wise service.)Finally, members of some minority groups, particularly AfricanAmericans, associate the word servant with a history of slavery,oppression, and discrimination. The negative connotationssurrounding the word may keep you from embracing the idea ofservant leadership. You may want to abandon this term and focusinstead on related concepts such as altruism and the virtues ofconcern and compassion.
Authentic Leadership: KnowYourself and to Your Own Self BeTrueAncient Greek and Roman philosophers prized authenticity.“Know thyself” was inscribed on the frieze above the oracle ofDelphi and appears in the writings of Cicero and Ovid.27 Greekthinkers also exhorted listeners “to thine own self be true.” Modernscholars have rediscovered the importance of this quality.Proponents of Authentic Leadership Theory (ALT) identifyauthenticity as the “root construct” or principle underlying all formsof positive leadership. The practice of authentic leadership leadsto sustainable (long-term) and veritable (ethically sound)organizational performance.28Authenticity has four components: self-awareness, balancedprocessing, internalized moral perspective, and relationaltransparency.29 Self-awareness means being conscious of, andtrusting in, our motives, desires, feelings, and self-concept. Self-aware people know their strengths and weaknesses, personaltraits, and emotional patterns, and they are able to use thisknowledge when interacting with others and their environments.Balanced processing describes remaining objective whenreceiving information. Inauthentic responses involve denying,distorting, or ignoring feedback we don’t want to acknowledge. Wemay have to accept the fact that we aren’t very good at certainactivities (accounting, writing, playing basketball) or that we haveproblems managing our anger. Internalized moral perspectiverefers to regulating our behavior according to our internalstandards and values, not according to what others say. We act inharmony with what we believe and do not change our behavior toplease others or to earn rewards or avoid punishment. Relationaltransparency is presenting the authentic self to others, openlyexpressing true thoughts and feelings appropriate for the situation.(Case Study 8.2 describes a leader who was particularlynoteworthy for his internal standards and openness to others.)
Disappointed by the stream of business and political scandals,ALT theorists hope to improve the ethical performance of leaders.They define authentic leaders asthose who are deeply aware of how they think andbehave and are perceived by others as being aware oftheir own and others’ values/moral perspectives,knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in whichthey operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic,resilient, and of high moral character.30Such leaders acknowledge the ethical responsibilities of theirroles, can recognize and evaluate ethical issues, and take moralactions that are thoroughly grounded in their beliefs and values. Inorder to carry out these tasks, they draw on their courage andresilience—the ability to adapt when confronted with significantrisk or adversity.31Because authenticity is so critical to positive leadershipperformance, Bruce Avolio, Fred Luthans, and others areinterested in how leaders develop this quality. They report thatcritical incidents called trigger events play an important role in thedevelopment of the moral component of authentic leadership.32These events, like the crucible moments described in Chapter 3,can be positive or negative and promote introspection andreflection. Trigger experiences are often dramatic—facing racialhatred, visiting a third-world village—but can also be moremundane, such as reading a significant book. Sometimes a seriesof small events, like several minor successes or failures, can havea cumulative effect, triggering significant thought. Leaders developa clearer sense of who they are, including their standards of rightand wrong, through these experiences. They build a store ofmoral knowledge that they can draw on to make better choiceswhen facing future ethical dilemmas.Authenticity can also be fostered through training and education.For example, trainers and educators can help leaders developtheir moral capacity by (1) encouraging them to think about the
possible consequences of their leadership decisions, (2)enhancing their perspective taking through discussion andtraining, (3) exposing them to common moral dilemmas to helpthem 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 newethical challenges, and (6) pairing them with moral leaders so theycan observe authentic behavior firsthand.33Authentic leadership produces a number of positive ethical effectsin followers.34 Followers are likely to emulate the example ofauthentic leaders who set a high ethical standard. They feelempowered to make ethical choices on their own without the inputof the leader, are more likely to resist temptation, and are morelikely to act courageously. They align themselves with the valuesof the organization and become authentic moral agentsthemselves. Leader authenticity also fosters feelings of self-efficacy (competence), hope, optimism, and resilience in followers.Authentic followers, for their part, provide feedback that reinforcesthe authentic behavior of leaders and increases the leaders’ self-knowledge. (The Focus on Follower Ethics box provides moreinformation on the characteristics of authentic followers.)Authentic leadership and followership are more likely to develop inorganizational climates that provide the information and otherresources that employees need to get their work done, encouragelearning, treat members fairly, and set clear goals andperformance standards.Proponents of ALT argue that authenticity pays practical as wellas ethical dividends. They cite evidence that authentic leadershipis linked to higher follower performance, commitment,organizational citizenship behavior, satisfaction, and effort.35Authentic leaders, particularly because they act with integrity,engender more trust, and trust, in turn, has been linked to higherorganizational productivity and performance (see Chapter 10).The positive emotions fostered by leaders also enhanceperformance. Followers who believe in their abilities are morelikely to take initiative and to achieve more, even in the face ofdifficult circumstances. Feelings of hope and optimism fosterwillpower. Resiliency enables followers to recover more quickly
from setbacks.36 So far the positive effects of authentic leadershipappear to generalize across cultures, reducing follower stress andinsecurity while increasing job satisfaction, trust, safety,performance, and willingness to blow the whistle on organizationalwrongdoing.37
Applications and CautionsApplicationsRecognize 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 intheir definition of authentic leadership. Authentic leadership iseffective as well as ethical. Authenticity multiplies the impact ofleaders and lays the foundation for long-term organizationalsuccess. 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, relyon internal standards and values, and openly present yourself toothers. Consider the trigger events in your life and what theyreveal about who you are (see Application Exercise 8.6). Fosterauthenticity in others through your example and the trainingstrategies described earlier.CautionsOverstates the significance of authenticityAssumes one “self”Equates authenticity with moralityAuthenticity can be defined as a personal characteristic or asa perceptionOther variables may support or reduce authentic behaviorWhile authenticity is a critical component of ethical leadership, thetheory’s underlying premise that authenticity is the source of allpositive forms of leadership is subject to debate. There may besome other as yet undiscovered source instead. Or there may bemultiple sources of ethical leadership. Further, authenticity may beoverrated. Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer points outthat leaders frequently act in ways that contradict their feelings inorder to carry out their roles. Leaders have to express confidence
to attract investors and customers when they feel insecure, givespeeches when sick, comfort others when they (the leaders) aregrieving, and so on. (See the discussion of impressionmanagement in Chapter 1.) Pfeffer asserts that inauthenticleadership is far more common (and effective) than authenticleadership.38ALT theorists operate under the premise that each of us has onetrue or core “self.” A number of theorists take issue with this claim,arguing that we have many different “selves” that are impacted byelements of the situation.39 Further, important elements of ourselves—life goals, values, assessment of our strengths andweaknesses—change over time. ALT theories also seem equateself-awareness with morality. The clearer you are about the self-concept, they claim, the more likely you are to act ethically. Yet thecore values of some leaders promote self-seeking, destructivebehavior. Then, too, expressing your “true” self can produceundesirable consequences. Take the case of the boss who fails totemper his criticism of a subordinate. By accurately reflecting whathe feels at that moment, he may do lasting damage to the self-concept of his employee. The critical boss believes he is actingauthentically; the unfortunate employee and observers probablywill conclude that he is callous instead.Investigations into the effects of authentic leadership have alsoidentified 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 onorganizational behavior, observers must perceive that yourbehavior is authentic.40 Authenticity then becomes a product ofperception, not of personal beliefs and behaviors. Leaders whohope to be successful must project an authentic image. In otherwords, being authentic is no longer enough. Leaders must alsoappear authentic. This could tempt you to be untrue to your ownself. You might fail to act on your values and self-understandingfor fear that such behavior could be seen as inauthentic. Inaddition, inauthentic (pseudo-authentic) leaders could misleadfollowers by projecting an authentic image.41 Further research andanalysis are needed to resolve this apparent contradictionbetween the personal and perceptual dimensions of ALT. Further
research will also further clarify how other factors, such aspersonality and self-identity, encourage leaders to act (or to notact) in an authentic manner.Focus on Follower Ethics Authentic FollowershipAuthenticity is the mark of ethical followership just as it is for ethicalleadership. Authentic leaders and followers encourage transparency,self-awareness, and moral behavior in each other. Together theybuild open, healthy relationships and collaborate to achieveworthwhile objectives. Followers have the greatest impact on leaderswhen they develop psychological ownership, foster trust, andpractice transparency.Psychological ownership. Authentic followers feel like they “own” theorganizations where they work and volunteer. This sense ofownership is based on a sense of belonging (“This is my home.”); asense of identity (“I am a student at ______ University.”); a sense ofaccountability (“I am responsible for this project.”); and a sense ofefficacy (“I can do this task.”). Ownership encourages a variety ofethical behaviors including (1) meeting the needs of customers whenthey first come in contact with the firm, (2) taking responsibility formaking decisions at lower organizational levels, (3) going beyondwhat the job requires, and (4) doing whatever it takes to solveproblems.Trust. Authentic followers are vulnerable. They admit their mistakesand encourage their leaders to do the same. For example, whenpharmacists admit to “near misses” (nearly filling the wrongprescription), they prompt their supervisors to take further steps toreduce potential errors. Authentic followers don’t take advantage oftheir leaders who admit their mistakes. They also build trust with theirleaders by taking on challenges without being asked.Transparency. Authentic followers say what they mean. By sharingtheir thoughts, values, and feelings, they help create transparentrelationships with their leaders. These relationships are marked byhonesty, feedback, and effective communication. Authentic followersalso contribute to the creation of transparent organizational climates.In transparent climates, policies and procedures are visible toeveryone. Members share important goals and values and put theneeds of the group above their own concerns. Because they feelsafe, employees reveal problems rather than creating the impressionthat everything is fine.
SourceAvolio, B. J., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The rise of authenticfollowership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.),The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders andorganizations (pp. 325–337). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.See alsoDe Zilwa, D. (2014). The strengths and capacities of authenticfollowership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37,310–324.Rodgers, R. K., & Bligh, M. C. (2014). Exploring the “flip side” of thecoin: Do authentic leaders need authentic followers? In L. M.Lapierre & M. K. Carsten (Eds.), Followership: What is it and whypeople follow (pp. 27–45). Boston, MA: Emerald.
Aesthetic (Beautiful) LeadershipAesthetic leadership, like authentic leadership, has its roots inclassic Greek thought. The word aesthetic or “aisth” in ancientGreek means, “feeling through physical perceptions.”42 Oursensory encounters with people, events, objects, and settingsgenerate emotions. We then construct meanings based on thosefeelings. Take the case of an unsuccessful job interview, forexample. Both individuals see, hear, listen, smell, and touch oneanother during the meeting. Each then comes away from theencounter with feelings about the appointment and the other party.The interviewer may be disappointed with the applicant andconclude that she or he was not prepared for the session. Thefrustrated interviewee may go home and complain about how thecompany representative was cold and distant.The aesthetic perspective emphasizes the sensory and emotionaldimension of organizational life.43 From this vantage point,organizations serve as stages and leadership is more of an artthan a science. Leaders, like artists, make skilful use of dramaticelements (ritual, ceremony, gestures, oratory), design (theytransform visions and programs into reality), and orchestration(they bring diverse individuals together to achieve worthy goals).44(See Case Study 8.3 for examples of young artist–leaders makinga difference.) Followers serve as audiences who make aestheticjudgments about leaders and their performances. Successfulleaders generate strong positive emotions and attributions. Forexample, President John F. Kennedy was youthful, energetic andglamorous. In his speeches, such as the one calling upon theUnited States to put a man on the moon, he appealed to theaspirations of Americans and engaged their imaginations.45 He isremembered as a highly effective leader even though heaccomplished much less than other, less attractive presidents likeLyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.Ethics is integral to aesthetic leadership. For the ancients,aesthetics meant pursuing goals that serve humankind. Aristotlebelieved that leaders should pursue “human flourishing” and the
“good life.” Plato (428–348 BCE) argued that beauty must serve agood (moral) purpose. Aesthetic and moral judgments overlap.The most ethical course of action is also the most aestheticallypleasing or beautiful.Contemporary theorists argue that, when it comes to makingmoral choices, leaders can learn a great deal from artists—musicians, painters, sculptors, actors. Artists incorporate emotionand intuition into their work. As we saw in Chapter 6, theseelements also play a critical role in ethical decision making.Investigators identify the following as artistic practices than canenhance moral reasoning:46–Set aside preconceived notions or ideas. Drop existinglabels and come to the problem with an open mind.–Look deeply. Focus in on what the senses reveal.–Take a “second look.” Don’t be in a hurry to come to asolution but reexamine the issue.–Be present in the moment. Be ready to improvise but, at thesame time, anticipate what may come next.–Be engaged but detached. Stay involved in the process butstep back when necessary to evaluate reasoning andconclusions.–Let the imagination play. Experiment and ask, “What if?”–Take a holistic view. Look for underlying patterns; recognizethat the whole is more than the sum of its parts; includeemotion and passion into the decision-making process.–Act with courage. Resist conformity; think differently andaccept the consequences for doing so.British leadership professor Donna Ladkin identifies threecomponents that contribute to a beautiful leadershipperformance.47 The first is mastery. An ethical, beautiful leader iscompetent and possesses the necessary skills and abilities toperform in a given moment. She or he can improvise, applying thecorrect skills to a particular situation. The second component iscoherence. The beautiful, ethical leader is authentic, acting in away that is consistent with his or her message and purpose. Thethird component is purpose. The beautiful leader serves the bestinterests of the community and improves the human condition.
Captain Tammie Jo Shults provides one example of a beautifulleadership performance.48 A fan blade broke off the engine of herSouthwest Airlines plane after leaving New York’s La Guardiaairport. The debris broke a window of the Boeing 707, causing aloss of pressure and sucking a passenger partway through theopening. Shults and co-pilot Darren Ellison safely landed theplane in Philadelphia despite touching the runway at well overnormal landing speed, thereby preventing a greater catastrophe.During the emergency, Shults calmly notified air traffic that shehad “149 souls” on board and to summon emergency groundpersonnel. Throughout the rapid descent she assured passengersthe plane wasn’t crashing but descending and told them to bracethemselves. After landing, Shults walked through the cabin talkingand shaking hands with passengers. “She has nerves of steel,”said a passenger from Corpus Christi, Texas. “I’m going to sendher a Christmas card, I’m going to tell you that, with a giftcertificate for getting me on the ground. She was awesome.”Followers also played a role in this performance. Fellowpassengers pulled the critically injured woman back into the planeand tried to plug the hole with clothing (it didn’t work). A nurse andEMT tried to keep the victim alive but she died of head and necktrauma. Captain Shults’s behavior stands in sharp contrast to theugly behavior of the captain of the Costa Concordia cruise ship.When his cruise liner crashed into the rocks off the Italian coast,Francesco Schettino abandoned ship and headed for shore,leaving many passengers still on board (32 died). Later thecaptain denied that he was in charge of the ship at the time of thecrash—a claim contradicted by the ship’s data recorder. He wassentenced to 16 years in prison for manslaughter and abandoningship.49
Applications and CautionsApplicationsRecognize the physical/sensory dimension of leadership.View leadership as a performing art.Make aesthetic judgments.Decide like an artist.Leadership has a physical or sensory dimension. Followers willmake attributions about your motives and effectiveness based onthe interactions they have with you. Your behaviors will determineif they think you are honest or dishonest, competent orincompetent, and so on. With this in mind, view leadership as aperforming art. Make skillful use of the dramatic elementsdescribed above. Put on performances that reflect mastery,coherence, and purpose. To function as an artful leader, you willneed to serve high moral purposes and demonstrate practicalwisdom, courage, and other virtues.50 Use beauty as a standardfor judging the performances of other artist–leaders. When makingethical choices, act like an artist, incorporating the processesdescribed earlier. Set aside preconceived notions, look closely, letyour imagination play, take a holistic view, and so forth. You canpractice these behaviors by engaging with paintings, sculpture,concerts, and other works of art. Be intentional when faced withmoral dilemmas, concentrating on being fully present in themoment to sense and engage as fully as possible.51CautionsIgnores the rational dimension of leadershipDefinitions of beauty varyPerformances can be dishonestResist the temptation to treat leadership as only an art.Leadership is best viewed as both an art and a science.Recognizing the aesthetic dimension of leadership doesn’t meanthat you should reject its rational aspects. To succeed, you will
need to understand how organizations operate, make wisechoices, engage in strategic planning, and so on. It is also notclear that followers share the same standard of beauty. They maynot always agree on what is beautiful (ethical), demonstrating thetruth of the old adage, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”Viewing leadership as performance can also tempt you to engagein deceit. Leaders can hide their true intentions and manipulateaudiences (see the discussion of authentic leadership above). Inthe early days of Virgin, for example, company founder RichardBranson would use pay phones to call clients. He would then ringthe operator and claim that he’d lost his money in the phone. Theoperator was then required to connect the call and would say tothe person answering, “I have Mr. Branson for you.” This createdthe false impression that Branson was important enough to havesomeone to place his calls.52
Benevolent Leadership: Demonstrate Concernand CompassionBenevolent leadership theory has its origins in both paternalismand the Four-Stream model. Paternalism is popular in collectivist,patriarchal cultures—in the Middle East, the Asia Pacific, andLatin America—which tolerate large power differences betweenleaders and followers. In these societies, leaders act like fatherfigures. They combine strong authority with concern andconsideration for followers and model ethical behavior.53 In China,for example, Confucian thought emphasizes the importance ofsocial order, with fathers having absolute authority over their sons.In the same way, business and government leaders have authorityover their subordinates. But at the same time, ideal Confucianleaders are also benevolent, caring for their followers, and theylead by their moral example. Subordinates respond to thebeneficence of their leaders with obedience and loyalty.Paternalistic leadership (PL) is made up of three dimensions:authoritarianism, benevolence, and morality. Authoritarianismdescribes leader behaviors that demand obedience and exertcontrol. Benevolent leadership behaviors demonstrate concern forindividual followers both on and off the job. A benevolent leadermay loan money to an employee for the down payment on ahome, for example, and attend the wedding of the worker’s son ordaughter. (Complete Self-Assessment 8.1 to determine if yourleader is benevolent.) Morality describes behaviors thatdemonstrate the leader’s personal virtues. Demonstrating thesevirtues establishes legitimacy and generates respect for, andidentification with, the leader.Studies using the threefold division of paternalism reveal that thethree dimensions function independently. In general,authoritarianism generates negative outcomes (i.e., lowerorganization commitment and satisfaction with supervision) whilebenevolence generates a variety of positive outcomes. Theseinclude the following:54
– greater job satisfaction and organizational commitment– identification with the leader and the team– higher creativity– better decision making– increased task performance– more organizational citizenship behavior– heightened work motivation and engagement– greater trust in the leader– enhanced follower self-esteem– positive ethical climateTurkish scholars Fahri Karakas and Ermine Sarigollu offer amodel of benevolent leadership that avoids paternalismaltogether.55 They define benevolence as a belief in the goodnessof humankind and the human obligation to use love and charity todo good for others. Benevolent leadership focuses on thecommon good, creating benefit for everyone. Need forcompassionate leadership is greater than ever due to the loss ofconfidence in leaders and widespread uncertainty. Technologicalchanges, growing complexity, downsizing, and otherdevelopments have eroded the trust of employees and producedfear and scepticism. Karakas and Sarigollu contend thatbenevolent leadership is well suited to meeting these challenges.Their model draws upon four streams or pillars of organizationalresearch: (1) morality (values, ethics, ethical decision making); (2)spirituality (focus on the inner life and spiritual actions of theleader); (3) vitality (creating positive change in the organizationand the world); and (4) community (corporate social responsibility,corporate citizenship). The benevolent leader demonstratesspiritual depth, engaging in a search for meaning and purpose atwork. She or he is ethically sensitive, reflecting on right or wrongconduct on the job. This leader demonstrates positiveengagement, creating positive change by inspiring courage andhope. Finally, the benevolent leader reflects communityresponsiveness, taking a significant role in solving socialproblems. Karakas and Sarigollu found that benevolent leadershippromotes higher organizational performance, emotionalcommitment to the organization, and organizational citizenshipbehavior.
The theorists caution that the four dimensions or anchors ofbenevolent leadership must be kept in balance. Shallow spiritualdepth produces apathy but overemphasizing spirituality can shiftfocus away from results and may undermine spiritual diversity inthe workplace. Low ethical sensitivity leads to violation of lawsand ethical standards of conduct. Extreme ethical sensitivity, onthe other hand, can produce judgmentalism that stifles creativityand reduces employee empowerment. Low levels of positiveengagement produce lethargy—passivity, low morale andcommitment. But focusing too much on positive engagement canencourage leaders to use manipulative motivational techniques.Low community responsiveness undermines cohesion and socialsupport, producing isolation. Focusing too much on communityresponsiveness can undermine organizational goals like making aprofit.
Applications and CautionsApplicationsDraw ethical insights from non-Western thought.Care for the follower as a whole person.Practice benevolent behaviors.A great majority of normative leadership theories (including thosedescribed in this chapter) have their origins in the West.Researchers then test these models to determine if they apply toother cultural settings. In contrast, benevolent paternalisticleadership theory was developed in the East and is starting to betested with Western audiences. The Four-Stream model wasinitially tested in Turkey. Benevolent leadership theorydemonstrates the importance of looking beyond the West forethical insight.Benevolent leadership is noteworthy for itsaltruistic/compassionate emphasis. Benevolent leaders focus onothers, treat people with dignity, and put followers first. Followersrespond well to compassionate leaders who care about them.Expressing concern for each follower as a whole person is notonly virtuous, but can increase your effectiveness as a leader. Youcan foster your compassionate tendencies by developing deeperself-awareness of your values and motives while looking to pursueyour mission and find meaning at work. Create benevolent ethicalclimates through encouraging and rewarding benevolentbehaviors in followers, highlighting shared purpose, fosteringquality relationships, recruiting compassionate employees, and soon.CautionsNegative connotation of paternalism and benevolenceLeader centricStill under development
Terms like paternalism and benevolence have negativeconnotations for a number of us in the West. Many continue toequate paternalism with authoritarianism and fear that they willlose their autonomy under benevolent leadership. Scholars fearthat leaders will use benevolent acts to manipulate followers,trading benefits for unthinking submission.56 Others (you may beamong them) are uneasy with blurring the line between work andpersonal lives. While you likely appreciate the individualized careof a leader on the job, you may feel uncomfortable with a bosswho wants to visit you at home or come to your family events.(See Application Exercise 8.9.)Benevolent leadership is leader centric. Benevolence issomething bestowed by those in a higher power position. It is theleader who acts on followers. The theory says little about the roleof followers. Benevolent influence could run in both directions.Compassionate followers could promote the development ofcompassionate leaders. Creating compassionate organizationsappears to be impossible without the active participation ofbenevolent followers.Because nearly all of the research into paternalistic benevolentleadership has been conducted outside of the United States,Canada, and Europe, more studies need to be conducted todetermine if Western followers respond well to compassionateleaders who care about the total person. One study suggests thatthis is indeed the case. Employees in both India and the UnitedStates were more committed to their organizations when theirleaders acted in a paternalistic fashion.57The Four-Stream model of benevolent leadership model is in itsinfancy. So far it has received little research attention. Much moreremains to be discovered. Is one pillar more important thananother, for instance? Should other streams of research be addedto the model? What is the impact of benevolent leadership in avariety of cultures? Do certain organizational structuresencourage benevolent leadership? How can leaders know if theyare out of balance, giving too much or too little emphasis to one ofthe dimensions? Will paternalistic benevolence and the Four-
Stream model remain distinct or can they be combined to form aunified benevolent leadership theory?
Ethical Leadership: Moral Personsand Moral ManagersEthical leadership theory was born out of the recognition that (a)executive leaders are critical to the success of organizationalethics efforts and (b) social scientists need to systematically studythe ethical dimension of leadership.58 In response a call from agroup of ethics officers at top companies, professors MichaelBrown and Linda Trevino initiated a research program designed todefine ethical leadership. First, they asked ethics officers andexecutives to describe the ethical leaders they knew. Theresearchers discovered that executive leadership is largely basedon reputation, since employees don’t always have direct contactwith top leaders. Further, character alone (being a moral person)is not enough to earn an ethical reputation. Ethical executives alsoact as “moral managers” in addition to being moral persons.59They enhance their moral reputation by actively promoting ethicalbehavior throughout the organization. Based on these twocomponents, Trevino and Brown offer this definition of ethicalleadership: “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conductthrough personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and thepromotion of such conduct to followers through two-waycommunication, reinforcement, and decision making.”60The investigators draw upon social learning theory to explain whyand how ethical organizational leaders influence followers.61Social learning theory is based on the premise that people learnby observing and then emulating the values, attitudes, andbehaviors of people they find legitimate, attractive, and credible.When it comes to ethics, followers look to their leaders as rolemodels and act accordingly. Leaders are generally seen aslegitimate, credible, and attractive because they occupy positionsof authority with power and status. Ethical leaders build on thisfoundation. They increase their legitimacy by treating employeesfairly and with respect. They boost their attractiveness byexpressing care and concern for followers. They enhance theircredibility—particularly perceptions of their trustworthiness—by
living up to the values they espouse. Such leaders are open andhonest and set clear, high standards that they follow themselves.Moral leaders make sure that ethics messages aren’t drowned outby other messages about tasks and profits. They focus attentionon ethics through frequent communication about values, mission,corporate standards, and the importance of ethical behavior. Theyreinforce follower learning by using rewards and punishments toregulate behavior, which makes it clear which actions areacceptable and which are not.Brown and Trevino, along with David Harrison, developed theEthical Leadership Scale (ELS) found in Self-Assessment 8.2 tomeasure the moral person and moral manager dimensions ofethical leadership. Creation of the ELS was a key moment in thestudy of ethical leaders. Researchers quickly put this shortquestionnaire to use, testing the outcomes of ethical leadership.Among their findings,62– Those working for ethical leaders are more satisfied andare more committed to their organizations and theirmanagers. They work harder, are more willing to reportproblems to management, and are more productive.– Members of work groups led by moral leaders are lesslikely to engage in theft, sabotage, cheating, and otherdeviant behaviors. In addition, they are less likely to engagein workplace incivility—putting others down, makingdemeaning remarks, excluding others, and so on.– The impact of ethical leadership trickles down theorganization with top executives boosting the ethicalperformance of supervisors and middle managers and, inturn, the satisfaction and commitment of followers.– Ethical leadership enhances organizational trust levels,fostering perceptions that the organization is competent,open, concerned for employees, and reliable. Such trustleads to improved organizational performance and greaterprofitability.– Ethical CEOs encourage their companies to engage insocially responsible behavior.
– Employees who consider their leaders to be moral personsand moral managers also believe that their organizations areeffective.– Ethical leadership is linked to follower creativity andinnovation.– Ethical leadership fosters an ethical organizational climate,which, in turn, increases job satisfaction and commitment tothe organization.– Ethical leadership can have a positive impact beyond theworkplace. Spouses of employees working for ethical leadersreport higher family satisfaction.– Followers in both Western and non-Western cultures wantleaders of high character who respect the rights and thedignity of others.As you can see, ethical leadership generates a number of positiveresults, though other variables soften or magnify the impact ofethical leaders. For example, ethical leaders have less influenceover followers who are already moral (are conscientious, havestrong moral identities and high moral awareness). The effects ofethical leadership are strongest when leaders and followers havehigh-quality leader–member exchange (LMX) relationships andfollowers identify with their organizations. Strong ethical culturesreinforce the positive effects of ethical leadership.
Applications and CautionsApplicationsAct as a positive role model.Ethical leadership is more than good character.Make ethics a top organizational priority.Reward ethical behavior and punish misconduct.Recognize that ethical leadership can be highly effective.Recognize that you act as a moral model. Followers will learn byobserving and imitating your example. Hold to high personal moralstandards, demonstrate concern for others, and treat followersjustly and with respect. However, acting ethically is not enough.You must also ensure that your followers, particularly more distantones, know that you care (aren’t just neutral) about ethics.Otherwise, they will continue to focus on financial and otherresults without concern for ethics. Make ethical considerations atop organizational priority. Regularly communicate about theimportance of ethics and values, create a code of ethics, provideethics training, and so on. Reward ethical followers while quicklypunishing those who engage in sexual harassment, theft,deception, and corruption. (We’ll take a closer look at creating anethical organizational climate in Chapter 10.)Results from studies using the Ethical Leadership Scale disprovethe old adage that “Nice guys and gals finish last.” Ethical leadersappear to be more, not less effective, than their unscrupulouscounterparts. These findings also build the “business case” forethics, demonstrating that ethical behavior is often moreprofitable. Ethical leadership has been linked to improvedperformance in a number of cultural settings, including Taiwan,China, Spain, Germany, Romania, and Singapore, though theimportance of particular behaviors may vary between countries.63CautionsConfusion about normatively appropriate behavior
Overlooks other dimensions of ethical leadershipConcerns about the validity of the Ethical Leadership ScaleGood (ethical) leadership could produce bad (undesirable)resultsWhile influential, ethical leadership theory has its detractors.Observers debate the meaning of “normatively appropriate”behavior in the definition of ethical leadership. It’s not clear whomakes this determination and how appropriate behavior variesbetween settings. (There may be some behaviors, as discussed inChapters 5 and 11, that are never considered appropriate.) Somescholars argue the theory ignores important components of ethicalleadership. Other critics claim that the Ethical Leadership Scalenot only ignores important components of ethical leadership butdoesn’t provide a valid measure of the moral person/moralmanager construct.Skeptics note that the good (ethical) leadership can produce bad(undesirable) results. In one study, employees were less likely toengage in organizational citizenship behaviors when their leaderswere highly ethical. Followers may have felt that their leaders setimpossibly high standards or communicated a “holier than thou”attitude. In another project, leaders who displayed ethical behaviorone day were more likely to be abusive the next. The investigatorsspeculate that behaving ethically is costly to leaders, causingmental fatigue that lowers their ability to behave appropriatelyshortly thereafter. Those behaving ethically may also believe theyhave a “license” to misbehave, earning the right to be abusivebased on their prior good conduct.64Implications and ApplicationsSeek to be a transforming leader who raises the level ofmorality in a group or an organization. Transformational leadersspeak to higher-level needs and bring about profound changes.They are motivated by duty and altruism and marked bypersonal integrity. Dimensions of transformational leadershipinclude idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectualstimulation, and individualized consideration.Putting the needs of followers first reduces the likelihood thatyou’ll cast ethical shadows. Servant leaders are stewards who
have significant obligations to both their followers and theirinstitutions, practice partnership, promote healing, and serveworthy purposes.Be careful whom and what you serve. Make sure your effortssupport worthy people and goals and are carefully thought out.Authentic leaders have an in-depth knowledge of themselvesand act in ways that reflect their core values and beliefs.Authenticity multiplies the effectiveness of leaders andpromotes ethical behavior in followers. To function as anauthentic leader, you will have to demonstrate self-awareness,balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, andrelational transparency.Aesthetic leadership emphasizes the sensory and emotionaldimensions of organizational life. View leadership as an art andput on beautiful/ethical leadership performances thatdemonstrate mastery, coherence and moral purpose.Incorporate artistic practices into your ethical decision makingby setting aside preconceived notions, looking deeply, andfreeing your imagination.Benevolent paternalistic leaders care for the needs of followersboth on and off the job.Act as a benevolent leader who creates the common benefitthrough spiritual depth, ethical sensitivity, positive engagement,and community responsiveness.Ethical leaders are both moral persons and moral managers.As moral persons, they demonstrate caring and integrity,behave fairly, and treat followers with respect. As moralmanagers, they draw attention to ethical conduct throughsending frequent ethics messages, rewarding desired behavior,and punishing ethical violations.Act as an ethical model by living up to high personal standardsand reinforcing the importance of moral behavior in your groupor organization.For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment1. What similarities and differences do you note between thetheories described in the chapter? What additional applicationsand cautions can you add for each approach? What does eachadd to your understanding and practice of ethical leadership?Write up your conclusions and submit them as a paper ordiscuss them with classmates.2. Brainstorm a list of pseudo-transformational andtransformational leaders. What factors distinguish between the
two types of leader? How do your characteristics compare withthose presented in the chapter?3. Discuss the following propositions in a group: (1) “Sometimesleaders have to be inauthentic in order to fill their roles.” (2)“Ethical leadership is beautiful leadership.” (3) “Leaders shouldbe involved in the lives of followers both on and off the job.”4. Make a diligent effort to serve your followers for a week. At theend of this period, reflect on your experience. Did focusing onthe needs of followers change your behavior? What did you dodifferently? What would happen if you made this yourleadership philosophy? Record your thoughts.5. Write a case study. Option 1 is to base your case on someoneyou consider to be an authentic leader. How does this persondemonstrate authenticity? What impact has this person had onfollowers and her or his organization? What can we learn fromthis leader’s example? Option 2 is to base your case onsomeone you consider to be an ethical leader. Rate this personon the Ethical Leadership Scale in Self-Assessment 8.2.Explain your ratings on individual items and your overallevaluation. How does this individual act as moral person andmoral manager? What can we learn from this leader’sexample?6. Identify the trigger events in your life. How have theycontributed to your moral development as a leader?7. Analyze an instance where you believe that a leader put on abeautiful performance. How did that individual demonstratemastery, coherence, and purpose?8. Approach an ethical problem using the artistic practicesdescribed in the chapter. After making your decision, reflect onhow these strategies shaped how your decision-makingprocess and solution.9. Complete Self-Assessment 8.2 and share your ratings with asmall group or the entire class. Discuss your reaction to leaderswho have or might want to become involved in your life outsidework. How do your classmates respond to benevolentpaternalistic leaders?10. Read a popular book on leadership or a leader. Write a review.Summarize the contents for those who have not read it. Next,evaluate the book from an ethical point of view. Does it drawfrom any of the normative leadership theories described in thechapter? What are its strengths and weaknesses from anethical vantage point? Would you recommend it to others? Whyor why not?
Student Study SiteVisit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGEjournal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.
Case Study 8.1A New Vision for Ferryport CollegeFerryport College was founded by a group of abolitionists prior to the CivilWar. The group wanted to train teachers, clergy, and other professionalsfor the fight against slavery. After slavery was abolished, Ferryportcontinued to emphasize social justice, supporting, for example, the earlyunion movement, the civil rights movement, equal opportunities forwomen, fair trade, and antipoverty initiatives. Social concern is written intothe college’s vision statement, which states, “Preparing students toimprove humanity.” Graduation requirements include participation inservice projects and internships. In order to promote equality, all facultymembers start at the same salary and receive raises based on years ofservice, not on academic rank. Administrators are paid more than facultybut the difference in compensation is significantly less than at otherinstitutions. Power is shared as well. Administrators consult faculty on allmajor initiatives and policy changes.Five years ago, Ferryport faced a crisis. Prospective students didn’t seemas interested in social justice; enrolment dropped from 1,500 to 1,100students. Ferryport lacked a significant endowment fund to make up theloss in tuition revenue in part because its alumni, who gravitate towardlow paying nonprofit positions, had little money to donate to their almamater. Major business donors were turned off by Ferryport’s support forunions, a raise in the minimum wage, and more government regulation ofcorporations. Nervous bankers demanded that Ferryport increase itsfinancial reserves from $1 million to $2 million in order to guarantee futureloans.In response to the crisis, the school’s board of directors encouraged thepresident to retire and appointed Gavin Hughes in his place. Hughes hada doctorate in higher education but came to Ferryport from an educationalsoftware company. He immediately hired a marketing director wholaunched a new admissions campaign which highlighted Ferryport’ssuccessful sports teams, beautiful campus, and international trips butmade no mention of the college’s mission or service requirements. Inanother significant move, he hired a chief financial officer from anaccounting firm and gave him authority to veto spending, even onacademic programs. Hughes then recruited a group of local corporateexecutives to serve as an informal advisory board to help him operate thecollege in a “business-like manner.” He also increased the number ofbusinesspeople on the Board of Trustees.
President Hughes’s moves paid off. The new admissions campaignrestored enrollments and the CFO reined in spending. Donations from thelocal business community increased dramatically, funding the university’sreserves, paying for the construction of a badly needed dining hall andsports complex, and increasing the school’s endowment. The Board ofTrustees was impressed by the turnaround and granted Hughes and hisvice presidents substantial raises. At the same time, the Board, at theurging of the president and CFO, decided to delay salary increases forstaff and faculty for another year in order to ensure a balanced budget.Faculty, while grateful for the college’s financial stability, expressedconcern about the new direction of the school. They could earnsubstantially more at other colleges and universities but were attracted byFerryport’s social outreach. They worried that the unique culture ofFerryport was being lost in the push to make the college operate like abusiness. Some complained that money, not mission, now drove thecollege. Marketing seemed to take priority over the college’s traditionalvalues. The president, who was quick to claim personal credit for thecollege’s success, appeared to be consolidating power in hisadministration, reducing the voice of faculty. Others resented the fact thatthose from nonacademic backgrounds were making important decisionsabout academic programs.Tensions came to a head when President Hughes proposed a new visionstatement for Ferryport: “Preparing tomorrow’s successful new leaders.”No mention was made of social concern and faculty worried that successmeant preparing students for lucrative careers rather than preparing themto serve others. At the same time, Hughes proposed a new facultyevaluation system designed to reward high performers. No longer wouldfaculty operate on the same salary scale. Instead, they would be rated onsuch factors as publications, teaching evaluations, and use of technologyin the classroom. Under this pay-for-performance system, raises woulddepend on how faculty members were rated by administrators.Upset by the changes, faculty debated whether or not to issue a “no-confidence” vote in the president. Such a vote is not legally binding; theBoard of Trustees can ignore it. However, President Hughes would find ithard to continue in his position if faculty publicly united in opposition to hisleadership.
Discussion Probes1. Is Hughes a transformational or pseudo-transformational leader?2. Was it ethical to downplay the college’s mission in order to attractmore students?3. Should colleges operate more like businesses?4. By recruiting business donors, did Hughes “sell out” the vision andvalues of the school?5. Should Ferryport change its vision statement? Why or why not?6. Is there any way to ensure Ferryport’s financial future without furtheraltering its culture? If so, how?7. If you were a faculty member, would you support a no-confidencevote? If you were on the Board of Trustees, how would you respondto such a vote?
Case Study 8.2Authenticity in the Neighborhood: TheLegacy of Mr. RogersJournalists report that children’s television star Fred Rogers, who died in2003, was a tough person to interview. It wasn’t because he wasunfriendly and demanding. Instead, it was because “he was just too gosh-darned nice.”1 The host of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood was as kind andcurious off screen as he was on screen. Instead of talking about himself,he would focus on the interviewer. The interviewers frequently spent somuch time talking about themselves that they ran out of time to interviewFred. At the end of each interview session, Rogers would present thevisitor with a little photo album of their time together. He becameparticularly close with Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter Tim Madigan.Fred became a source of encouragement to Madigan as he struggled withdepression, marital problems, and the death of his brother, ending eachletter with IPOY (I Am Proud of You).Rogers hosted 895 episodes of his television program for preschoolersover three decades. In each episode, Rogers would enter singing histrademark song “Won’t You Be My Neighbor” (one of 200 songs hewrote). He would take off his coat and shoes and put on sneakers and acardigan sweater knitted by his mother. In calm, measured tones Rogerswould talk directly to his young audience. A typical episode would includefilms or segments on how things were made and a visit to theNeighborhood of Make Believe, which was populated by King Friday,Lady Elaine, and other puppets brought to life by Rogers and castmembers. The show addressed both ordinary and difficult topics likegetting a haircut, big and little, the fear of being sucked down a drain,coping with change, angry emotions, divorce, war, and caring for theenvironment. Visitors to the neighborhood included cellist Yo-Yo Ma, TonyBennett, Julia Child, quadriplegic Leroy Erlanger, Lynn Swann, DavidCopperfield, and the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Ozmovie. Rogers also visited Koko the gorilla, a regular viewer of his show;architect Maya Lim; and the Apollo 15 command module pilot. He wouldreply to every letter sent to the show.Rogers was disgusted with television when he first watched it. (“Therewere people throwing pies at one another.”)2 He went into televisionbecause he hated it and thought that the medium could be used tonurture viewers. He combined his spiritual values (Fred was an ordainedPresbyterian minister) and training in child development to create a series
designed to “encourage children to feel good about themselves.” Hewould frequently tell viewers “you are the only person like you in thewhole world” and would sing the song “It’s You I Like” to reinforce thispoint.Fred strove for transparency. For that reason, he vowed to be the samepersona both on and off screen, believing that “kids can spot a phony amile away.”3 Rogers also believed that his young audience deserved hisbest effort. He would reshoot scenes and “agonize” over every word andmovement in the show. However, he wasn’t afraid to make mistakes todemonstrate the importance of learning from failure. Once, for instance,he tried and failed to create a rainbow using mist only to later succeedwith the help of speedy deliveryman Mr. McFeeley (David Newell). Thelesson wasn’t about rainbows but about working together to besuccessful.Fred Rogers was a broadcasting pioneer. When fledgling public televisionwas in danger of losing Congressional funding in 1969, he appearedbefore a Senate committee to explain the importance of speaking tochildren and to share the lyrics of a song about being mad. Skepticalcommittee chair, John Pastore, who had never heard of Rogers’sprogram, said, “I’m supposed to be a pretty tough guy, and this is the firsttime I’ve had goose bumps for the last two days. Looks like you justearned the $20 million.”4 Later, Fred defended VCR manufacturers beingsued by the television industry for copyright infringement. Televisionexecutives objected to “time shifting,” where viewers would record showsto watch later. Not Fred. He hoped that parents would record his shows ifthey were broadcast when children couldn’t see them and view them atanother time as a family. He believed that “anything that allows a personto be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, isimportant.”5 The Supreme Court cited Rogers in their ruling in favor of theVCR manufacturers.Rogers was also a pioneer in race relations. He recruited FrancoisClemmons to play a police officer, making him one of the first black mento play a recurring role as an authority figure on American television. In aparticularly bold move, he and Clemmons soaked their feet together in awading pool. This came just 5 years after the passage of the Civil RightsAct, when many swimming pools were still segregated, and after aninterracial group had been assaulted for conducting a wade in at a St.Augustine, Florida, “whites only” beach.Mr. Rogers received four daytime Emmys, the Presidential Medal ofFreedom, two Congressional citations, and 40 honorary doctorates. Hewas inducted into the Television Hall of Fame, had an asteroid namedafter him, and one his sweaters is displayed in the Smithsonian as a
“treasure of American History.” All these accolades didn’t shield him fromcriticism and ridicule, however. Conservative groups attacked him for notcondemning gays and lesbians. Some cast members complained that hedidn’t do enough to promote sexual and civil rights. Sceptics called him awimp who was not manly enough. Saturday Night Live comedian EddieMurphy parodied Rogers in his Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood sketches.(Rogers once surprised Murphy in his dressing room. The two hugged.)The 50th anniversary of the show’s debut in 1968 sparked renewedinterest in Mr. Rogers. He was the subject of a PBS primetime show, adocumentary, a motion picture starring Tom Hanks, and a commemorativeU.S. postage stamp showing Rogers along with puppet King Friday XIII ofthe Neighborhood of Make Believe. His mission continues through theFred Rogers Center and the Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood children’s showproduced by his company.Fred attributed his ability to connect with children to the human attractionto authenticity: “Every one of us longs to be in touch with honesty . . . Ithink we’re really attracted to people who will share some of their real selfwith us.”6 Mr. Rogers’s willingness to share his real self continues toattract children and adults long after his death.
Discussion Probes1. Did you watch Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood or Daniel Tiger’sNeighborhood while growing up? What do you remember from theseshows? What impact did they have on your life?2. What made Fred Rogers an authentic leader? A servant leader?3. What does it mean for a leader to share her or his “real self?” Doesthis include mistakes and failures?4. Are followers always attracted to authentic leaders?5. Is it possible for a leader to be too transparent? To share too muchwith followers?6. Why does Fred Rogers remain an important figure years after hisdeath?
Notes1. Crouteau, J., & Smallwood, K. (n.d.). Ways Mister Rogers was evenmore amazing than we knew. Grunge.2. Junod, T. (1998, November). Can you say. . . Hero? Fred Rogers hasbeen doing the same small good thing for a very long time. Esquire.3. Owen, R. (2000, November 12). There goes the neighborhood: MisterRogers will make last episodes of show in December. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Magazine.4. Strachan, M. (2017). The best argument for saving public media wasmade by Mr. Rogers in 1969. HuffPost.5. Madrigal, A. C. (2012, January 10). The court case that almost made itillegal to tape television shows. The Atlantic.6. Bianculli, D. (2018, February 19). It’s a beautiful 50th birthday for MisterRogers’ Neighborhood. NPR.
SourcesBurns, A. S. (2018, February 18). Mister Rogers still lives in yourneighborhood. NPR.Collins, M., & M. M. Kimmel (Eds.), (1997) Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood:Children, television, and Fred Rogers. Pittsburgh, PA: University ofPittsburgh Press.Sciullo, M. (2018, January 11). Joanne Rogers embodies the life, love andspirit of husband Fred Rogers’s legacy. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.Deb, S. (2018, March 5). “Mister Rogers’ neighborhood” at 50: 5memorable moments. The New York Times.Long, M. G. (2015). Peaceful neighbor: Discovering the counterculturalMister Rogers. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Case Study 8.3Teens Take on the Gun LobbyModern teens are often portrayed as lazy and self-absorbed. According tothis stereotype, they care little about current events or the needs ofothers. This stereotype certainly doesn’t apply to students at Florida’sMarjory Stoneman Douglas High School. After a former student killed 17students and staff at their school, survivors decided to take action. Theylobbied Florida legislators for stronger gun laws and met with PresidentTrump. They also created the #NeverAgain movement and organized theMarch for Our Lives. The group hopes to institute universal backgroundchecks and to ban high-capacity magazines and assault weapons. TheMarch for Our Lives rally at 800 cities around the United States isbelieved to be the largest youth led protest since the end of the Viet NamWar. The group also called several nationwide student walkouts.Stoneman Douglas survivors are eloquent spokespeople for their cause.At the Washington, D.C., March for Our Lives rally, senior David Hoggurged first-time voters to defeat politicians who fail to pass gun controllegislation. “We will not stop,” he declared, “until every man, everywoman, every child and every American can live without fear of gunviolence.”1 Junior Cameron Kasky lamented the fact that members of hisgeneration had “spent our entire lives seeing mass shooting after massshooting.” He called upon listeners to “create a better world” forgenerations to come. Senior Emma Gonzalez has been a particularlyeffective advocate. When speaking at a Florida rally in front of theBroward county courthouse, she repeatedly called “BS” on those whobelittle teens and gun supporters. At the Washington rally, she usedsilence to move her audience. After naming her fellow students who werelost in the shooting and describing what each would never do again,Gonzalez went silent for four minutes, standing with tears running downher face. Then a timer went off. She then announced that six minutes and25 seconds had passed, the length of time it took the shooter to terrorizethe school and then calmly walk away. She ended by declaring, “Fight foryour lives before it’s someone else’s job.”2The Stoneman Douglas activists haven’t hesitated to take on the powerfulNational Rifle Association and its political allies, urging the electorate tovote out those receiving money from the organization. Gonzales declared,“To every politician who is taking donations from the NRA, shame on you.”3 Another claimed that every politician who receives money from the NRAhas “chosen death.”4 Stoneman Douglas students wore price tags
reading $1.05, to point out how much Florida Senator Marco Rubio tookfrom the NRA for every student in the state of Florida.Since the NRA and gun manufacturers pour money into politicalcampaigns and gun rights supporters are more likely to vote, StonemanDouglas students face an uphill fight. Nevertheless, the tragedy atStoneman Douglas and the #NeverAgain movement may prompt thepassage of stricter gun measures. Florida passed a gun control law whichraises the minimum ownership age and creates a three-day waitingperiod. (However, the bill failed to ban assault weapons and high-capacitymagazines or strengthen background checks.) And businesses arechanging their gun policies in response to the Stoneman Douglas tragedyas well as previous massacres. Citibank and Bank of America stoppeddoing business with gun manufacturers and other customers whocontinue to sell military style weapons, bump stocks, and high-capacitymagazines. Dicks Sporting Goods, L. L. Bean, and Walmart will no longersell firearms to those under 21. Kroger discontinued gun sales in its FredMeyer stores. Dick’s will no longer carry assault-type rifles. Delta airlinesdiscontinued its NRA credit card.
Discussion Probes1. What is your reaction to the March for Our Lives and other#NeverAgain activities? Have you participated in any of theseevents?2. Did the Stoneman Douglas march organizers and speakers put onbeautiful leadership performances? Why or why not?3. Do you think that the #NeverAgain movement will succeed inpassing stricter state and national gun laws?4. Why do you think the Parkland massacre spurred more corporationsto take action than previous mass shootings at Newtown, LasVegas, and elsewhere?5. Are you more or less willing to do business with companies that aretightening up their gun policies?
Notes1. Reilly, K. (2018, March 24). Emma Gonzalez’s stunning silence forParkland: The latest on March for Our Lives. Time.2. Witt, E. (2018, March 25). The March for Our Lives presents a radicalnew model for youth protest. The New Yorker.3.Florida student Emma Gonzalez to lawmakers and gun advocates: “Wecall BS.” (2018, February 17). CNN.4. March for Our Lives highlights: Students protesting guns say “enoughis enough.” (2018, March 24). The New York Times.
SourcesAlmasy, S. (2018, March 25). March for Our Lives: Top moments thatmade up a movement. CNN.Astor, M. (2018, March 8). Florida gun bill: What’s in it, and what isn’t. TheNew York Times.Epstein, K., & Amenabar, T. (2018, March 24). The 6 most memorablespeeches at the March for Our Lives in D. C. The Washington Post.Hsu, T. (2018, March 22). Citigroup sets restrictions on gun sales bybusiness partners. The New York Times.Lopez, G. (2018, March 26). It’s official: March for Our Lives was one ofthe biggest youth protests since the Vietnam War. Vox.Moore, J. (2018, March 2). These are the companies ending gun sales tobuyers under the age of 21. Newsweek.Our Mission to End School Shootings. (2018, March 24). March for OurLives.Wang, A. B. (2108, April 11). Bank of America to stop lending some gunmanufacturers in wake of Parkland massacre. The Washington Post.SELF-ASSESSMENT 8.1 Benevolent Leadership Scale
InstructionsRate a supervisor at your job on each of the following items. 1 =strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree.1. My supervisor shows concern about my private life and dailyliving.2. My supervisor ordinarily shows a kind concern for my comfort.3. My supervisor takes good care of my family members as well.4. My supervisor takes very thoughtful care of subordinates whohave spent a long time with her or him.5. My supervisor meets my needs according to my personalrequests.6. My supervisor helps me resolve tough problems in my daily life.Scoring: Total scores can range from 6 to 36. The higher the score,the more you consider your supervisor to be a benevolentpaternalistic leader.Source: Farh, J.-L., Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.-F., & Chu, X.-P. (2006).Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalisticleadership in China. In A. S. Tsui, Y. Bian, & L. Cheng (Eds.), China’sdomestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives onmanagement and performance. Armonk: NY: M. E. Sharpe, p. 244.Used by permission.SELF-ASSESSMENT 8.2 Ethical Leadership ScaleInstructions: In responding to the following items, think about yourCEO (top leader) at work. Indicate your level of agreement with thestatements in the next section by circling your responses.1 = strongly disagree2 = disagree3 = neutral4 = agree5 = strongly agreeMy organization’s CEO (top leader)1. listens to what employees have to say.1 2 3 4 52. disciplines employees who violate ethical standards.1 2 3 4 5
3. conducts his or her personal life in an ethical manner.1 2 3 4 54. has the best interests of employees in mind.1 2 3 4 55. makes fair and balanced decisions.1 2 3 4 56. can be trusted.1 2 3 4 57. discusses business ethics or values with employees.1 2 3 4 58. sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms ofethics.1 2 3 4 59. defines success not just by results but also by the way that theyare obtained.1 2 3 4 510. asks “What is the right thing to do?” when making decisions.1 2 3 4 5Scoring: Add up your responses to the 10 items. Total score canrange from 10 to 50. The higher the score, the more ethical youbelieve your leader to be.Source: Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005).Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for constructdevelopment and testing. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 97, 117–134. Used by permission.
Notes1. See, for example, Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L.(1951). Productivity, supervision, and morale among railroadworkers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan: Institute for SocialResearch; Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leaderbehavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio StateUniversity, Bureau of Business Research.2. Burns J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.See also Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: A newpursuit of happiness. New York, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.3. Burns (1978), p. 2.4. Burns (2003), Ch. 12.5. Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional andtransformational leaders. Canadian Journal of AdministrativeSciences, 18, 257–265.6. Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C.(2002, April). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 304–311; Carlson, D. S., &Perrewe, P. L. (1995). Institutionalization of organizational ethicsthrough transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics,14, 829–838; Hood, J. N. (2003). The relationship of leadershipstyle and CEO values to ethical practices in organizations. Journalof Business Ethics, 43, 263–273; Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J.(2008). Ethical turnarounds and transformational leadership: Aglobal imperative for corporate social responsibility. ThunderbirdInternational Business Review, 50, 304–314. 6. Toor, S. R., &Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationshipswith full range leadership model, employee outcomes, andorganizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 533–547.7. See the following: Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm ofleadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership.Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences; Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., &Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessingtransformational and transactional leadership. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88, 207–218.8. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press, p. 53.9. See Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformationalleadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R.Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives anddirections (pp. 49–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press;Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Addingto contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect ofcharismatic leadership. Group and Organizational Studies, 15,381–394.10. For evidence of the effectiveness of transformationalleadership, see Bass et al. (2003) and the following: Choudhary,A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformationaland servant leadership on organizational performance: Acomparative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 433–440;Lowe, K. B., & Kroeck, K. G. (1996). Effectiveness correlates oftransformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analyticreview. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425; Pradhan, S., &Pradhan, R. K. (2015). An empirical investigation of relationshipamong transformational leadership, affective organizationalcommitment and contextual performance. Vision, 19, 227–235;Toor, S. R., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining therelationships with full range leadership model, employeeoutcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics,90, 533–547; Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A.E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance acrosscriteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research.Group & Organization Management, 36, 223–270.11. Bass, B. M. (1995). The ethics of transformational leadership.In J. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics: The heart of leadership (pp. 169–192).Westport, CT: Praeger.
12. Christie, A., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2011). Pseudo-transformational leadership: Model specification and outcomes.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2943–2984.13. Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. U., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W. (1999). Culture specific andcross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Areattributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universallyendorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219–257.14. Choudhary et al. (2013); Pradhan, S., & Pradhan (2015);ElKordy, M. (2013). Transformational leadership andorganizational culture as predictors of employees’ attitudinaloutcomes. Business Management Dynamics, 3, 15–26; Sun, W.,Xu, A., & Shang, Y. (2014). Transformational leadership, teamclimate, and team performance within the NPD team: Evidencefrom China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31, 127–147.15. Tourish, D. (2008). Challenging the transformational agenda:Leadership theory in transition? Management CommunicationQuarterly, 21, 522–528, p. 523.16. Criticisms of transformational leadership can be found in thefollowing: Kelley, R. (1992). The power of followership. New York,NY: Doubleday/Currency; Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. (2002).Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the spiritualityparadigm: An unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations,55(2), 147–172; Tourish, D. (2013). The dark side oftransformational leadership: A critical perspective. Oxford,England: Routledge.17. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY:Paulist Press.18. Spears, L. (1998). Introduction: Tracing the growing impact ofservant-leadership. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership(pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Wiley; Ruschman, N. L. (2002).Servant-leadership and the best companies to work for inAmerica. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus onleadership: Servant-leadership for the twenty-first century (pp. 123–139). New York, NY: Wiley; Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002).
Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application inorganizations. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies,9(2), 57–64.19. Greenleaf, pp. 13–14.20. Laub, J. (2019). Leveraging the power of servant leadership:Building high performing organizations. New York, NY: PalgraveMacmillan.21. Block, P. (1996). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler; DePree, M. (2003).Servant-leadership: Three things necessary. In L. C. Spears & M.Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the21st century. (pp. 89–97). New York, NY: Wiley.22. DePree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York, NY:Doubleday.23. Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale developmentand construct clarification of servant leadership. Group &Organization Management, 31, 300–326; 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.24. See, for example, Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploringservant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghanaand the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397–417; Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe,D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining theimpact of servant leadership on salesperson’s turnover intention.Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29, 351–365;Mayers, D., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justiceperspective. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 17(2), 180–197; Mehta, S., & Pillay, R. (2011).Revisiting servant leadership: An empirical study in Indian context.The Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 5(2), 24–41; Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving highorganization performance through servant leadership. The Journal
of Business Inquiry, 9, 74–88; Parris, D. L., & Welty Peachey, J.(2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theoryin organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 377–393; Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servantleadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employeeattitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-levelinvestigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517–529.25.Ram Rahim Singh: India guru guilty of journalist’s murder.(2019, January 11). BBC News; Gurmeet Ram Rahim asked hisfollowers to self-immolate and commit suicide to put pressure onjudiciary and administration? (2017, November 28). VisionMP.26. Kennedy, D. (2004). The dark sides of virtue: Reassessinginternational humanitarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.27. Klenke, K. (2005). The internal theater of the authentic leader:Integrating cognitive, affective, conative and spiritual facets ofauthentic 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, TheNetherlands: Elsevier.28. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadershipdevelopment: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership.The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–340; 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 andpractice: Origins, effects and development (pp. 3–41).Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.29. Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimalself-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1–26; Walumbwa, F. O.,Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J.(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of atheory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126.30. Avolio & Gardner, p. 321.
31. 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; Hanna, S. T., Lester, P.B., & Vogelgesang, G. R. (2005). Moral leadership: Explicating themoral component of authentic leadership. In W. L. Gardner, B. J.Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory andpractice: Origins, effects and development (pp. 43–81).Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.32. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., &Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-basedmodel of authentic leader and follower development. LeadershipQuarterly, 16, 343–372.33. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authenticleadership and eudemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–394.34. Gardner et al. (2005);Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa,F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: Alook at the process by which authentic leaders impact followerattitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823;Cianci, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R. P., & Tsakumis, G. T.(2014). The effects of authentic leadership on followers’ ethicaldecision-making in the face of temptations: An experimental study.Leadership Quarterly, 25, 581–594. Clapp-Smith, R.,Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadershipand positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust atthe group level of analysis. Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies, 15(3), 227–240; Harvey, P., Martinko, M.J., & Gardner, W. L. (2006). Promoting authentic behavior inorganizations: An attributional perspective. Journal of Leadershipand Organizational Studies, 12, 1–11; Zhu, W., May, D. R., &Avolio, B. J. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership behavior onemployee outcomes: The roles of psychological empowermentand authenticity. Journal of Leadership and OrganizationalStudies, 11, 16–26.35. Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authenticleadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower
commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107,255–264; Onorato, M., & Zhu, J. (2014, Winter). An empiricalstudy on the relationships between authentic leadership andorganizational trust by industry segment. SAM AdvancedManagement Journal, 26–39; Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher,B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012). Authentic leadership: Anempirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediatingmechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 331–348; Wang,H., Sui, Y., Luthans, F., Wang, D., & Wu, Y. (2014). Impact ofauthentic leadership on performance: Role of followers’ positivepsychological capital and relational processes. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 35, 5–12.36. Clapp-Smith et al.37. See, for example, Cavazotte, F., Duarte, C., & Gobbo, A. M.(2010) Authentic leader, safe work: The influence of leadershipperformance. Brazilian Business Review, 10, 95–119; Li, F., Kuo,F. Y., Yang, J, Qi, Z., & Fu (2014). Authentic leadership,traditionality, and interactional justice in the Chinese context.Management and Organization Behavior, 10, 249–272; Liu, S.-M.,Liao, J.–Q., & Wei, H. (2015). Authentic leadership andwhistleblowing: Mediating roles of psychological safety andpersonal identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 107–119;Mehmood, Q., Hamstra, M. R. W., Nawab, S., & Vriend, T. (2016).Authentic leadership and followers’ in-role and extra-roleperformance: The mediating role of followers’ learning goalorientation. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,89, 877–883; Rahimina, F., & Sharifirad, M. S. (2015). Authenticleadership and employee well-being: The mediating role ofattachment insecurity. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 363–377;Sendjaya, S., Perketi, A., Hartel, C., Hirst, G., & Butarbutar, I.(2016). Are authentic leaders always moral? The role ofMachiavellianism in the relationship between authentic leadershipand morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 125–139.38. Pfeffer, J. (2015). Leadership b.s.: Fixing workplaces andcareers one truth at a time. New York, NY: Harper Business.
39. Clarke, C., Kelliher, C., & Schedlitzki, D (2014). Essay:Laboring under false pretences? The emotional labor of authenticleadership. In D. Ladkin & C. Spiller, Authentic leadership:Clashes, convergences and coalescences (pp. 75–91).Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.40. Clapp-Smith et al.41. Chan et al.42. Ladkin, D. (2006). The enchantment of the charismatic leader:Charisma reconsidered as aesthetic encounter. Leadership, 2(2),165–179.43. Hansen, H., Ropo, A., & Sauer, E. (2007). Aestheticleadership. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 544–560.44. Duke, D. L. (1986). The aesthetics of leadership. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 22(1), 7–27.45. Ladkin, 2006; Ladkin, D. (2010). Rethinking leadership:Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.46. Elm, D. R. (2014). The artist and the ethicist: Character andprocess. In D. Koehn & D. Elm (Eds.), Aesthetics and businessethics (pp. 53–66). New York, NY: Springer; Ladkin, D. (2011).The art of “perceiving correctly”: What artists can teach us aboutmoral perception. Tamara: Journal for Critical OrganizationInquiry, 9, 91–101; Taylor S. S., & Elmes, M. B. Aesthetics andethics: You can’t have one without the other. Tamara: Journal forCritical Organization Inquiry, 9, 61–62; Waddock, S. (2014).Wisdom and responsible leadership: Aesthetic sensibility, moralimagination, and systems thinking. In D. Koehn & D. Elm (Eds.),Aesthetics and business ethics (pp. 129–147). New York, NY:Springer.47. Ladkin, D. (2008). Leading beautifully: How masterycongruence and purpose create the aesthetic of embodiedleadership practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 31–41.
48. Siddiqui, F., Schmidt, S., & Halsey, A. (2018, April 18). “Shehas nerves of steel”: The story of the pilot who calmly landed theSouthwest Airlines flight. The Washington Post.49. Squires, N. (2012, July 11). Costa Concordia captain: ‘I——up.’ The Telegraph. Costa Concordia captain heads to jail (2017,May 13). CBS News.50. Dobson, J. (1999). The art of management and the aestheticmanager. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.51. Abowitz, K. K., (2007). Moral perception though aesthetics:Engaging imaginations in educational ethics. Journal of TeacherEducation, 58, 287–298; Koehn, D. (2010). Ethics, morality, andart in the classroom: Positive and negative relations. Journal ofBusiness Ethics Education, 7, 213–232; Waddock (2011).52. Ladkin (2008).53. Farh, J.-L., Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.-F., & Chu, X.-P. (2006).Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalisticleadership in China. In A. S. Tsui, Y. Bain, & L. Cheng (Eds.),China’s domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives onmanagement and performance (pp. 230–260). Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe.54. See, for example, Cenkci, A. T., & Ozcelik, G. (2015).Leadership styles and subordinate work engagement: Themoderating impact of leader gender. Global Business andManagement Research: An International Journal, 7, 8–20; Chan,S., & Mak, W. (2012). Benevolent leadership and followerperformance: The mediating role of leader-member exchange(LMX). Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 285–301; Chen,X.-P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T.-L., Farh, J.-L., & Cheng, B.-S.(2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalisticleadership to performance. Journal of Management, 40, 796–819;Gumusluoglu, L., Karakitapoglu-Aygun, & Scandura, T. A. (2017).A multilevel examination of benevolent leadership and innovativebehavior in R & D contexts: A social identity approach. Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, 24, 479–493; Otkin, A. B., &Cenkci, T. (2012). The impact of paternalistic leadership on ethical
climate: The moderating role of trust in leader. Journal of BusinessEthics, 108, 525–536.55. Karakas, F., & Sarigollu, E. (2012). Benevolent leadership:Conceptualization and construct development. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 108, 537–553; Karakas, F., & Sarigollu, E.(2013). The role of leadership in creating virtuous andcompassionate organizations: Narratives of benevolent leadershipin an Anatolian Tiger. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 663–678.56. Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalisticleadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal ofManagement, 34, 566–593.57. Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A., and Jayaraman, V. (2010).Cross-cultural generalizability of paternalistic leadership: Anexpansion of Leader-Member Exchange theory. Group &Organization Management, 35, 391–420.58. Trevino, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2013). Ethical leadership. In M.G. Ramsey (Ed), The Oxford handbook of leadership (pp. 524–548). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; Trevino, L. K.,Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation ofperceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from insideand outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56, 5–37;Trevino, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral personand moral manager: How executives develop a reputation forethical leadership. California Management Review, 42, 128–142.59. Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethicalleadership: A social learning perspective for constructdevelopment and testing. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 97, 117–134, p. 120.60. See, for example, Cropanzano, R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2010).Moral leadership: A short primer on competing perspectives. In M.Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology ofmorality (pp. 21–52). Abingdon, England: Routledge; Ng, T. W. H.,& Feldman, D. C. (2015). Ethical leadership: Meta-analyticevidence of criterion related and incremental validity. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 100, 948–965.
61. Wu, L.-Z., Kwan, H. K., Hong-kit, F., Chiu, R. K., & He, X.(2015). CEO ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility:A moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 130,819–831; Liao, Y., Liu, X-Y., Kwan, H., & Jinsong, L. (2015). Work–family effects of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics,128, 535–545; Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M.,Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence ofethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 90, 157–170; Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman; Resick,C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2006). Across-cultural examination of the endorsement of ethicalleadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 345–359; Ruiz, P.,Ruiz, C., & Martinez, R. (2011). Improving the “leader-follower”relationship: Top manager or supervisor? The ethical leadershiptrickle-down effect on follower job response. Journal of BusinessEthics, 99, 587–608; Schaubroeck et al. (2012). Embeddingethical leadership within and across organization levels. Academyof Management Journal, 55, 1053–1078; Yidong, T., & Xinxin, L.(2013). How ethical leadership influences employees’ innovativework behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 116, 441–455.62. See, for example, Taylor, S. G., & Pattie, M. W. (2014). Whendoes ethical leadership affect workplace incivility? The moderatingrole of follower personality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24, 595–616; Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M, Wang, P. Wang, H.,Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethicalleadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-memberexchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115,204–213; 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, 702–718.63. Wang, A.-C., Chian, J.T.-J., Chou, W.-J., & Cheng, B.-S.(2017). One definition, different manifestations: Investigatingethical leadership in the Chinese context. Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement, 34, 505–535.
64. Lin, S.-H., Ma, J., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). When leaderbehavior breaks bad: How ethical leader behavior can turnabusive via ego depletion and moral licensing. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 101, 815–830; Stouten, J., van Dijke, M., Mayers, D.M., De Cremer, D., & Euwema, M. C. (2013). Can a leader beseen as too ethical? The curvilinear effects of ethical leadership.Leadership Quarterly, 24, 680–695.
Part IV Shaping Ethical ContextsChapter 9. Building an Ethical Small Group 284Chapter 10. Creating an Ethical, Inclusive OrganizationalClimate 322Chapter 11. Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership ina Global Society 364Chapter 12. Ethical Crisis Leadership 402
9 Building an Ethical Small Group
Learning Objectives> Identify barriers to group cooperation.> Create a strategy for fostering individual ethical accountability ingroups.> Evaluate team performance on the five elements of ethical groupinteraction.> Compare the four moral pitfalls of small groups.> Formulate a plan for avoiding each of the four moral pitfalls ofsmall groups.> Illustrate the unique features of collaborative/integrativeleadership.Cooperation is the thorough conviction that nobody canget there unless everybody gets there.—AUTHOR VIRGINIA BURDEN TOWERNever doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committedcitizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thingthat ever has.—ANTHROPOLOGIST MARGARET MEAD
What’s AheadThis chapter examines ethical leadership in the small-groupcontext. To help create groups that brighten rather than darken thelives of participants, leaders must foster individual ethicalaccountability among group members, encouraging them tocooperate, engage in self-leadership, and do their fair share(avoid social loafing). They also ensure ethical group interactionand help the group avoid moral pitfalls. Ethical leaders also knowhow to lead diverse groups that tackle community problems.In his metaphor of the leader’s light or shadow, Parker Palmeremphasizes that leaders shape the settings or contexts aroundthem. According to Palmer, leaders are people who have “anunusual degree of power to create the conditions under whichother people must live and move and have their being, conditionsthat can either be as illuminating as heaven or as shadowy ashell.”1 In this final section of the text, I’ll describe some of the wayswe can create conditions that illuminate the lives of followers insmall-group, organizational, global, and crisis settings. Sheddinglight means both resisting and exerting influence. We must fendoff pressures to engage in unethical behavior while activelyseeking to create healthier moral environments.
The Leader and the Small GroupLeaders spend a great deal of their time in small groups. That’sbecause teams of people do much of the world’s work. Groupsbuild roads, craft legislation, enforce laws, raise money,coordinate course schedules, oversee software installations, andso on. Consider, for example, that 15.7 million jobs have beenadded globally over the past 10 years in seven industries that relyheavily on project teams: manufacturing, business services,finance and insurance, oil and gas, information services,construction, and utilities.2 Teams, not individuals, make mostimportant organizational decisions. The higher the leader’sorganizational position, the more time she or he spends chairingor participating in meetings. Senior executives spend over twodays a week working in committees, task forces, and other small-group settings.3 Leaders also find themselves in charge of groupsoutside of work, serving as chair of the local Young Men’sChristian Association (YMCA) board, for instance, or running thevolunteer campaign team for a mayoral candidate. (See Box 9.1for a description of the key elements of small groups.)Chances are, you have discovered for yourself either how brightor how dark group experiences can be. Some of your proudestmoments might have taken place in teams. For example, you mayhave had a life-changing experience working with others on aservice project, formed deep friendships on a winning basketballteam, or done your best work in a group that brought a successfulnew product to market. At the same time, some of your mostpainful moments might have come in groups. Your leader mayhave ignored your input, angry team members may have refusedto work together, and the group may have failed to carry its dutiesor made poor moral choices. (See Box 9.2 for a closer look atdysfunctional teams.) Our task as leaders, then, is to help creategroups that brighten—not darken—the lives of members and thelives of others they come into contact with. To do so, we mustencourage members to take their ethical responsibilities seriously,promote ethical interaction, prevent the group from falling victim tomoral pitfalls, and establish ethical relationships with other teams.
Box 9.1 Defining Groups and TeamsIn popular usage, the term group can refer to everything from severalindividuals at a bus stop to residents living in the same apartmentcomplex to a crowd at a political rally or concert. However, scholarshave a much narrower definition in mind when they study smallgroups. Several elements set small groups apart:A common purpose or goal. Several people waiting for a tableat a restaurant don’t constitute a small group. To be a group,individuals have something they want to accomplish together,such as completing a project for class, choosing a site for anew Walgreens drugstore, or deciding how to reduce trafficdeaths. Having a shared goal and working together leads tosense of belonging or shared identity. Consider, for instance,how many groups—Habitat for Humanity volunteers, cancersurvivors, dorm floors—display their loyalty by purchasing T-shirts with their team name and slogan.Interdependence. The success of any individual memberdepends on everyone doing his or her part. (See the discussionof social loafing later in the chapter.) You may have discoveredthat, even when you carry through on our responsibilities, yourgrade goes down when others in your class group don’tcomplete their parts of the project.Mutual influence. In addition to depending on each other, groupmembers influence each other by giving ideas, listening,agreeing or disagreeing, and so on.Ongoing communication. In order for a group to exist, membersmust regularly interact, whether face-to-face or electronicallythrough e-mail, online meetings, videoconferences, andtelephone calls. For example, neighbors may live near eachother but they don’t constitute a group until they routinelycommunicate with each other in order to reach a goal likefighting zoning changes.Specific size. Groups range in size from 3 to 20 people. Theaddition of the third individual makes a group more complexthan a dyad. Group members must manage many relationships,not one. They develop coalitions as well as rules or norms toregulate group behavior. When one member leaves a dyad, itdissolves. However, a group (if large enough) can continue if itloses a member or two. Twenty is typically considered themaximum size for a small group because beyond this number,members can no longer communicate face-to-face.
Small-group communication scholars John Cragan, Chris Kasch, andDavid Wright summarize the five definitional elements describedabove in their definition of a small group: “A few people engaged incommunication interaction over time, usually in face-to-face and/orcomputer-mediated environments, who have common goals andnorms and have developed a communication pattern for meetingtheir goals in an interdependent manner.”1Many observers differentiate between groups and teams.2 Whileevery team is a group, not every group is a team. The differencemainly lies in what each produces. Working groups, such as boardsof directors, meet together to share information, discuss ongoingwork, and make decisions. However, they don’t produce anythingcollectively and generally judge members on their individual efforts.Teams, on the other hand, develop a joint product, such as a classassignment, a marketing strategy, or a new phone app. Members ofthese groups are much more dependent on each other and have tocoordinate their activities on a regular basis. Team members arecollectively judged on their final product. Project teams aretemporary, with a clear beginning and end. They produce uniqueproducts—new drugs, roads, films, social media campaigns—whileoperating time and budgetary constraints. Virtual teams are made upof members who work in different geographic locations whocoordinate their efforts through electronic communication channels(e-mail, videoconferencing, project management software,groupware).Source: Adapted from Johnson, C. E., & Hackman, M. Z. (2018).Leadership: A communication perspective (7th ed.). Long Grove, IL:Waveland Press, Ch. 7.
Notes1. Cragan, J. F., Kasch, C. R., & Wright, D. W. (2009).Communication in small groups: Theory, process, skills (7th ed.).Boston, MA: Wadsworth.2. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Fostering Individual EthicalAccountabilityA group’s success or failure is highly dependent on the behaviorsof its individual members. Destructive behavior by just one personcan be enough to derail the group process. Every team memberhas an ethical responsibility to take her or his duties seriously. Thejob of the leader, then, is to foster ethical accountability, toencourage followers to live up to their moral responsibilities to therest of the group by cooperating, leading themselves, and doingtheir fair share.A critical moral duty of group members is to pursue shared goals—to cooperate. Although this might seem like a basic requirementfor joining a team, far too many people act selfishly orcompetitively when working with others. Those pursuing individualgoals ignore the needs of teammates. For example, some athletescare more about their own individual statistics, such as points andgoals, than about team victories. Competitive individuals seek toadvance at the expense of others, such as when the ambitioussalesperson hopes to beat out the rest of the sales group to earnthe largest bonus. (Turn to Case Study 9.1 to see how participantswere able to set aside selfishness and competition to achieve aworthy goal.)Cooperative groups are more productive than those with anindividualistic or competitive focus. Cooperative groups4are more willing to take on difficult tasks and to persist in theface of difficulties;retain more information;engage in higher-level reasoning and more critical thinking;generate more creative ideas, tactics, and solutions;transfer more learning from the group to individual members;are more positive about the task; andspend more time working on tasks.
In addition to being more effective, cooperative groups fostermore positive relationships and cohesion between members. Thiscohesion reduces absenteeism and turnover while producinghigher commitment and satisfaction. Members of cooperativegroups also enjoy better psychological health (i.e., emotionalmaturity, autonomy, self-confidence) and learn important socialand communication skills.5 (I’ll have more to say about groupcommunication skills later in the chapter.)You can focus attention on shared goals by (1) emphasizing themoral responsibility members have to cooperate with one another,(2) structuring the task so that no one person succeeds unless thegroup as a whole succeeds, (3) ensuring that all group membersare fairly rewarded (don’t reward one person for a groupachievement, for instance), (4) providing feedback on how well thegroup and individuals are meeting performance standards, (5)encouraging individuals to help each other complete tasks, and(6) setting aside time for process sessions, where the groupreflects on how well it is working together and how it mightimprove.6Cooperation breaks down if members fail to carry out theirassignments. Team leaders, then, need to ensure that they andtheir followers complete their work by promoting self-leadership.Self-leadership is exercising influence over our personal thoughts,attitudes and behaviors.7 An important component of self-leadership is carrying out tasks that are unattractive but vital to thegroup’s success. One class project team member may fear doinginterviews with business professionals, for example, while anotherfinds library research boring. Nonetheless, both must carry outtheir assignments if the team is to succeed. As a leader,encourage all group members (including yourself) to followthrough on unpleasant tasks by changing the immediateenvironment. Do so by using physical reminders and cues (notes,lists, objects) to focus attention on important duties; removingnegative, distracting cues (such as loud music and loudroommates); and building in positive cues (pleasant settings,music) that encourage undertaking the work. Completingundesirable activities also requires exercising direct control overthe self. Self-control strategies include observing, recording, and
analyzing the use of desirable and undesirable behaviors; settingshort- and long-term goals; rewarding personal achievements (likecompleting part of the job); and practicing to improveperformance.Self-leaders take advantage of naturally rewarding activities,those that lead to a sense of competence and control and supplya sense of purpose, to carry out their job responsibilities. Helpmembers focus on the naturally rewarding aspects of tasksinstead of on the unpleasant aspects. Writing part of a grouppaper for class, often perceived as a difficult chore, can be viewedinstead as an opportunity to learn about a new subject anddevelop knowledge for a future career. Introduce thought self-leadership strategies that help you and your followers overcomedestructive thought patterns keeping members from carrying outtheir group duties. These include eliminating critical anddestructive self-talk, such as “I can’t do it.”; and challengingunrealistic assumptions. For example, the mental statement “Imust succeed at everything, or I’m a failure.” is irrational becauseit sets an impossibly high standard. This destructive thought canbe restated as “I can’t succeed at everything, but I’m going to tryto give my best effort, no matter the task.”Along with fostering self-leadership, reduce social loafing. Socialloafing is the tendency for individuals to reduce their efforts whenplaced in groups.8 Social loafing has been found in teams chargedwith all kinds of tasks, ranging from shouting and rope pulling togenerating ideas, rating poems, writing songs, and evaluating jobcandidates. Gender, nationality, and age don’t seem to have muchimpact on the rate of social loafing, although women and peoplefrom Eastern cultures are less likely to reduce their efforts.(Determine the impact of social loafing on your class project teamby completing Self-Assessment 9.1.)A number of explanations have been offered for social loafing.When people work in a group, they may feel that their efforts willhave little impact on the final result. Responsibility for thecollective product is shared or diffused throughout the team. It isdifficult to identify and evaluate the input of individual participants.The collective effort model, developed by Steven Karau and
Kipling Williams, is an attempt to integrate the variousexplanations for social loafing into one framework. Karau andWilliams believe that “individuals will be willing to exert effort on acollective task only to the degree that they expect their efforts tobe instrumental in obtaining outcomes that they value personally.”9 According to this definition, the motivation of group membersdepends on three factors: expectancy, or how much a personexpects that her or his effort will lead to high group performance;instrumentality, the belief that one’s personal contribution and thegroup’s collective effort will bring about the desired result; andvalence, how desirable the outcome is for individual groupmembers.10 Motivation drops if any of these factors are low.Consider the typical class project group, for example. Teammembers often slack off because they believe that the group willsucceed in completing the project and getting a passing gradeeven if they do little (low expectancy). Participants may also beconvinced that the group won’t get an A no matter how hard theyand others try (low instrumentality). Or some on the team mayhave other priorities and don’t think that doing well on the projectis all that important (low valence).Social loafers take advantage of others in the group and violatenorms for fairness or justice. Those being victimized are less likelyto cooperate and may slack off for fear of being seen as “suckers.”The advantages of being in a small group can be lost becausemembers aren’t giving their best effort. Leaders need to takesteps to minimize social loafing. According to the collective effortmodel, you can do so by taking the following steps:Evaluating the inputs of individual membersKeeping the size of work groups small (both face-to-face andvirtual)Making sure that each person makes a unique and importantcontribution to the taskProviding meaningful tasks that are intrinsically interestingand personally involvingEmphasizing the collective group identityOffering performance incentivesFostering a sense of belonging
Box 9.2 The Five Dysfunctions of a TeamPopular author and consultant Patrick Lencioni identifies fivedysfunctions that undermine team performance. These dysfunctionsmay help explain why some of your group experiences have been sofrustrating. The five dysfunctions (and how leaders can overcomethem) areDysfunction 1: Absence of Trust. In low functioning teams,members doubt the intentions of their peers. They don’t want toreveal their vulnerabilities—weaknesses, skill deficiencies,mistakes, need for help—or fear that this information will beused against them. They protect themselves and their imagesinstead of sharing information and drawing upon the resourcesof others to complete the task. Team leaders must be willing tomodel for group members by sharing their vulnerabilities. Tobuild collective trust, leaders can ask members to share theirpersonal histories, to take and share the results of self-assessments, and to participate in ropes courses and otherexperiential team exercises.Dysfunction 2: Fear of Conflict. Many groups avoidproductive conflict about ideas for fear of stirring up destructive,personality-based conflict. These ineffective groups encourageindividuals to deal with their disagreements “offline”; membersoften attack each other in private. By avoiding conflict, groupsrepeatedly deal with the same issues and generate poorsolutions. Leaders foster productive conflict by helpingmembers identify and discuss their individual and collectiveconflict styles and by helping the group establish conflict norms.They encourage members to take the role of a “conflict miner”who digs out buried disagreements and forces colleagues toprocess them. Productive leaders remind members engaged inpassionate debate about proposals that such conflict is good forthe team.Dysfunction 3: Lack of Commitment. Unsuccessful teamsexpect complete agreement and hesitate to move forward.They fail to realize that individuals don’t need to get their way inorder to support a decision but, instead, need to feel they havebeen heard. Also, the team will never have completeinformation; deciding is better than making no decision at all.Team leaders need to be comfortable with the possibility that adecision may be wrong. To ensure commitment, they (1)establish overarching (thematic) goals, (2) ask “What have wedecided?” at the end of every meeting, (3) determine whatneeds to be communicated to outsiders to ensure consistentmessages, (4) set deadlines for intermediate milestones and
decisions, (5) develop contingency plans if decisions don’t turnout well, (6) consider worst case scenarios to demonstrate thatthe outcomes of poor decisions are less than originally feared.Dysfunction 4: Avoidance of Accountability. Teamaccountability means holding others responsible for behaviorsthat are hurting the team. Dysfunctional team members fail tocall their peers to account because they worry about thediscomfort doing so might cause. Yet, fearing to hold othersaccountable hurts relationships and lowers standards ofperformance. Leaders should ensure that the team takesinitiative in fostering accountability, only stepping in whenneeded. Accountability tools include asking members forregular updates, publishing goals and standards, holdingregular progress reviews, and rewarding the team, notindividuals.Dysfunction 5: Inattention to Results. Performance sufferswhen members focus on something other than groupoutcomes. They may be satisfied with the status they have frombeing part of a prestigious team (academic department,admired nonprofit) or put their individual status ahead of teamgoals. Team leaders must keep their focus on results if theywant members to do the same. They create a scorecard thattracks progress and measures success on important metricslike revenue, expenses, customer service ratings, schedules,sales figures, and enrollment numbers. Rewards go to thosewho get results, not to those who try hard.Sources:Lencioni, P. M. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. SanFrancisco, CA: Wiley.Lencioni, P. M., & Lencioni, P. (2005). Overcoming the fivedysfunctions of a team: A field guide for leaders, managers, andfacilitators. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Promoting Ethical Group InteractionFostering individual accountability is an important first step towardimproving a group’s ethical performance. However, teammembers may want to cooperate and work hard but fail to worktogether effectively. Leaders, then, must also pay close attentionto how group members interact during their deliberations. Inparticular, they need to encourage productive communicationpatterns that enable members to establish positive bonds andmake wise ethical choices. Ethical communication skills andtactics include comprehensive, critical listening; supportivecommunication; emotional intelligence; productive conflictmanagement; and expression of minority opinion. Thesebehaviors are particularly important in the small-group context,since teams accomplish much of their work throughcommunication. But they are also essential to ethical leadership inthe organizational, global, and crisis settings we’ll discuss inupcoming chapters. By learning about these patterns in thischapter, you should be better prepared to lead in other contextsas well.
Comprehensive, Critical ListeningWe spend much more time listening than speaking in smallgroups. If you belong to a team with 10 members, you can expectto devote approximately 10% of your time to talking and 90% tolistening to what others have to say. All listening involvesreceiving, paying attention to, interpreting, and then rememberingmessages. However, our motives for listening vary.11Discriminative listening processes the verbal and nonverbalcomponents of a message. It serves as the foundation for theother forms of listening because we can’t accurately process orinterpret messages unless we first understand what is being saidand how the message is being delivered. 911 operatorsdemonstrate the importance of discriminative listening. Theyfrequently ask anxious callers to repeat details so they candispatch the right emergency responders to the correct location.Comprehensive listening is motivated by the need to understandand retain messages. We engage in this type of listening when weattend lectures, receive job instructions, attend oral briefings, orwatch the evening weather report. Therapeutic or empatheticlistening is aimed at helping the speaker resolve an issue byencouraging him or her to talk about the problem. Those inhelping professions such as social work and psychiatry, routinelyengage in this listening process. All of us act as empatheticlisteners, however, when friends and family come to us for help.Critical listening leads to evaluation. Critical listeners pay carefulattention to message content, logic, language, and other elementsof persuasive attempts so that they can identify strengths andweaknesses and render a judgment. Appreciative listening isprompted by the desire for relaxation and entertainment. We actas appreciative listeners when we enjoy a song download fromiTunes, a funny YouTube video, a live concert, or a play.Group members engage in all five types of listening duringmeetings, but comprehensive and critical listening are essentialwhen groups engage in ethical problem solving. Coming up with ahigh-quality decision is nearly impossible unless group membersfirst understand and remember what others have said. Listening
for understanding recognizes and supports others, signaling thatthey are valued members of the group. They are then more likelyto share their thoughts and ideas.12 Participants also have toengage in critical listening in order to analyze the arguments ofother group members. (See the discussion of argumentation inChapter 7.)There are several barriers to comprehensive, critical listening inthe group context. In one-to-one conversations, we know that wemust respond to the speaker, so we tend to pay closer attention.In a group, we don’t have to carry as much of the conversationalload, so we’re tempted to lose focus or to talk to the person sittingnext to us. The content of the discussion can also make listeningdifficult. Ethical issues can generate strong emotional reactionsbecause they involve deeply held values and beliefs. The naturaltendency is to reject the speaker (“What does he know?” “She’sgot it all wrong!”) and become absorbed in our counterargumentsinstead of concentrating on the message.13 Reaching anagreement then becomes more difficult because we don’tunderstand the other person’s position but are more committedthan ever to our point of view.Listening experts Larry Barker, Patrice Johnson, and Kittie Watsonmake the following suggestions for improving listeningperformance in a group setting. Our responsibility as leaders is tomodel these behaviors and encourage other participants to followour example.14Avoid interruptions. Give the speaker a chance to finishbefore you respond or ask questions. The speaker mayaddress your concerns before he or she finishes, and youcan’t properly evaluate a message until you’ve firstunderstood it.Seek areas of agreement. Take a positive approach bysearching for common ground. What do you and the speakerhave in common? Commitment to solving the problem?Similar values and background?Search for meanings and avoid arguing about specific words.Discussions of terms can keep the group from addressing the
real issue. Stay focused on what speakers mean; don’t bedistracted if they use different terms than you do.Ask questions and request clarification. When you don’tunderstand, don’t be afraid to ask for clarification. Chancesare others in the group are also confused and will appreciatemore information. However, asking too many questions cangive the impression that you’re trying to control the speaker.Be patient. We can process information faster than speakerscan deliver it. Use the extra time to reflect on the messageinstead of focusing on your own reactions or daydreaming.Compensate for attitudinal biases. All of us have biasesbased on such factors as personal appearance, agedifferences, and irritating mannerisms.Listen for principles, concepts, and feelings. Try tounderstand how individual facts fit into the bigger picture.Don’t overlook nonverbal cues, such as tone of voice andposture, that reveal emotions and, at times, can contradictverbal statements. If a speaker’s words and nonverbalbehaviors don’t seem to match (as in an expression ofsupport uttered with a sigh of resignation), probe further tomake sure you clearly understand the person’s position.Compensate for emotion-arousing words and ideas. Certainwords and concepts, such as fundamentalist, racist, whitesupremacist, and terrorist, spark strong emotional responses.We need to overcome our knee-jerk reactions to these labelsand strive instead to remain objective.Be flexible. Acknowledge that others’ views may have merit,even though you may not completely agree with them.Listen, even if the message is boring or tough to follow. Notall messages are exciting and simple to digest, but we needto try to understand them anyway. A boring comment madeearly in a group discussion may later turn out to be critical tothe team’s success.Responding to messages is another, yet often overlooked elementof the listening process. Effective feedback supports othermembers while improving the quality of the group’s deliberations.When providing feedback, focus on describing your interpretationsand feelings, not on judging others. Make sure that providingfeedback helps the group process along and offer your response
at the proper time. (Some issues cannot be revisited later.) Don’tstore up feedback to dump it all at once.15
Defensive versus Supportive CommunicationDefensiveness is a major threat to accurate listening. When groupmembers feel threatened, they divert their attention from the taskto defending themselves. As their anxiety levels increase, theythink less about how to solve the problem and more about howthey are coming across to others, about winning, and aboutprotecting themselves. Listening suffers because participantsdistort the messages they receive, misinterpreting the motives,values, and emotions of senders. On the other hand, supportivemessages increase accuracy because group members devotemore energy to interpreting the content and emotional states ofsources. Psychologist Jack Gibb identified six pairs of behaviors,described below, that promote either a defensive or a supportivegroup atmosphere.16 Our job as group leader is to engage insupportive communication, which contributes to a positiveemotional climate and accurate understanding. At the same time,we need to challenge comments that spark defensive reactions.Evaluation Versus DescriptionEvaluative messages are judgmental. They can be sent throughstatements (“What a lousy idea!”) or through such nonverbal cuesas a sarcastic tone of voice or a raised eyebrow. Those beingevaluated are likely to respond by placing blame and makingjudgments of their own (“Your proposal is no better than mine.”).Supportive messages (“I think I see where you’re coming from.”attentive posture, eye contact) create a more positiveenvironment.Control Versus Problem OrientationControlling messages imply that the recipient is inadequate (i.e.,uninformed, immature, stubborn, overly emotional) and needs tochange. Control, like evaluation, can be communicated bothverbally (issuing orders, threats) and nonverbally (stares,threatening body posture). Problem-centered messages reflect awillingness to collaborate, to work together to resolve the issue.
Examples of problem-oriented statements include “What do youthink we ought to do?” and “I believe we can work this out if we sitdown and identify the issues.”Strategy Versus SpontaneityStrategic communicators are seen as manipulators who try to hidetheir true motivations. They say they want to work with others yetwithhold information and appear to be listening when they’re not.This false spontaneity angers the rest of the group. On the otherhand, behavior that is truly spontaneous and honest reducesdefensiveness.Neutrality Versus EmpathyNeutral messages such as “You’ll get over it.” and “Don’t take it soseriously.” imply that the listener doesn’t care. Empatheticstatements, such as “I can see why you would be depressed.” and“I’ll be thinking about you when you have that appointment withyour boss.” communicate reassurance and acceptance. Thosewho receive them enjoy a boost in self-esteem.Superiority Versus EqualityAttempts at one-upmanship generally provoke immediatedefensive responses. The comment “I got an A in my ethicsclass.” is likely to be met with this kind of reply: “Well, you mayhave a lot of book learning, but I had to deal with a lot of real-world ethical problems when I worked at the advertising agency.”Superiority can be based on a number of factors, including wealth,social class, organizational position, and power. All groups containmembers who differ in their social standing and abilities. However,these differences are less disruptive if participants indicate thatthey want to work with others on an equal basis.Certainty Versus ProvisionalismDogmatic group members—those who are inflexible and claim tohave all the answers—are unwilling to change or consider other
points of view. As a consequence, they appear more interested inbeing right than in solving the problem. Listeners often perceivecertainty as a mask for feelings of inferiority. In contrast todogmatic individuals, provisional discussants signal that they arewilling to work with the rest of the team in order to investigateissues and come up with a sound ethical decision.
Emotional IntelligenceRecognizing and managing emotions is essential to maintainingproductive, healthy relationships in a group. Consider the negativeimpact of envy, for instance. Envy arises when people comparethemselves to others and fall short. They then experienceresentment, hostility, frustration, inferiority, longing, and ill willtoward the envied individuals. Envy is common in organizations,which distribute assignments, raises, office space, and otherresources unequally among members. However, this feeling maybe even more frequent in teams because members know eachother well and have more opportunity to engage in comparisons.Those who envy others in the group tend to reduce their efforts(see the earlier discussion of social loafing), are more likely tomiss meetings, and are less satisfied with their group experience.The team as a whole is less cohesive and less successful.17Experts assert that groups, like individuals, can learn how to copewith envy and other destructive feelings, as well as foster positivemoods, through developing emotional intelligence. They alsoreport that emotionally intelligent groups are more effective andproductive.18 Emotional intelligence (EI) consists of (1) awarenessand management of personal emotions and (2) recognizing andexerting influence on the emotions of others. (You can assess theemotional intelligence of your team by completing Self-Assessment 9.2.) Teams with high EI effectively address threelevels of emotions: individual, within the team, and between theteam and outside groups.19 At the individual level, they recognizewhen a member is distracted or defensive. They point out whensomeone’s behavior (e.g., moodiness, tardiness) is disrupting thegroup and provide extra support for those who need it. At thegroup level, high-EI teams engage in continual self-evaluation todetermine their emotional states. Members speak out when theteam is discouraged, for instance, and build an affirmative climate.They develop resources like a common vocabulary and rituals todeal with unhealthy moods. For example, one executive team set10 minutes aside for a “wailing wall.” During these 10 minutes,members could vent their frustrations. They were then ready to
tackle the problems they faced. At the organizational level, high-EIteams discover and meet the needs of other teams whilesupporting their efforts.Raising team EI is an important leadership responsibility, which isaccomplished largely through role modeling and establishingnorms. As leaders, we must demonstrate our personal EI beforewe can hope to improve the emotional climate of the group.Effective leaders display emotions that are appropriate to thesituation, refrain from hostility, are sensitive to group moods, andtake the lead in confronting emotional issues. Confrontation canmean reminding a group member not to criticize new ideas;phoning a member between meetings to talk about his or herrude, dismissive behavior; removing insensitive individuals fromthe team; calling on quiet members to hear their opinions; orbringing the group together to discuss members’ feelings offrustration or discouragement. Modeling such behaviors is criticalto establishing healthy emotional norms or habits in the team, likespeaking up when the group is discouraged or unproductive andcelebrating collective victories.
Productive ConflictIn healthy groups, members examine and discuss ideas(solutions, procedures, proposals) in a task-related process thatexperts call substantive (constructive) conflict.20 Substantiveconflicts produce a number of positive outcomes, including these:Accurate understanding of the arguments and positions ofothers in the groupHigher-level moral reasoningThorough problem analysisImproved self-understanding and self-improvementStronger, deeper relationshipsCreativity and changeGreater motivation to solve the problemImproved mastery and retention of informationDeeper commitment to the outcome of the discussionIncreased group cohesion and cooperationImproved ability to deal with future conflictsHigh-quality solutions that integrate the perspectives of allmembersIt is important to differentiate between substantive conflict andaffective (destructive) conflict, which is centered on the personalrelationships between group members. Those caught inpersonality-based conflicts find themselves either trying to avoidthe problem or, when the conflict can’t be ignored, escalatinghostilities through name-calling, sarcasm, threats, and verballyaggressive behaviors. In this poisoned environment, membersaren’t as committed to the group process, sacrifice in-depthdiscussion of the problem in order to get done as soon aspossible, and distance themselves from the decision. The endresult? A decline in reasoning that produces an unpopular, low-quality, and often unethical solution.Sometimes constructive conflict degenerates into affectiveconflict.21 This occurs when disagreement about ideas is seen asan insult or a threat and members display anger because they feeltheir self-concepts are threatened. Others respond in kind.
Members can also become frustrated when task-oriented conflictsseem to drag on and on without resolution. (Turn to Case Study9.2 for an example of an example of a group caught in anextended conflict.) There are a number of ways that you as aleader can encourage substantive conflict while preventing it frombeing corrupted into affective conflict. Begin by paying attention tothe membership of the group. Form teams made up of people withsignificantly different backgrounds. Groups concerned withmedical ethics, for example, generally include members from bothinside the medical profession (nurses, surgeons, hospitaladministrators) and outside (theologians, ethicists, governmentofficials).Next, lay down some procedural ground rules—a conflictcovenant—before discussion begins. Come up with a list ofconflict guideposts as a group: “Absolutely no name-calling orthreats.” “No idea is a dumb idea.” “Direct all critical commentstoward the problem, not the person.” “You must repeat themessage of the previous speaker—to that person’s satisfaction—before you can add your comments.” Setting such guidelines inparticularly important in virtual teams (see Box 9.3). Highlight thefact that conflict about ideas is an integral part of group discussionand caution against hasty decisions. Encourage individuals tostand firm instead of capitulating. This is also a good time toremind members of the importance of cooperation and emotionalintelligence. Groups that emphasize shared goals view conflict asa mutual problem that needs everyone’s attention. As a result,team members feel more confident dealing with conflict, andcollective performance improves.22 Teams that demonstrate highlevels of EI are also more equipped to manage conflict andtherefore perform better. In particular, if members can collectivelycontrol their emotions, they listen more closely to opposing ideasand seek the best solution without being upset when theirproposals are rejected.23During the discussion, make sure that members follow theirconflict covenant and don’t engage in conflict avoidance orescalation. Stop to revisit the ground rules when necessary. Usethe argumentative competence skills introduced in Chapter 7. Beprepared to support your position. Challenge and analyze the
arguments of others as you encourage them to do the same. Ifmembers get stuck in a battle of wills, reframe the discussion byasking such questions as “What kind of information would helpyou change your mind?” “Why shouldn’t we pursue otheroptions?” or “What would you do if you were in my position?”24You can also ask participants to develop new ways to describetheir ideas (in graphs, as numbers, as bulleted lists) and ask themto step back and revisit their initial assumptions in order to findcommon ground.After the decision is made, ensure that the team and its memberswill continue to develop their conflict management skills. Debriefthe decision-making process to determine whether the groupachieved its goals, work on repairing relationships that might havebeen bruised during the discussion, and celebrate or rememberstories of outstanding conflict management.25Box 9.3 The Ethical Challenges of Virtual TeamsOdds are good that you will find yourself working in a virtual teamsometime during your career. As noted earlier, members of virtualteams work in different locations and coordinate their efforts throughelectronic communication channels. Approximately two thirds ofmultinational organizations rely on virtual teams to oversee suchfunctions as product development, manufacturing, technical support,and customer service. Dispersed working groups are becoming morepopular as companies expand their international operations andelectronic communication tools continue to improve.Virtual teams pose some special ethical challenges for leaders.Researchers report that those communicating online, as opposed toface-to-face or by phone, are more likely to cheat, lie, and threatenothers. Online communicators are disinhibited (less restrained),focusing more on meeting their own needs than on meeting theneeds of others in the group. This makes them more likely to claimtoo much credit, withhold or distort information, and to express angerand insults. Fostering collaboration is harder in dispersed groups.Physical distance often discourages members from committingthemselves to the team. They don’t have the opportunity to engagein the informal interaction (about children, hobbies, the weather, etc.)that builds trust in face-to-face groups. When they feel less personalconnection to other team members, they generate fewer ideas.Anonymity tempts virtual team members to loaf since they can more
easily hide their activities (or lack of activity) from other teammembers.Conflict appears to be more common in virtual teams. There is ahigher likelihood of miscommunication because electroniccommunication is not as rich as face-to-face interaction. Memberslack nonverbal cues to tell, for example, if a speaker is joking orserious. The asynchronous nature of virtual team communicationgenerates problems as well. Members send and receive messagesat different times, not simultaneously, as they do whencommunicating in person. They can get frustrated with delays inreturn messages and are likely to make negative attributions whenothers fail to respond in a timely fashion. Participants forget thatreceivers might not have received the original message or thatcolleagues in other time zones may be off work. Too much e-mailcommunication can lead to information overload. Cultural differencescan generate significant conflicts in groups made up of membersfrom a variety of countries. For instance, group members fromcollectivist societies may complain that their North Americancolleagues aren’t cooperative enough or take issue with peerappraisal systems common in individualist cultures. Not only areconflicts more common in virtual teams, physical separation andcommunication limitations make them harder to resolve.Group experts make a number of suggestions for addressing theethical challenges of virtual teams, including the following:To discourage cheating, lying and insults,encourage members to focus on the needs and feelings of theother person, not on themselves, when sending e-mails.intersperse other channels of communication (phone, face-to-face, video conferencing) with electronic text.remind participants that typed messages do not provideanonymity (cover) for unethical behavior.To foster trust and collaboration,start with a face-to-face kick-off meeting.set up channels, such as an electronic bulletin board or aFacebook site, for informal communication.encourage members to share personal information and pictureswith other group members.set clear objectives for the group’s work.set a standard for responding to e-mail messages, such aswithin 24 hours.
remind members that they build trust with other membersthrough successful completion of their tasks and assignments.recognize individual contributions.communicate frequently.To discourage social loafing,keep the group as small as possible.set clear timelines and hold members to them.regularly monitor the input of individual members.emphasize the importance of each person doing her or his part.To prevent and manage conflict,use the richest channels whenever possible (videoconferencinginstead of e-mail, for instance).outlaw “flaming” and other inappropriate messages.encourage members to recognize the constraints faced byother group members and to be more tolerant when usingvirtual tools.seek to learn from errors and problems, not to blame.establish a clear procedure for managing conflicts.intervene to mediate conflicts between members.highlight the importance of cultural awareness and tolerance.Sources:Alnuaimi O. A., Robert, L. P., Jr., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Teamsize, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: Aperspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal ofManagement Information Systems, 27, 303–230.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.Franz, T. M. (2012). Group dynamics and team interventions:Understanding and improving team performance. Hoboken, NJ:Blackwell.Kurtzberg, T. R. (2014). Virtual teams: Mastering communication andcollaboration in the digital age. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Minton-Eversol, T. (2012, July 19). Virtual teams used most by globalorganizations, survey says. Society for Human ResourceManagement.
Rockman, K. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2006). The ethical implicationsof virtual interaction. In A. E. Tenbrunsel (Ed.) Ethics in groups (pp.101–123). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Schuman, S. (2010). The handbook for working with difficult groups:How they are difficult, why they are difficult and what you can doabout it. Chichester, England: Wiley.West, M. A. (2012). Effective teamwork: Practical lessons fromorganizational research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Minority OpinionAs we’ll see in the next section of the chapter, hearing frommembers who take issue with the prevailing group opinion isessential if the team is to avoid moral failure. Further, minoritydissent can significantly improve group performance.26 A teamwith minority members generally comes up with a superiorsolution, even if the group doesn’t change its collective mind. Ifthere is no minority opinion, members focus on one solution. Theyhave little reason to explore the problem in depth, so theydisregard novel solutions and quickly converge on one position.Minorities cast doubt on group consensus, stimulating morethought about the dilemma. Members exert more effort becausethey must resolve the conflict between the majority and minoritysolutions. They pay closer attention to all aspects of the issue,consider more viewpoints, are more willing to share information,and employ a wider variety of problem-solving strategies. Suchdivergent thinking produces more creative, higher-qualitysolutions.When minority dissent is present across a range of groups, theorganization as a whole is more innovative. Minorities also blockgroups from making harmful changes or adopting extremepositions. Responding to the dissenting views of minoritiesencourages team members to resist conformity in other settings.27(Turn to the Focus on Follower Ethics box to see how groupsoffering a minority opinion can have an impact on the organizationas a whole.)Minorities can have an immediate, powerful impact on groupopinion under certain conditions. Minorities are most likely toinfluence the rest of the group when the members are stillformulating their positions on an issue, when dissenters canclearly demonstrate the superiority of their stance, and whenminorities can frame their positions to fit into the values andbeliefs of the group. Well-respected dissenters who consistentlyadvocate for their positions are generally more persuasive.However, more often than not, minority influence is slow andindirect.28 Majorities initially reject the dissenters’ ideas but, over
time, forget the source of the arguments and focus instead on themerits of their proposals. This can gradually convert them to theminority viewpoint. At other times, minorities aren’t successful atconvincing members to go along with them on one issue butshape their opinions on related issues.29Being in the minority is tough because it runs contrary to ourstrong desire to be liked and accepted by others. Those who takea minority position are frequently the targets of dislike or disdain.Leaders, then, need to both foster minority opinion and protectdissenters. You can do so by taking these steps:301. Form groups made up of members who have significantlydifferent backgrounds and perspectives.2. Encourage participation from all group members.3. Develop two options for group members to evaluate based ontwo different sets of assumptions.4. Remind members of the importance of minority views.5. Create a group learning orientation that is more focused onfinding better solutions than on defending one position oranother.6. Offer dissenters your support.Focus on Follower Ethics Group Ethical VoiceA group speaking out against unethical behavior in an organization isoften more effective than one person bringing the same message.Not only is there safety in numbers, which protects the individualfrom retribution, but management is more likely to pay attention ifmany people share the same concerns. In the group setting,followers can help each other define ethical issues and thendetermine how best to speak up about these problems.Management scholars Liu Huang and Tad Paterson use the label“group ethical voice” to describe teams that challenge organizationalactions, procedures and policies which violate ethical norms. Thesegroups highlight ethical lapses in hopes of eliminating thesebehaviors before they lead to a crisis. Huang and Patersonconducted studies in China and the United States to determine therelationship between a team’s willingness to address ethical issuesand an organization’s ethical leadership and ethical culture. Theyfound that groups are more likely to express their concerns under
ethical organizational leaders who model moral behavior andpromote ethical conduct. Ethical leaders encourage two-waycommunication and listen to followers. When leaders promote ethicalvalues, groups are more confident about their ability to addressethical concerns and are more likely to speak out. Ethical culturepromotes group ethical voice by creating agreement aboutappropriate or inappropriate actions. Challenging misbehavior isseen as a way to meet organizational expectations.Huang and Paterson report that the ethical performance oforganizations improves when followers exercise their group ethicalvoice because, in so doing, they help managers identify and addressethical problems they might otherwise overlook.SourceHuang, L., & Paterson T. A. (2014). Group ethical voice: Influence ofethical leadership and impact on ethical performance. Journal ofManagement, 43, 1157–1184.
Avoiding Moral PitfallsEven with positive interaction, moral traps or pitfalls can derail thedecision-making process during the course of the group’sdiscussion. As team members communicate, leaders need to helpthe group steer clear of the following dangers: groupthink,polythink, mismanaged or false agreement, and escalatingcommitment.
GroupthinkSocial psychologist Irving Janis believed that cohesion is thegreatest obstacle faced by groups charged with making effective,ethical decisions. He developed the label groupthink to describegroups that put unanimous agreement ahead of reasonedproblem solving. Groups suffering from this symptom are bothineffective and unethical.31 They fail to (a) consider all thealternatives, (b) gather additional information, (c) reexamine acourse of action when it’s not working, (d) carefully weigh risks, (e)work out contingency plans, or (f) discuss important moral issues.Janis first noted faulty thinking in small groups of ordinary citizens—such as an antismoking support group that decided that quittingwas impossible. He captured the attention of fellow scholars andthe public through his analysis of major U.S. policy disasters suchas the failure to anticipate the attack on Pearl Harbor, the invasionof North Korea, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and the escalation of theVietnam War. In each of these incidents, some of the brightest(and presumably most ethically minded) political and militaryleaders in our nation’s history made terrible choices. More recentexamples of groupthink include the invasion of Iraq, the decisionto launch the Challenger and Columbia spacecraft (which bothexploded), the attack on the Branch Davidian compound (whichresulted in the deaths of 80 people, including two dozen children),and the reckless lending that led to the failure of Britain’s HBOSbank described in Case Study 9.3.Janis identified the following as symptoms of groupthink. Thegreater the number of these characteristics displayed by a group,the greater the likelihood that members have made cohesivenesstheir top priority.Signs of OverconfidenceIllusion of invulnerability. Members are overly optimistic andprone to take extraordinary risks.Belief in the inherent morality of the group. Participants ignorethe ethical consequences of their actions and decisions.
Signs of Closed-MindednessCollective rationalization. Group members inventrationalizations to protect themselves from any feedback thatwould challenge their operating assumptions.Stereotypes of outside groups. Group membersunderestimate the capabilities of other groups (armies,citizens, teams), thinking that people in these groups areweak or stupid.Signs of Group PressurePressure on dissenters. Dissenters are coerced to go alongwith the prevailing opinion in the group.Self-censorship. Individuals keep their doubts about groupdecisions to themselves.Illusion of unanimity. Because members keep quiet, the groupmistakenly assumes that everyone agrees on a course ofaction.Self-appointed mind guards. Certain members take it onthemselves to protect the leader and others from dissentingopinions that might disrupt the group’s consensus.The risk of groupthink increases when teams made up ofmembers from similar backgrounds are isolated from contact withother groups. The risks increase still further when group membersare under stress (due to recent failure, for instance) and follow aleader who pushes one particular solution. Self-directed workteams (SDWTs), those that manage themselves and their tasks,are particularly vulnerable to groupthink. Members, working understrict time limits, are often isolated and undertrained. They mayfail at first, and the need to function as a cohesive unit may blindthem to ethical dilemmas.32Irving Janis made several suggestions for reducing groupthink. Ifyou’re appointed as the group’s leader, avoid expressing apreference for a particular solution. Divide regularly intosubgroups and then bring the entire group back together tonegotiate differences. Bring in outsiders—experts or colleagues—to challenge the group’s ideas. Avoid isolation, keeping in contact
with other groups. Role-play the reactions of other groups andorganizations to reduce the effects of stereotyping andrationalization. Once the decision has been made, give groupmembers one last chance to express any remaining doubts aboutthe decision. Janis points to the ancient Persians as an exampleof how to revisit decisions. The Persians made every majordecision twice—once while sober and again while under theinfluence of wine!A number of investigators have explored the causes andprevention of groupthink.33 They have discovered that a group isin greatest danger when the leader actively promotes his or heragenda and when it doesn’t have any procedures in place (likethose described in Chapter 6) for solving problems. With this inmind, don’t offer your opinions as a leader but solicit ideas fromgroup members instead. Make sure that the group adopts adecision-making format before discussing an ethical problem.There are two structured approaches specifically designed to builddisagreement or conflict into the decision-making process toreduce the likelihood of groupthink.34 In the devil’s advocatetechnique, an individual or a subgroup is assigned to criticize thegroup’s decision. The individual’s or subgroup’s goal is to highlightpotential problems with the group’s assumptions, logic, evidence,and recommendations. Following the critique, the team gathersadditional information and adopts, modifies, or discontinues theproposed course of action. In the dialectic inquiry method, asubgroup or the team as a whole develops a solution. After thegroup identifies the underlying assumptions of the proposal,selected group members develop a counterproposal based on adifferent set of assumptions. Advocates of each position presentand debate the merits of their proposals. The team or outsidedecision makers determine whether to adopt one position or theother, integrate the plans, or opt for a different solution altogether.Both approaches can take more than one round to complete. Forexample, a team may decide to submit a second plan for critiqueor present several counterproposals before reaching a conclusion.(It should be noted that neither structured approach appears to beas effective as having members who, instead of being assigned todissent, genuinely disagree with the prevailing opinion.)35
PolythinkPublic administration experts Alex Mintz and Carly Wayne arguethat argue that too little group consensus, like too muchconsensus, can generate poor ethical choices.36 Polythink, notgroupthink, derails decision making in many teams. Polythink(poly means many) describes groups who can’t manage theirdifferences in values, worldviews, organizational roles, anddecision-making styles. Team members don’t agree on how todefine a problem and how to best solve it. As a consequence,they come to faulty conclusions and fail to implement plans andpolicies.Mintz and Wayne noted polythink in the deliberations of high-levelpolicy makers in the attacks of 9/11, the withdrawal of Americantroops from Iraq and Afghanistan, response to Iran’s nuclear armsprogram, and the Obama administration and UN’s failure tointervene in the Syrian civil war. They identify the following assymptoms of polythink:Greater likelihood for intragroup conflict. Group members whorepresent a variety of institutions—governments, agencies,organizations—have conflicting positions they cannotreconcile. The UN Security Council often fails to reachagreement because members represent nations with verydifferent interests and world views. Before the 9/11 attacks,“turf wars,” where the FBI, CIA, and the military battled overwho should be in charge of national security, kept the federalgovernment from developing an effective counterterrorismpolicy.Greater likelihood of leaks (and fear of leaks). When groupmembers hold competing views, they are more likely to leakinformation to the press in order to undermine positions theyoppose. General Stanley Chrystal, for example, deridedPresident Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and otherofficials over their decision to withdraw from Afghanistan in aRolling Stone interview.Confusion and lack of communication. Group memberswithhold information, send mixed messages, or fail to
communicate with one another. Such was the case before9/11. The CIA knew that two al Qaeda terrorists had enteredthe United States and someone in the FBI knew that MiddleEasterners were training at flight schools. However, no onepulled this information together to identify the threat.Greater likelihood of framing effects. Unlike groupthink, wheremembers all frame the issue the same way, in polythink,members offer a variety of competing frames. Each sidepresents its position in the most favorable light. Obama’spolitical aides who were opposed to U.S. involvement in theSyrian civil war highlighted the potential costs of arming theSyrian rebels, emphasizing the danger of these weaponsending up in the hands of extremists. They downplayed anyrisks of not intervening. CIA director General Petraeus framedthe decision in terms of loss. He highlighted the fact thatextremists from Syria would move into neighboring countriesif the United States didn’t act.Adoption of positions with the lowest common denominator.Unable to reach a best or ideal solution, decision makersmake concessions and compromises to reach an agreementthat most group members can accept. More powerful factionsmay also drive out those with opposing views and imposetheir will.Decision paralysis. At times, groups caught in the polythinksyndrome can’t make a decision at all. They may fail to act orfall back to an earlier choice. The Obama administration fellback on containing Iran when it first came into office, forinstance. Later it worked to develop a treaty with Iran to endits development of nuclear weapons. (The Trumpadministration rejected the treaty and reimposed sanctions.)Limited review of policy options. Polythink can reduce thenumber of options considered by the discussion moremanageable.No room for reappraisal of previously rejected policy options.In order to save time and prevent further conflict, leadersrefuse to reconsider earlier decisions or to modify solutionsbased on previously rejected options.Mintz and Wayne believe that polythink is common in all kinds ofgroups, not just those concerned with national security and foreign
policy. They outline ways to channel polythink in order to make itbeneficial to decision makers. Turning polythink into an assetbegins with gathering the right mix of members. Select memberswho have divergent perspectives yet agree on the overall goalsand direction of the group. Mintz and Wayne argue diversity isvaluable early in the decision-making process. However, itbecomes destructive later, when consensus is critical. Therefore,encourage a variety of perspectives during brainstorming. Divideinto subgroups who can then advocate for diverse positions.Break the major policy issues into small problems that are easierto manage. When it comes time to coalesce on a final decision,use a decision matrix to identify the options and alternativesdeveloped earlier. Determine where proposed solutions overlapand differ.
False AgreementGeorge Washington University management professor JerryHarvey is critical of groupthink.37 Harvey believes that blaminggroup pressure is just an excuse for our individual shortcomings.He calls this the Gunsmoke myth. In this myth, the lone Westernsheriff (Matt Dillon in the radio and television series) stands downa mob of armed townsfolk out to lynch his prisoner. If grouptyranny is really at work, Harvey argues, Dillon stands no chance.After all, he is outnumbered 100 to 1 and could be felled with asingle bullet from one rioter. The mob disbands because itsmembers really didn’t want to lynch the prisoner in the first place.Harvey contends that falling prey to the Gunsmoke myth isimmoral because as long as we can blame our peers, we don’thave to accept personal responsibility as group members. Inreality, we always have a choice as to how to respond.Professor Harvey introduces the Abilene paradox (falseagreement) as an alternative to the Gunsmoke myth. Hedescribes a time when his family decided to drive (without airconditioning) 100 miles across the desert from their home inColeman, Texas, to Abilene to eat dinner. After returning home,family members discovered that no one had wanted to make thetrip. Each agreed to go to Abilene based on the assumption thateveryone else in the group was enthusiastic about eating out.Harvey believes that organizations and small groups, like hisfamily, also take needless “trips.” An example of the Abileneparadox would be teams who carry out illegal activities thateveryone in the group is uneasy about. Five psychological factorsaccount for the paradox:1. Action anxiety. Group members know what should be donebut are too anxious to speak up.2. Negative fantasies. Action anxiety is driven in part by thenegative fantasies members have about what will happen ifthey voice their opinions. These fantasies (“I’ll be fired orbranded as disloyal.”) serve as an excuse for not attackingthe problem.
3. Real risk. There are risks to expressing dissent: getting fired,losing income, damaging relationships. However, most of thetime, the danger is not as great as we think.4. Fear of separation. Alienation and loneliness constitute themost powerful force behind the paradox. Group members fearbeing cut off or separated from others. To escape this fate,they cheat, lie, break the law, and so forth.5. Psychological reversal of risk and certainty. Being trapped inthe Abilene paradox means confusing fantasy with real risk.This confusion produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. Caught upin the fantasy that something bad may happen, decisionmakers act in a way that fulfills the fantasy. For instance,group members may support a project with no chances ofsuccess because they are afraid they will be fired or demotedif they don’t. Ironically, they are likely to be fired or demotedanyway when the flawed project fails.Breaking out of the paradox begins with diagnosing its symptomsin your group or organization. If the group is headed in the wrongdirection, call a meeting where you own up to your true feelingsand invite feedback and encourage others to do the same. (Ofcourse, you must confront your fear of being separated from therest of the group to take this step.) The team may immediatelycome up with a better approach or engage in extended conflictthat generates a more creative solution. You might suffer for yourhonesty, but you could be rewarded for saying what everyone elsewas thinking. In any case, you’ll feel better about yourself forspeaking up.
Escalation of CommitmentOne of the consequences of mismanaged agreement iscontinuing to pursue a failed course of action. Socialpsychologists refer to this tendency as escalation of commitment.Instead of cutting their losses, individuals and groups continue to“throw good money after bad,” pouring in more resources. Costsmultiply until the moment that the team admits defeat or anoutside agency intervenes.38 Escalation of commitment is a moraltrap because it wastes time, money, and effort; threatens thehealth of the group and the organization; fails to meet importantneeds; and can even result in significant loss of life. Escalatingcommitment helps explain why state agencies continue toimplement defective software programs, promoters put moremoney into advertising unpopular music acts, universities pourscarce resources into failing football programs, and investors buyadditional shares of declining stocks. History is replete with well-publicized examples of this phenomenon, including the automatedbaggage system at the Denver International Airport (whichdelayed the opening of the facility and never worked), Boston’sBig Dig (the most expensive highway project in the United Statesdue to cost overruns), and the London Olympics, which cost threetimes more than the original bid. Escalation played a key role inthe deaths of 11 climbers on the Himalayan mountain K2 in 2008,the greatest loss of life on the second highest mountain in theworld. Many continued to summit, even when they should haveturned back, because they were so close to reaching the top.Others had corporate sponsors and felt additional pressure tosucceed. Those who summited late in the day were forced todescend in total darkness in temperatures reaching 40 below.(The “Leadership Ethics at the Movies” case on the student studysite describes another group that suffered from escalation ofcommitment.)Escalation of commitment is driven by a number of factors.39 Thefirst is self-enhancement, or the need to look good. Decisionmakers are compelled to justify their prior investments, so theyreinvest in the original project in order to demonstrate that theirinitial choice was correct. They deny negative feedback and
concentrate on defending past choices instead of focusing onfuture outcomes as they ought to. Group members find it hard toadmit failure publicly because doing so threatens their identity orsuggests that they are incompetent. Occasionally, groups escalatein order to show off, as in the case of a company that buysanother firm just to demonstrate that it is an important player inthe industry.Sunk costs also drive escalation. It’s hard emotionally for groupmembers to give up on previous investments even though suchcosts cannot influence future outcomes. Imagine, for example,you have two frozen dinners in your freezer, both of which havereached their “use by” date. The dinners are the same except fortheir price tags. If one cost $3 and the other $5, you will likelychoose the more expensive meal for dinner because it seems lesswasteful. Nevertheless, it should make no difference which mealyou choose since the dinners are already purchased and yourmoney is spent. Sunk costs help explain why those near the endof a project are more likely to spend additional funds to finish it. Inaddition, sunk costs can encourage teams to become overlyoptimistic. The presence of the previous investment temptsdecision makers to inflate their estimates of future success. Then,too, decision makers often labor under the illusion of control. Theybelieve that they can control events—business trends, employeebehavior, the weather—that are outside their influence.40Risk seeking is a third factor driving escalation. When faced withdecisions between two losses, individuals tend to take bigger risksthan warranted. They stay the course because they believe thatcontinuing in business or putting more money into the softwareproject will enable them to recoup their losses. They are like thegambler who goes to the horse track and loses $95 of the $100 heintended to bet. When the last race of the day is run, he bets on along shot, hoping to win back his entire $95.00. He would bemuch better off making a safer bet and winning back some of hislosses instead. Group interaction can magnify the tendency totake risks because responsibility for the choice is dispersedamong group members.
Management professors Mark Keil and Ramiro Montealegre offerinsights to leaders who want to help their teams de-escalate froma failed course of action. De-escalation begins with recognizingthat there is a problem, followed by reexamining the prior courseof action, then searching for alternative courses of action, andfinally planning an exit strategy. Keil and Montealegre offer sevensteps to help leaders and groups navigate this process:41Don’t ignore negative feedback or external pressure. Theseare signs that something is amiss. Recognizing these signsearly on can greatly reduce escalation costs.Hire an external auditor. Bringing in an outside expert or freshset of eyes can help the group recognize the extent of theproblem. A consultant can also recommend action that wouldbe difficult for insiders to suggest.Don’t be afraid to withhold further funding. Don’t provideadditional money until more information can be gathered.Withholding funding is a sign to others that something iswrong and also reasserts the leader’s control over the project.Those bringing new products to market often build in a stage-gate system. At the end of each stage of the launch (aftertechnical, financial, and marketing analysis, for example),managers decide whether to continue (“go”) or to terminate(“kill”) the project if it shows signs of failure.Look for opportunities to redefine the problem. Seek creativesolutions and identify additional alternatives. Encourage teammembers to express their concerns.Manage impressions. Help group members to save face byputting the blame on outsiders or outside forces (ifappropriate), by relying on the recommendations ofconsultants, and by the taking blame yourself.Prepare your stakeholders. Warn important stakeholders inthe project that you may be shutting it down. Consult withthem to get their input.Deinstitutionalize the project. Move the project from the coreof the firm to the periphery. That might mean, for example,physically relocating the project or de-emphasizing theimportance of the project to the group or organization. In thecase of the Denver airport baggage system, city officials andthe airlines agreed to open the complex without the new
system, thus making baggage handling less important to theairport as a whole.
Group Leadership for the CommonGoodAt some point, you may want to join with others to improve yourcommunity by, for example, building more affordable housing,reducing traffic congestion, battling opioid addiction, or luring newindustry to town. When you do, you’ll soon realize that manyproblems are too complex for any one group, organization orsector of society to solve. Such cases call for integrative orcollaborative leadership. Collaborative leaders bring diversegroups together to promote the common good. Success dependson the combined efforts of groups from many different sectors ofsociety. Examples of productive cross-sector collaborations rangefrom raising the incomes of mango farmers in Haiti, to improvingthe quality of life for rural seniors in Minnesota, to addressing ablighted section of a small Wisconsin city, to installing a sewersystem in western North Carolina.42 In each of these cases,leaders brought together representatives from across society(e.g., local, state and federal officials, business owners,contractors, farmers, social workers, nonprofit executives,neighborhood representatives) to achieve a worthy moralobjective: improving the lives of others.Integrative leaders recognize when the situation requirescombined action and then get the right groups and organizationstogether to tackle the problem. Once team members are gathered,collaborative leaders, who have little formal authority or power, actas facilitators. They are more concerned about the process ofdecision making than on promoting a particular solution. Theykeep the group focused on the task, mediate conflicts, promotehealthy communication, elicit commitment to the project, and soon.To succeed as a collaborative leader, you will need todemonstrate the following behavioral competencies:43
1. Stakeholder identification and stakeholder assessment. At thestart of the collaborative process, locate a broad range ofstakeholders and identify their interests. Determine how bestto involve them. Failure to carry out this initial task can doomthe group to failure. Important stakeholders left out of theprocess might later undermine the group’s efforts. Forexample, any attempt to improve local schools is likelydoomed unless parent associations, teachers’ unions, schooladministrators, and interested businesses are involved in theprocess.2. Strategic issue framing. Create a sense of urgency around aproblem (homelessness, a lack of health care) or anopportunity (federal grants to improve education or to preventflooding). Use the media and public forums to frame the issueas one that demands attention.3. Relationship development with diverse stakeholders. Buildpositive personal relationships with members of manydifferent groups. These relationships will increase thelikelihood that groups with different backgrounds andperspectives will cooperate.4. Convening working groups. Get the stakeholders to the tableto begin work. Find a safe, neutral site to meet. Recognizethe importance of the first meeting; dispel any suspicions ofthat you have a hidden agenda.5. Facilitating mutual learning processes. Help set highstandards for the group’s deliberations—opencommunication, open mindedness, hard work. (See ourearlier discussion of ethical group interaction.) Focus onlearning how to address the situation as a team.6. Inducing commitment. Garner commitment early in the life ofthe group. Then continue to encourage commitmentthroughout the process. When it comes to implementing theplan developed by the team, involve other advocacy groupsas well as power holders (politicians, grant makers) who canfund the project.7. Facilitating trusting relationships among partners. Overcomedifferences and other obstacles to cooperation by helpingparticipants build trust among themselves. Prevent andremove blockages that keep members from cooperating.
These trusting relationships lay the foundation for futurecooperative efforts.Implications and ApplicationsAs a leader, you will do much of your work in project andprocess teams, committees, task forces, boards, and othersmall groups. Your task is to foster the conditions that brighten,not darken, the lives of group members and result in highperformance and ethical choices.Because destructive behavior on the part of just one membercan derail the group process, encourage participants to taketheir ethical responsibilities seriously. Foster collaboration bypromoting commitment to shared goals; promote self-leadership; take steps to minimize social loafing.Expect to spend most of your time in a group listening ratherthan speaking. Model effective comprehensive, critical listeningbehaviors that overcome distractions, biases, and otherlistening barriers.Build a positive, ethical group climate through supportivemessages that are descriptive, problem oriented, spontaneous,empathetic, focused on equality, and provisional.Model emotional regulation and encourage the development ofpositive norms that address the needs of individuals, the team,and outside groups.To improve problem solving, productivity, and relationships,foster substantive or task-oriented conflict about ideas andopinions. Set ground rules to help the group avoid affective(relational) conflict involving personalities.Foster minority opinion in order to promote creative, higher-quality solutions.An overemphasis on group cohesion is a significant threat toethical group behavior. Be alert for the symptoms of groupthink.These include signs of overconfidence (illusion ofinvulnerability, belief in the inherent morality of the group), signsof closed-mindedness (collective rationalization, stereotypes ofoutside groups), and signs of group pressure (pressure ondissenters, self-censorship, illusion of unanimity, and self-appointed mind guards).Polythink, the failure to manage differences, can preventgroups from agreeing on how to define an ethical problem andhow to solve it. The signs of polythink include (1) greaterlikelihood for intragroup conflict, (2) greater likelihood of leaks(and fear of leaks), (3) confusion and lack of communication,(4) greater likelihood of framing effects, (5) adoption of
positions with the lowest common denominator, (6), decisionparalysis, (7) limited review of policy options, and (8) no roomfor reappraisal of previously rejected policy options. Turnpolythink into an asset by selecting members with differentperspectives who, at the same time, support the team’smission. Encourage diversity early in the decision-makingprocess when it is most useful for generating a variety ofsolutions.Avoid false agreement or consensus by speaking out if you areconcerned about the group’s direction.Continuing in a failed course of action wastes time andresources. Help your team de-escalate by paying closeattention to negative feedback, bringing in outsiders,withholding further funding, redefining the problem, and movingthe project to the periphery of the organization.Integrative or collaborative leadership reaches across sectorsof society to promote the common good. Collaborative leadersact as facilitators, bringing diverse stakeholders together,maintaining a healthy group process, and insuring commitmentuntil the project is complete.For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment1. Interview a leader at your school or in another organization todevelop a “meeting profile” for this person. Find out how muchtime this individual spends in meetings during an average weekand whether this is typical of other leaders in the sameorganization. Identify the types of meetings she or he attendsand her or his role. Determine whether ethical issues are part ofthese discussions. As part of your profile, record your reactions.Are you surprised by your findings? Has this assignmentchanged your understanding of what leaders do?2. Brainstorm strategies for encouraging commitment to sharedgoals in a group that you lead or belong to. What steps can youtake to implement these strategies?3. Analyze the impact of social loafing in a project group usingSelf-Assessment 9.1. What loafing behaviors are particularlydestructive? What factors encourage members to reduce theirefforts? What can you as a leader do to raise the motivationlevel of participants?4. Evaluate a recent ethical decision made by one of your groups.Was it a high-quality decision? Why or why not? What factorscontributed to the group’s success or failure? How did theleader (you or someone else) shape the outcome for better or
worse? How would you evaluate your performance as a leaderor team member? Write up your analysis.5. Develop a plan for becoming a better listener in a group.Implement your plan and then evaluate your progress.6. Use the self-leadership strategies to develop a plan for carryingout your team responsibilities.7. Have you ever been part of a group that was victimized bygroupthink? If so, which symptoms were present? How did theyaffect the group’s ethical decisions and actions? Does polythinkor the Abilene paradox (false agreement) offer a betterexplanation for what happened?8. Draw from current events to create an escalation ofcommitment case study. Describe what happened, why thegroup continued in a failed course of action, and the de-escalation process (if any). Identify what lessons can belearned from this case.9. With other team members, develop a conflict covenant.Determine how you will enforce this code.10. Complete Self-Assessment 9.2, the Team EmotionalIntelligence Scale, as a group. Compare your ratings on eachdimension and your overall ratings. How would you describethe overall EI of your team? How might you improve theemotional climate of your group?11. Fishbowl discussion: In a fishbowl discussion, one groupdiscusses a problem while the rest of the class looks on andthen provides feedback. Assign a group to one of the cases atthe end of the chapter. Make sure that each discussant has oneor more observers who specifically note his or her behavior.When the discussion is over, observers should meet with their“fish.” Then the class as a whole should give its impressions ofthe overall performance of the team. Draw on the conceptsdiscussed in this chapter when evaluating the work of individualparticipants and the group.12. As a group, select a significant problem in your community thatneeds to be addressed, such as opioid addiction, lack ofaffordable housing, substandard health care, or gang violence.Determine how you could create a sense of urgency about thisproblem. Identify the stakeholders who would need to beinvolved in tackling this issue and identify the interests of eachgroup. Decide how you might get stakeholders to the table tobegin work on this problem. Report your findings to the rest ofthe class.Student Study Site
Visit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGEjournal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.
Case Study 9.1Bringing Them Out of the Water and theDarkness: The Wild Boars Soccer TeamRescueThe evacuation of 12 soccer players and their coach, trapped in a floodedcave, ranks as one of the most difficult, dangerous, and inspiring rescuesin recent history. In June 2018, 12 members of Thailand’s Wild Boarssoccer team (ages 11 to 16) and their assistant coach went to explorenearby Tham Luang Cave. Planning on being gone for an hour, teammembers took only their flashlights and no snacks. The group wastrapped inside when the water level rose 10 feet in a flash flood. Rescuedivers battled strong current, darkness, and narrow passageways for ninedays as they searched for the team. “It was like walking into a strongwaterfall and feeling the water rushing at you,” said one diver. “It was ahorizontal climb against the water with every move.” Said another, “If youput your hand in front of you, it just disappeared.”1 On the tenth day, twoBritish divers, who were searching for the bodies of the boys, surfaced tofind the emaciated team members huddled on a ledge, miles from thecave entrance. A Thai army medical doctor and other personnel thenswam to the ledge to stay with the children while other divers shuttledback forth from the cave entrance, carrying food and messages.Once the boys were found, the focus shifted to how to get them out. Atfirst, authorities thought they would have to wait months until themonsoon rains ended and the water level in the cavern dropped. None ofthe boys could swim and the journey out of the cave would take 6 hours,a good portion of it underwater. (The danger facing rescuers and the WildBoars was highlighted by the death of a volunteer Thai diver who ran outof air while laying oxygen tanks along the escape route.) Thai authoritiesthen decided to chance a water rescue given that oxygen levels in thecave were dropping.Rescuers prepared the children for their journey by introducing them toscuba equipment. When it came time to transport the boys, they weregiven mild sedatives to reduce their anxiety and were outfitted with full-face masks, wrapped in plastic cocoons, and placed on floatingemergency stretchers. Four boys were taken out at a time over a periodof 3 days in a process that involved alternate periods of walking andsubmerging, sometimes for as long as 40 minutes. During the next to lastrescue, a diver lost hold of the guide rope and had to retrace his steps tofind it. The Wild Boars were flown to a nearby hospital where they wereput into isolation to monitor their condition. (Two had mild cases of
pneumonia but overall the group was in good health.) To preventadditional trauma, the boys were not allowed to watch news of theirrescue. A week later, the team appeared in public to thank rescuers anddribbled a soccer ball to demonstrate their soccer skills. They apologizedfor not telling their parents about their plans to explore and mourned theloss of the diver who died during the rescue attempt. Most of the teammembers will serve as novice monks as a form of penitence for the diver’sdeath.The successful rescue was a marvel of cooperation both above andbelow ground. Groups and individuals from around the world wereinvolved. Thailand’s new king donated supplies and people across thenation volunteered in any way they could, cooking meals for rescuers,operating pumps to suck water out of the cave, and hunting for hiddencracks in the limestone formations through which the Wild Boars couldperhaps be lifted to safety. More than 150 members of the Thai NavySEALs, outfitted with improvised equipment sometimes held together withduct tape, help create the escape route. Overseas military teams broughtsearch-and-rescue equipment. Americans provided the logistics whileBritish divers navigated the most hazardous stretches.The soccer team, under the leadership of the assistant coach EkkaeponChantawonsse, acted as a unit. Coach Ek taught the boys meditationtechniques he learned as a Buddhist monk to keep them calm as theyawaited discovery. Once help arrived, he shared his food to make surethe boys were full. The military doctor who stayed with the team wasimpressed with how orderly and obedient the boys were. After eating,they put their trash in a bag to keep their perch clean.The parents of the players also stuck together during the ordeal. Familymembers agreed to remain at the cave entrance until all the boys wererescued instead of being immediately reunited with their children. Localofficials asked the press to leave the boys alone so that they can resumenormal lives.The reaction of Mae Bua Chaicheun, a rice farmer living near ThamLuang Cave, captures the selfless commitment of all those involved insaving the Wild Boars. Chaicheun volunteered for 5 days at the rescuecenter. When she returned home, she found her fields flooded from waterthat was pumped from the cave to lower the water level. She had beenready to plant but had to start over. Yet she didn’t mind because the boyswere alive and well. She even turned down government compensation forher flooded land. “I am more than willing to have my rice fields flooded aslong as the children are safe,” Chaicheun said. “The boys are like mychildren.”2
Discussion Probes1. Can you think of other well-publicized examples of successfulcollaboration that produced extraordinary results?2. Have you been on teams that succeeded because of a high degreeof cooperation? What factors encouraged group members to worktogether?3. Why do you think the parents waited to be reunited with theirchildren until all of them had been rescued? Could you have made asimilar decision if this involved your child or family member?4. What character virtues do you note in the rescuers, the Wild Boars,their coach, and their parents?5. What leadership ethics lessons can we take from the Thailandsoccer club rescue?
Notes1. Beech, H., Paddock, R. C., & Suhartono, M. (2018, July 12). “Still can’tbelieve it worked”: The story of the Thailand cave rescue. The New YorkTimes.2. Thai cave rescue: The watery trap is now empty. (2018, July 10). TheNew York Times.
SourcesAdam, K. (2018, July 3). Meet the British “A-Team” divers at the center ofThailand cave rescue. The Washington Post.Beech, H. (2018, July 10). Stateless and poor, some boys in Thai cavehad already beaten long odds. The New York Times.Beech, H., & Suhartono, M. (2018, July 18). Thai cave boys leave hospitaland apologize for all the fuss. The New York Times.Dunne, J. (2018, June 28). British diving experts join Thai cave rescueteam as deluge continues. Evening Standard.Ismay, J. (2018, July 11). A diver explains the difficulty of the mission. TheNew York Times.Paddock, R. C., & Beech, H. (2018, 2018, July 9). A war against waterand time. Toronto Star.Toohey, P. (2018, July 11). Against all odds, hero divers save soccer boys.The Adelaide Advertiser.Vejpongsa, T., & Kaewjinda, K. (2018, July 19). We weren’t sure it was forreal. Toronto Star.
Case Study 9.2Getting the Project Team Back on TrackJuanita Cruz looked forward to leading her project team in her seniorentrepreneurship capstone class. Professor Williams chose Juanita andfour other team leaders from among those who applied for the positions.The teams are to create a plan for a new small business. Members maynot change teams, though leaders can “fire” one member if that personseriously undermines the group’s efforts. At the end of the semester, eachgroup will present its plan to a panel of business alumni who willdetermine which has the best chance of success and deserves thehighest grade.Juanita’s team is made up of seven members (including herself). Thegroup performed well on the first teambuilding exercises and case studiesProfessor Williams assigned in class. Team members were friendly withone another and willing to share their ideas, though Juanita wasconcerned that one member, Ralph, seemed to dominate groupdiscussions. That initial good will dissipated quickly when the team satdown to figure out which kind of business it wants to create. Ralph andtwo other group members (Rose and Isaiah) are pushing to create a planfor a recreational marijuana store. They want to take advantage of the factthat voters in their state recently legalized recreational pot sales. Megan,Joyce, and Bernie have serious doubts about the proposal. They point outthat the group would be selling a product banned by their university andstill in violation of federal law. They worry that this type of business maybe too controversial for the alumni evaluators and would lower the group’sgrade. Joyce voted against the change in the marijuana law and believesthat selling pot is unethical. Megan, Joyce, and Bernie have proposed avariety of alternatives, including a smartphone repair shop and bakery, butcan’t seem to agree on one option.Tensions are rising as the group continues to discuss which business topursue. Juanita’s concerns about Ralph have proven to be well founded.He comes across as a know-it-all. He declared on one occasion thatthose who disagreed with him were “clueless” because they didn’tunderstand how profitable a marijuana business could be. Ralph, Rose,and Isaiah appear more interested in having their way than in listening totheir counterparts. They don’t seem to recognize how frustrated Megan,Joyce, and Bernie are. In fact, Megan appears to have given up andrarely speaks, checking her cell phone instead. Joyce hasn’t helpedmatters by accusing the marijuana store supporters (whom she referredto as “potheads”) of being immoral. Up to this point, Juanita has tried to
remain neutral, though she has serious doubts about the marijuanabusiness plan. She has focused on summarizing major points from bothsides and encouraging members to listen to one another. She broughtdonuts to the last meeting in hopes of encouraging a warmer atmosphere.Juanita realizes that the group is stuck and that the entire project (as wellas the semester grade in this senior-level class) is in danger. Even she asteam leader doesn’t want to come to the group’s meetings anymore.While tempted to side with the marijuana business subgroup just to breakthe deadlock, she recognizes that members of the other subgroup maynot complete their parts of the project if this plan is adopted. She needs todetermine what to do before the team meets again. Time is running out.
Discussion Probes1. What has Juanita done right so far as a leader? What mistakes hasshe made?2. What problems do you note in the interaction between groupmembers?3. What skills do members need to develop? What procedures orguidelines should they adopt?4. What steps should Juanita take to foster cooperation and addressthe unproductive and unethical communication patterns in thegroup?5. Should Juanita break the deadlock by supporting the marijuanastore proposal? Why or why not?6. Should Juanita fire Ralph?7. What should be Juanita’s agenda for the next team meeting?
Case Study 9.3Groupthink at the Top: The Collapse ofHBOSIt seemed like a merger made in financial heaven. In 2001, the HalifaxBuilding Society of Britain merged with the Bank of Scotland to formHBOS. The union made a lot of sense. Halifax was a successful retailmortgage lender and Bank of Scotland had experience in corporatelending and treasury investments. Between them, the two well-respectedinstitutions had 450 years of banking experience. Their combined assetsof 30 billion pounds made HBOS one of the largest financial institutions inthe United Kingdom. Yet, 7 years later, HBOS collapsed in one of thebiggest bank failures in British history.The seeds of the bank’s destruction were sown shortly after its formation.HBOS executives set out an aggressive growth strategy for HBOS basedon increasing loan volume 17% to 20% a year. To reach this target,commercial loan officers had to target smaller, riskier borrowers. Financialregulators warned HBOS of the dangers of making such risky loans, butbank officers ignored their advice. When money loaned far outstrippeddeposits, the bank had to turn to outside underwriters for funds to makemore loans. This made HBOS extremely vulnerable to downturns in thefinancial markets. When the mortgage crisis of 2007–2008 began, manyborrowers defaulted and HBOS couldn’t raise additional money to coverits losses. The British government forced HBOS to merge with the Lloydsbanking group. However, government officials later had to inject 20.5billion pounds into HBOS to keep it afloat. During the run up to thecollapse, poor internal controls allowed managers at the HBOS Readingoffice to strip the assets of small businesses to fund trips, sex parties, andlavish gifts, generating a 240 million pound loss.A 2013 British Parliamentary review of the bank’s collapse was titled “AnAccident Waiting to Happen.” Investigators condemned the bank’s boardand top managers, declaring, “The history of HBOS provides a manual ofbad banking.”1 Not only was the bank’s growth strategy far too ambitious,the firm lacked adequate controls to estimate and control for risk. Loanofficers were rewarded for reaching sales targets, not on the quality oftheir loans. Most of its board members had little or no expertise with riskmanagement. Government regulators failed to carry out theirresponsibilities.Groupthink also played a significant role in the bank’s demise. The topexecutive team, made up of bank chairman Dennis Stevenson, CEOs
James Crosby and Andy Hornby, and commercial lending chief PeterCummings, was supremely confident. In retrospect, their optimismappears delusional. In 2001, the chairman stated that any higher lossesfrom making risky loans would be “more than compensated for by higherproduct margins.”2 In 2006 and 2007, bank officers boldly proclaimed thatthe bank was adequately managing its risks and that they were moreskilled than their competitors (this despite the fact that Cummings was theonly senior official with significant banking knowledge and experience). Asthe global financial crisis loomed and other banks reduced their high-riskloan portfolios, HBOS loaned out even more money. Peter Cummingsappeared to mock more prudent lenders, declaring,The job of banks is to assess risk but in the last 18–24 monthsthat’s a job many banks seem to have forgotten. . . . We neverforgot. Our decision strength is assessing credit risk andassessing people. We’re better at it. . . . Some people look as ifthey are losing their nerve, beginning to panic even in today’stesting property environment, not us.3Top management at HBOS was quick to silence dissenters. Paul Moore,in charge of monitoring the bank’s risk, recommended at one boardmeeting that HBOS reconsider its fast-growth strategy. His warning wasignored. The meeting minutes said instead that risk controls wereadequate. When Moore demanded that the minutes be written to reflecthis concerns, no changes were made. CEO Crosby fired him instead,replacing him with someone far less qualified. Board members rarelychallenged the decisions of the top executive team and didn’t engage inmuch substantive debate during board sessions.Fallout from the HBOS collapse continues even though over a decadehas passed. Both Stevenson and Crosby, who had been knighted, gaveup their titles as Lords. They apologized for their role in the failure.Cummings was forced to pay 500,000 pounds in restitution and wasbanned from the financial industry. Britain’s Financial Reporting Council(FRC) investigated accounting giant KPMG to determine if it was at faultfor signing off on the bank’s financial statements just prior to its collapse.The FRC cleared KPMG of any wrongdoing but admits it should haveinvestigated sooner. Critics take issue with the FRC’s conclusions,pointing out that the membership of the Financial Reporting Council islargely made up of former partners from KPMG and other majoraccounting firms. They have called for another inquiry. Lloyds standsaccused of misleading investors and the public by not disclosing theReading fraud losses before it took over HBOS. (The merger may not
have occurred had it done so.) Parliament may launch an investigation todetermine if there was a cover up.As a result of the HBOS bail out and other banking scandals, a new lawmakes it a criminal offence for senior bank staff to engage in “recklessmisconduct” which leads to bank failure. Those convicted of bankingmalpractice could face jail terms of up to 7 years.
Discussion Probes1. How can you tell the difference between optimism and delusionaloptimism?2. What symptoms of groupthink do you note in the HBOS topmanagement team and board of directors?3. Do you think top management teams are more vulnerable togroupthink than managers at lower levels of the organization? Whyor why not?4. What punishment should Lloyds face if executives covered up thefraud at the HOBS branch office?5. Do you support the law that now makes it a criminal offense forbankers to act recklessly and put their banks in danger? Shouldexecutives in other industries also be imprisoned if they actrecklessly and cause the failure of their businesses?6. Should another commission, made up of members with no ties tomajor accounting firms, investigate whether KPMG should bepunished for giving HBOS a clean financial bill of health right beforeit collapsed?
Notes1. Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. (2013). An accidentwaiting to happen: The failure of HBOS. House of Commons, London,England.2. McConnell, P. (2014). Reckless endangerment: The failure of HBOS.Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions, 7, 202–215.3. McConnell.
SourcesDale, S. (2012, December 4). Ex-HBOS chief exec Sir James Crosbyapologizes for bank failure. Fundweb, p. 11.Doherty, R. (2018, May 11). New leak criticizes PPMG and FRC overHBOS. Economia.Government completes banking reforms. (2015, March 5). GOV.UK.Hashemi, F. (2016, February 5). Probe into KPMG’s audit of failed bankHBOS intensifies. International Accounting Bulletin.Hawkes, A. (2018, June 23). HBOS fraud—now bank chiefs face thewrath of MPs. Financial Mail.James, W., & Scuffham, M. (2013, October 1). UK’s “reckless banking”charge to carry seven-year jail term. Reuters.Karmali, R. (2015, November 19). HBOS’ demise: How it happened. BBC.Not so smart. (2015, November 28). The Economist.Press Association. (2006, January 28). Ex-HBOS bosses face City bansas watchdogs launch bank failure probes. Daily Mail. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Documents/publications/reports/hbos.pdfTreanor, J. (2017, September 22). KPMG cleared by watchdog in HBOSaudit investigation. The Guardian.Wallace, T. (2015, November 19). Up to 10 former HBOS executivescould be banned over collapse, damning report finds. The Telegraph.SELF-ASSESSMENT 9.1 Class Project Social Loafing ScaleInstructions: To identify the behaviors associated with the impact ofsocial loafing on team performance, respond to the followingquestions based on your recent experiences with one social loafer ina class project team.What did the social loafer do?(1 = does not describe at all; 2 = describes the least; 3 = does notdescribe much; 4 = describes somewhat; 5 = describes the most)
1. Member had trouble attending team meetings.2. Member had trouble paying attention to what was going on inthe team.3. Member was mostly silent during team meetings.4. Member engaged in side conversations a lot while the teamwas working.5. Member came poorly prepared to the team meetings.6. Member contributed poorly to the team discussions whenpresent.7. Member had trouble completing team-related homework.8. Member mostly declined to take on any work for the team.9. Member did a poor job of the work she or he was assigned.10. Member did poor-quality work.11. Member mostly distracted the team’s focus on its goals andobjectives.12. Member did not fully participate in the team’s formalpresentation.What was the impact of the social loafer on your team?Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the followingstatements about the impact the social loafer had on your team (1 =strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 =agree; 5 = strongly agree)As a result of the social loafing,1. the team took longer than anticipated to complete its tasks.2. the team meetings lasted longer than expected.3. the team had fewer good ideas than other teams.4. team members had to waste their time explaining things to thesocial loafer.5. other team members had to do more than their share of work.6. other team members were frustrated and angry.7. there was a higher level of stress on the team.8. other team members had to redo or revise the work done by thesocial loafer.9. the work had to be reassigned to other members of the team.10. the team’s final presentation was not as high quality as that ofother teams.11. the team missed deadlines.Source: Adapted from Jassawalla, A. R., Malshe, A., & Sashittal, H.(2008). Student perceptions of social loafing in undergraduatebusiness classroom teams. Decision Sciences Journal of InnovativeEducation, 6, 423–424. Used with permission.
SELF-ASSESSMENT 9.2 Team Emotional Intelligence Scale
InstructionsRate your group on each of the following items on a scale of 1 (totallydisagree) to 5 (totally agree). Add the item scores to generate ascore for each dimension. Add the dimension scores to determineyour team’s overall level of emotional intelligence.Team Emotional Self-Awareness1. Team members have a good sense of why they have certainfeelings most of the time.2. Team members have good understanding of their ownemotions.3. Team members really understand what they feel.4. Team members always know whether or not they are happy.Total ______ out of 20Use of Team Emotion5. Team members always set goals for themselves and then trytheir best to achieve them.6. Team members always tell themselves we are a competentteam.7. Our team is a self-motivating team.8. Team members would always encourage themselves to try theirbest.Total ______ out of 20Regulation of Team Emotion9. Team members are able to control their temper so that they canhandle difficulties rationally.10. Team members are quite capable of controlling their ownemotions.11. Team members can always calm down quickly when they arevery angry.12. Team members have good control of their own emotions.Total ______ out of 20Team Emotional Interpersonal Understanding13. Team members always know others’ emotions from theirbehavior.14. Team members are good observers of others’ emotions.15. Team members are sensitive to the feelings and emotions ofothers.
16. Team members have good understanding of the emotions ofpeople around them.Total ______ out of 20Total ______ out of 80Source: Wei, X., Liu, Y. & Allen, N. J. (2016). Measuring teamemotional intelligence: A multimethod comparison. Group Dynamics:Theory, Research, and Practice 20, p. 50. Used by permission.
Notes1. 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. Statistic retrieved from Project Management Institute. (2013,March 13). Talent Gap: Project management through 2020.3. Mankins, M., Brahm, C., & Caimi, G. (2014). Your scarcestresource. Harvard Business Review 92, 74–80; Perlow, L. A.,Hadley, C. N., & Eun, E. (2017, July/August). Stop the meetingmadness: How to free up time for meaningful work. HarvardBusiness Review, 62–69.4. 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 andcompetition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction;Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon,L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualisticgoal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. PsychologicalBulletin, 82, 47–62.5. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Training forcooperative 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.6. Johnson & Johnson. (2000); Johnson & Johnson (2005).7. Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2012). Mastering self-leadership:Empowering yourself for personal excellence (6th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.8. Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2003). Understanding social loafing. InA. Sagie, S. Stashevsky, & M. Koslowsky (Eds.), Misbehaviourand dysfunctional attitudes in organizations (pp. 79–102).Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
9. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Understanding individualmotivation in groups: The collective effort model. In M. E. Turner(Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 113–141).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, p. 119.10. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1995). Social loafing:Research findings, implications, and future directions. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 4, 134–140; Williams, K. D.,Harkins, S. G., & Karau, S. J. (2003). Social performance. In M. A.Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of socialpsychology (pp. 327–346). London, England: Sage.11. 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.12. Johnston, M. K., Reed, K., & Lawrence, K. (2011). Teamlistening environment (TLE) scale: Development and validation.Journal of Business Communication, 48, 3–26.13. Johnson, J. (1993). Functions and processes of inner speechin listening. In D. Wolvin & C. G. Coakley (Eds.), Perspectives inlistening (pp. 170–184). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.14. Barker, L., Johnson, P., & Watson, K. (1991). The role oflistening in managing interpersonal and group conflict. In D.Borisoff & M. Purdy (Eds.), Listening in everyday life: A personaland professional approach (pp. 139–157). Lanham, MD:University Press of America.15. Harris, T. E., & Sherblom, J. C (2011). Small group and teamcommunication (5th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.16. Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal ofCommunication, 11/12, 141–148. See also Borisoff, D., & Victor,D. A. (1998). Conflict management: A communication skillsapproach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Ch. 2.17. Duffy, M. K., & & Shaw, J. D. (2000). The Salieri syndrome:Consequences of envy in groups. Small Group Research, 31, 3–23.
18. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The emotionalreality of teams. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 21(2), 55–65; Günsel, A., & Açikgöz, A. (2013). The effects of team flexibilityand emotional intelligence on software development performance.Group Decision and Negotiation, 22, 359–377; Harper, S. R., &White, C. D. (2013). The impact of member emotional intelligenceon psychological safety in work teams. Journal of Behavioral &Applied Management, 15, 2–10; Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris,G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotionalintelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes.International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 21–40;Rapisarda, B. A. (2002). The impact of emotional intelligence onwork team cohesiveness and performance. International Journalof Organizational Analysis, 10, 363–370. Some examples in thissection are taken from these sources.19. Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001, March). Building theemotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 80–90.20. See Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects offunctional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making:Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy ofManagement Journal, 39, 123–148; Amason, A. C., Thompson, K.R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Harrison, A. W. (1995). Conflict: Animportant dimension in successful management teams.Organizational Dynamics, 23, 20–35; Bell, M. A. (1974). Theeffects of substantive and affective conflict in problem-solvinggroups. Speech Monographs, 41, 19–23; Bell, M. A. (1979). Theeffects of substantive and affective verbal conflict on the quality ofdecisions of small problem-solving groups. Central States SpeechJournal, 3, 75–82; Johnson, D. W., & Tjosvold, D. (1983).Productive conflict management. New York, NY: Irvington.21. Kotlyar, I., & Karakowsky, L. (2006). Leading conflict?Linkages between leader behaviors and group conflict. SmallGroup Research, 37, 377–403.22. Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflictmanagement, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams.
Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642.23. Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions duringteam problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflictresolution. Human Performance, 17, 195–218.24. Roberto, M. A. (2005). Why great leaders don’t take yes for ananswer. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.25. Roberto (2005).26. For summaries of research on minority influence processes,see Crano, W. D., & Seyranian, V. (2009). How minorities prevail:The context/comparison-leniency contract model. Journal ofSocial Issues, 65, 335–363; De Dreu, C. K. W., & Beersma, B.(2001). Minority influence in organizations: Its origins andimplications for learning and group performance. In C. K. W. DeDreu & N. K. De Vies (Eds.), Group consensus and minorityinfluence: Implications for innovation (pp. 258–283). Malden, MA:Blackwell; Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (2010). Minorityinfluence and innovations: Antecedents, processes andconsequences (pp. 365–394). Hoboken, NJ: Psychology Press;Maas, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities:Fifteen years of minority influence research. PsychologicalBulletin, 95, 428–445; Moscovici, S., Mucchi-Faina, A., & Maass,A. (Eds.). (1994). Minority influence. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.27. Nemeth, C. (1995). Dissent, group process and creativity: Thecontribution of minority influence research. In E. Lawler (Ed.),Advances in group processes (vol. 2, pp. 57–75). Greenwich, CT:JAI Press; Nemeth & Chiles; Nemeth, C. J., & Goncalo, J. A.(2011). Rogues and heroes: Finding value in dissent. In J. Jetten& M. J. Hornesy (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance,difference and defiance (pp. 17–35). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.28. Smith, C. M., & Tindale, R. S. (2009). Direct and indirectminority influence in groups. In R. Martin & M. Hewstone (Eds.),Minority influence and innovations: Antecedents, processes andconsequences (pp. 263–284). Hoboken, NJ: Psychology Press.
29. Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minorityinfluence: Evidence for leniency in source evaluation andcounterargumentation. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 72, 949–964.30. See, for example, De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001).Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance ofparticipation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 1191–1201; Park, G., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). A multilevelmodel of minority opinion expression and team decision-makingeffectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 824–853;Valacich, J. S., & Schewenk, C. (1995). Devil’s advocacy anddialectical inquiry effects on face-to-face and computer-mediatedgroup decision making. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 63, 158–173.31. Janis, I. (1971, November). Groupthink: The problems ofconformity. Psychology Today, 271–279; Janis, I. (1982).Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; Janis, I.(1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisismanagement. New York, NY: Free Press.32. Manz, C. C., & Neck, C. P. (1995). Teamthink: Beyond thegroupthink syndrome in self-managing work teams. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 10, 7–15.33. See Chen, A., Lawson, R. B., Gordon, L. R., & McIntosh, B.(1996). Groupthink: Deciding with the leader and the devil.Psychological Record, 46, 581–590; Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive andwell after 25 years: A review of groupthink research.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 116–141; Flippen, A. R. (1999). Understanding groupthink from a self-regulatory perspective. Small Group Research, 3, 139–165;Jones, P. E., & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (2000). The potential forsocial contextual and group biases in team decision-making:Biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics,43, 1129–1152; Street, M. D. (1997). Groupthink: An examinationof theoretical issues, implications, and future researchsuggestions. Small Group Research, 28, 72–93.
34. Cosier, R. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Agreement andthinking alike: Ingredients for poor decision. Academy ofManagement Executive, 4, 69–74; Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg,W. R., & Rechner, P. (1989). Experiential effects of dialecticalinquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategicdecision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745–772.35. Nemeth, C. (2018). In defense of troublemakers: The power ofdissent in life and business. New York, NY: Basic Books.36. Minz, A., Mishal, S., & Morag, N. (2003). Evidence ofpolythink?: The Israeli delegation at Camp David 2000. IllinoisState University; Mintz, A., & Wayne, C. (2016). The polythinksyndrome and elite group decision-making. Advances in PoliticalPsychology, 37, 3–21; Mintz, A., & Wayne, C. (2016). Thepolythink syndrome: U.S. foreign policy decisions on 9/11,Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and ISIS. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.37. Harvey, J. B. (1988). The Abilene paradox and othermeditations on management. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.See also Harvey, J. B. (1999). How come every time I get stabbedin the back my fingerprints are on the knife? San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.38. See, for example, Bobocel, D. R., & Meyer, J. P. (1994).Escalating commitment to a failing course of action: Separatingthe roles of choice and justification. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 79, 360–363; Hutchinson, M., Nite, C., & Bouchet, A.(2015). Escalation of commitment in United Stated collegiateathletic departments: An investigation of social and structuraldeterminants of commitment. Journal of Sport Management, 29,57–75; McNamara, G., Moon, H., & Bromiley, P. (2002). Bankingon commitment: Intended and unintended consequences of anorganization’s attempt to attenuate escalation of commitment.Academy of Management Journal, 45, 443–452; Ross, J., & Staw,B. M. (1993). Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from theShoreham Nuclear Plant. Academy of Management Journal, 36,701–732; Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to acourse of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, 577–587.
39. Drummond, H., & Hodgson, J. (2011). Escalation in decision-making: Behavioral economics in business. Burlington, VT:Gower; Sleesman, D. J., Conlon, D. E., McNamara G., & Miles, J.E. (2012). Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review ofthe determinants of escalation of commitment. Academy ofManagement Journal, 3, 541–562.40. McKenna, F. P. (1993). It won’t happen to me: Unrealisticoptimism or illusion of control? British Journal of Psychology, 84,39–50.41. Keil, M., & Montealegre, R. (2000). Cutting your losses:Extricating your organization when a big project goes awry. SloanManagement Review, 41, 55–68. See also Behrens, J., & Ernst,H. (2014). What keeps managers away from a losing course ofaction? Go/stop decisions in new product development. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, 31, 361–374; Drummond &Hodgson; Simonson, I., & Staw, B M. (1992). De-escalationstrategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitmentto losing courses of action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 419–426.42. Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2010). Integrative leadershipand the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations.Leadership Quarterly, 21, 211–230. Chrislip, D. D. & Larson, C. E.(1994). Collaborative leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Luke, J. S. (1998). Catalytic leadership: Strategies for aninterconnected world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.43. Morse, R. S. (2008). Developing public leaders in an age ofcollaborative governance. In R. S. Morse & T. F. Buss, Innovationsin public leadership development (pp. 79–100). New York, NY:Routledge. See also Getha-Taylor, H. (2008). Identifyingcollaborative competencies. Review of Public PersonnelAdministration, 28, 103–119; McGuire, M. (2002,September/October). Managing networks: Propositions on whatmanagers do and why they do it. Public Administration Review,62, 599–609.
10 Creating an Ethical, InclusiveOrganizational Climate
Learning Objectives> Distinguish between the five primary types of ethical climates.> Clarify the relationship between respect for persons, inclusion, andjustice.> Summarize the six signs of healthy ethical climates.> Outline strategies for discovering an organization’s core ideology.> Defend the use of codes of ethics as ethical tools.> Identify steps for preventing destructive behaviors and collectivecorruption.> Describe how ethical leaders can make the most of thesocialization process.> Evaluate an ethics training program using the five guidelines foreffective training.Being good is good business.—THE BODY SHOP FOUNDER ANITA RODDICKInclusion elevates all.—THEATRE DIRECTOR AND AUTISM EXPERTELAINE HALL
What’s AheadHealthy ethical climates are marked by inclusion, trust, justice,integrity (ethical soundness, wholeness, and consistency),structural and symbolic reinforcement, and organizationalcitizenship. Important tools for building an ethical, inclusiveorganizational climate include core ideology, codes of ethics,preventing and eliminating destructive behaviors, fosteringdiversity, socialization, and training.
Ethical ClimatesIn the introduction to this text, I argued that ethics is at the heart ofleadership. When we become leaders, we assume the ethicalresponsibilities that come with that role. Nowhere is this moreapparent than in the organizational context. Examine nearly anycorporate scandal—Volkswagen’s faulty emissions tests, WellsFargo’s bogus accounts, Theranos Labs’ fabricated test results—and you’ll find leaders who engaged in immoral behavior andencouraged their followers to do the same. The same pattern canbe found in the nonprofit and governmental sectors (e.g., moneyscandals at the National Rifle Association, inflated college rankingdata at Temple University, lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan). On amore positive note, leaders are largely responsible for creating theorganizations we admire for their ethical behavior. They createpositive ethical climates that promote moral behavior by leadersand followers alike.Ethical climate is best understood as part of an organization’sculture. From the cultural vantage point, an organization is a tribe.As tribal members gather, they develop their own language,stories, beliefs, assumptions, ceremonies, and power structures.These elements combine to form a unique perspective on theworld called the organization’s culture.1 How an organizationresponds to ethical issues is a part of this culture. Everyorganization faces a special set of ethical challenges, creates itsown set of values and norms, develops guidelines for enforcing itsethical standards, honors particular ethical heroes, and so on.Ethical climate, in turn, determines what members believe is rightor wrong and shapes their ethical decision making and behavior.Management professors Bart Victor and John Cullen argue thatethical climates can be classified according to the criteriamembers use to make moral choices and the groups thatmembers refer to when making ethical determinations.2 Victor andCullen identify five primary climate types. Instrumental climatesfollow the principle of ethical egotism. Ethical egotists makedecisions based on selfish interests that serve the individual and
his or her immediate group and organization. Caring climatesemphasize concern or care for others. Law and order climates aredriven by external criteria such as professional codes of conduct.Rules climates are governed by the policies, rules, andprocedures developed in the organization. Independence climatesgive members wide latitude to make their own decisions.(Complete Self-Assessment 10.1 to determine the type of ethicalclimate at your company or organization.)Leaders would do well to know the particular ethical orientation oftheir organizations. To begin, each of the five climate types posesunique ethical challenges. Members of instrumental organizationsoften ignore the needs of others, whereas those driven by a careethic are tempted to overlook the rules to help out friends andcolleagues. Leaders and followers in law and order cultures maybe blind to the needs of coworkers because they rely on outsidestandards for guidance. On the other hand, those who play byorganizational rules may be blinded to societal norms.Independence produces the best results when members have theknowledge and skills they need to make good decisions.Studies using the Victor and Cullen climate types suggest thatself-interest poses the greatest threat to ethical performance.3Rates of immoral behavior are highest in work units andorganizations with instrumental climates, which are more commonin for-profit organizations and those directed by authoritarianleaders. Members of these groups are also less committed to theirorganizations and less satisfied with their jobs. Caring(benevolent) climates promote employee loyalty and contentment.Rules climates discourage ethical misbehavior but don’tencourage attachment to the organization. External laws andcodes that are internalized into an organization’s climate arepositively linked with such outcomes as job satisfaction andpsychological well-being. Climate has a similar impact on ethicaland unethical behavior in a variety of cultural settings, includingNorth America, Europe, Africa, and Asia.
Signs of Healthy Ethical ClimatesThere is no one-size-fits-all approach to creating an ethicalclimate. Rather, we need to identify principles and practices thatcharacterize positive ethical climates. Then we have to adaptthese elements to our particular organizational setting. Keymarkers of highly ethical organizations are inclusion, trust, justice,integrity, structural reinforcement, and organizational citizenship.
InclusionEthical organizations recognize that we are living in the “age ofdiversity.”4 Globalization (see Chapter 11); immigration; genderequality; civil, gay and disability rights; and other forces contributeto an increasingly diverse society. Ethical groups embrace thesetrends, seeking to foster diversity. They undertake diversityinitiatives designed to recruit, train, retain, and promote diversemembers while reducing biases, practices, and systems that actas barriers to diversity. However, they don’t stop at diversity butmake inclusion their end goal. Inclusion means helping allmembers, no matter what their differences—racial, ethnic, gender,sexual orientation, physical abilities—feel valued and engaged.Put another way, “Diversity is getting a seat at the table. Inclusionis sharing your views and being heard.”5 (Complete Self-Assessment 10.2 to determine the level of inclusion in yourorganization.)Diversity and inclusion (D&I) efforts pay off. Evidence suggeststhat diverse organizations gain market share, generate higherfinancial returns, boost their reputations, retain the best talent, andso on.6 However, leaders of ethical organizations appear to bemotivated by more than the bottom line. They are also driven bythe recognition that every person has dignity and deservesrespect.7 If each person has intrinsic value, then every effortshould be made to make sure that every voice is heard. Inclusiveleaders address the individual, relational, and system levels of theorganization. As individuals, they are humble and curious. Theyrecognize that they don’t have all the answers when it comes todiversity. Instead, they have a learning orientation, seeking tounderstand the perspectives of diverse followers and drawing ontheir insights. They also demonstrate courage when, for example,changing discriminatory policies or confronting sexism and racism.They have the self-understanding and emotional stability to copewith complexity as well as with the strong emotions that can comewhen members of diverse groups interact. To demonstrateinclusive leadership at the personal level,8
– take responsibility for your own learning and actions.– have trusted advisors from different identity groups.– recognize and explore your own identity and culturalorientation and how they relate to the values and orientationsof other groups and individuals.– expect to have your current assumptions challenged andinvite these interactions; make this an expectation of yourteam.– be bold in addressing both blatant and subtle forms ofexclusion. Use these as opportunities for organizationallearning.At the relational level, inclusive leaders build connections withfollowers based on authenticity. They keep the focus on sharedgoals and collective outcomes. They invest time and energybuilding alliances and partnerships with a variety of groups andindividuals. They force themselves to extend their relationalboundaries, reaching out to those who are significantly differentfrom them. To demonstrate inclusive leadership at the relationallevel,– seek opportunities to mentor and be mentored.– accept different work and communication styles; allow fordifferences in problem solving, leading, and getting the workdone.– recognize intergroup fault lines (significant divisions thatcause tension between groups).– recognize existing and implicit norms; examine and reviseas needed to address bias.– provide tools and build skills to help diverse teamsaddress conflict, value differences, and communicate clearly.– involve a wide range of people and diverse perspectives.Ask, “Whose voices or perspectives might we be missing?”when addressing issues.– consider your possible blind spots and unquestionedassumptions.– increase alignment, direction, and commitment acrossorganizational groups to shared outcomes.
At the organizational or system level, inclusive leaders define theboundaries and rules for acceptable behavior. They createconditions and opportunities that encourage members to exploreand build on their differences. (See Box 10.1 for a description ofone set of behaviors that prevent members from capitalizing ondiversity.) They act as role models, demonstrating (andcommunicating) that they understand and value diversity. To actas an inclusive leadership at the organizational level,establish a clear business case (the financial andperformance benefits) for valuing differences andcommunicate this message across the organization.develop a vision of an inclusive culture that recognizes theadded value of differences.be explicit about norms and behaviors that build an inclusiveclimate for all members.address exclusionary organizational structures, practices, andbehaviors.review policies and procedures to eliminate biases.provide educational opportunities to build knowledge ofdiverse identities.create an accountability system to hold leaders andemployees responsible for practicing inclusion.supply incentives for best practices.Box 10.1 MicroaggressionsMicroaggressions describe the everyday slights or snubs that putdown members of marginalized groups: people of color, women,religious minorities, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered individuals,the poor, those with disabilities, and so forth. These verbal andnonverbal behaviors and environmental cues invalidate the groupidentity of recipients, suggest that they don’t belong, and relegatethem to an inferior position. In organizations, they can come fromabove (supervisors), below (subordinates), and the side (coworkers).According to Columbia University professor Derald Wing Sue,microaggressions take three forms:1. Microassaults have the most in common with traditional formsof discrimination. Often conscious, they threaten and intimidatethe members of marginalized groups. Examples ofmicroassaults include displaying a Confederate flag in an office
cubicle, painting a Nazi swastika in a bathroom, using racial orsexual slurs, and telling ethnic jokes.2. Microinsults communicate insensitivity, rudeness, and insults.Generally unintentional, they cover up bias and prejudice in theperpetrator while allowing him or her to escape guilt. Examplesof microinsults include praising someone for being a “credit totheir race,” expressing surprise that a woman can do a man’sjob, and posting pictures of white male CEOs (which sends themessage that women and minorities don’t belong and have nochance at advancement).3. Microinvalidations deny the thoughts, feelings, and experiencesof socially devalued groups. Professor Sue considers thesebehaviors (which also operate at the unconscious level) to bethe most destructive because they deny the reality of targets.Examples of microinvalidations include whites claiming thatthey “don’t see color” or male employment interviewers tellingfemale applicants that they hire the most qualified candidates“regardless of gender.” Denying differences allows dominantgroups to retain their power and status.Microaggressions, while they often appear trivial, have a significantimpact on receivers. To begin, targets struggle with the ambiguity ofsuch messages. They have to determine if a microaggression hasoccurred and how to react in a limited time. They may believe thatconfronting the aggressor won’t do any good or may bring retaliation.Microaggressive stressors generate health-related problems like highblood pressure, heart disease, and lower resistance to disease.These stressors also appear to be linked to depression and anxietyand disrupt cognitive functioning. Victims in the workplace may dreadgoing to work, withdraw, lose confidence in their ability to evaluateothers, and believe they have nothing to offer to their organizations.Members of marginalized groups may respond to microaggressionsby mistrusting majority groups, playing along with the dominantgroup, acting in rage and anger, and feeling hopeless and helpless.Yet, targets aren’t passive. Many take a proactive approach tomicroaggressions through what Sue calls “strength throughadversity.” These individuals are better able to discern reality thanmajority group members and are more skilled at reading nonverbalcues. Multicultural, they are able to maintain their own identity whileworking effectively in the majority setting. Much of their strengthcomes from relying on other group members to validate their senseof identity and to help them cope with oppressive environments.Leaders reduce the frequency of microaggressions by raisingawareness of these behaviors in themselves and others, noting whenthey occur. Helping employees drop their “color-blind” attitudes is
particularly important to addressing race-based microaggressions.Those who believe that race doesn’t matter don’t recognize thesesubtle forms of discrimination. Leaders should encourage membersto be color aware instead, acknowledging and discussing racialdynamics. Embracing racial, as well as cultural, sexual, and otherdifferences, helps create an inclusive environment that reduces thefrequency of microaggressions.Sources:Root, M. P. P. (2003). Racial and ethnic origins of harassment in theworkplace. In D. P. Pope Davis, H. L. K. Coleman, W. M. Liu, & R. L.Toporek (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural competencies incounseling and psychology (478–492). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation,dynamic, and impact. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender,and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Torino, G. C., Rivera, D. P., Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., & Sue,D.W. (Eds.). (2019). Microaggression theory: Influence andimplications (pp. 159–177). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
TrustEthical organizations, like ethical groups and teams, are markedby a high degree of trust. Not only do members trust one another,but also, together, they develop a shared or aggregate level oftrust that becomes part of the group’s culture. Organizational trustdescribes the collective set of positive expectations members holdabout the intentions and behaviors of other stakeholders(coworkers, superiors, followers, other departments), which arebased on their experiences and interactions as organizationalmembers.9 These expectations shape how vulnerable individualsand groups are when interacting with one another and with theorganization as a whole. For example, a follower who trusts hersupervisor is more likely to take the risk of admitting that a projectisn’t going well. Two team leaders who trust each other are morelikely to cooperate to carry out a new change initiative. On theother hand, employees who don’t believe that the organizationcarries through on its commitments aren’t likely to put forth theirbest efforts.Over the past several decades, trust has moved from theperiphery to the center of organizational studies, primarilybecause it has been linked to so many positive outcomes.10 Trustbinds group members together, fostering collaboration andcommunication; lowering costs; reducing turnover; encouragingorganizational learning, innovation, and work effort; andgenerating employee satisfaction and commitment. High-trustorganizations make higher-quality decisions, operate moreefficiently, and are more productive and profitable. They alsobehave in a more ethical manner. That’s because trust involvesvulnerability and obligation or duty. Those who trust believe thatthe other party—individual, group, or organization—will carrythrough on promises and commitments. They put themselves in avulnerable position because they are depending on others and willsuffer if these parties break their commitments. High-trustorganizations fulfill their moral obligation or duty by protecting therights and interests of members and outsiders.
Collective trust is made up of several factors or dimensions.According to one classification system, members judge anorganization to be trustworthy if the group (1) makes good-faithefforts to keep its commitments, (2) is honest when negotiatingsuch commitments, and (3) does not take unfair advantage ofmembers even when provided with the opportunity to do so.11Other researchers identify five dimensions of organizational trust:competence, openness, concern, reliability, and identification.12Competence is the collective perception that leadership—bothsupervisory and top management—is effective and that theorganization can survive. Organizational survival depends on suchfactors as the ability to create new products rapidly, meetcompetitive pressures, and find new markets. Openness orhonesty is the belief that management shares information and issincere. Concern reflects caring and empathy. Concerned leaders(and followers) don’t take advantage of the vulnerability of others.Reliability describes perceptions of consistent and dependablebehavior. Those organizations that match their words and actionsgenerate trust; those that fail to walk the talk undermine trust.Identification is the feeling of affiliation and association with theorganization.Leaders are key to the development of organizational trust. Moralleaders lay the foundation for collective trust by acting in atrustworthy manner. They demonstrate the character traitsdescribed in Chapter 3 (e.g., compassion, humility, courage). Theyalso communicate a clear sense of mission and vision, foster anatmosphere that encourages openness and sharing, areconsistent in their behavior, demonstrate caring, follow through onpromises and commitments, and so forth.
JusticeTreating people fairly or justly is another hallmark of an ethicalorganizational climate. Justice in the workplace takes three forms:distributive, procedural, and interactional. Ethical organizationsstrive to distribute outcomes like pay, office space, time off, andother organizational resources as fairly as possible. They use fairprocedures or policies to make these determinations. Further,moral leaders treat people with dignity and respect (see our earlierdiscussion of inclusion) and share information about howdecisions are made.13Perceptions of justice or injustice have been found to havepowerful effects on the attitudes and behaviors of organizationalmembers.14 Those who believe that their organizations are justare generally more satisfied, committed, trusting, and accepting ofauthority. They are also more likely to engage in such moralbehaviors as helping out other employees and reporting ethicalviolations to management. In contrast, perceptions of unfairtreatment increase such withdrawal behaviors as neglecting jobresponsibilities, absenteeism, and quitting. Those who believethey have experienced injustice are also more likely to engage indark-side behaviors like sexual harassment, incivility, and exactingrevenge on coworkers or the organization as a whole. In addition,they are less likely to report ethical problems to management.Strategies for promoting fairness or justice include the following:– Distribute pay and other benefits according to a well-structured system; explain how pay raises are granted.– Provide other benefits (training, time off) to employeeswhen they are asked to do more but the budget doesn’t allowfor raises.– Offer clear explanations for how resources like budgetsand space are distributed; tie decisions to organizationalvalues and purpose.– Base performance appraisal on job-related criteria; clarifystandards and expectations in advance and allow forfeedback.
– Involve followers in decision-making processes (grantthem a significant voice).– Allow employees to challenge or appeal job decisions.– Deal truthfully with organizational members.– Supply rationales for layoffs and firings; express sincerity,kindness, and remorse.– Follow through on reports of ethical violations; punishwrongdoers.– Offer public apologies for injustices and offercompensation to victims of injustice.
IntegrityIntegrity is ethical soundness, wholeness, and consistency.15 Allunits and organizational levels share a commitment to high moralstandards, backing up their ethical talk with their ethical walk.Consistency increases the level of trust, encouraging membersand units to be vulnerable to one another.According to business ethicist Lynn Paine, managers who act withintegrity see ethics as a driving force of an enterprise. Theseleaders recognize that ethical values largely define what anorganization is and what it hopes to accomplish. They keep thesevalues in mind when making routine decisions. Their goal? Tohelp constituents learn to govern their own behavior by followingthese same principles. Paine believes that any effort to improveorganizational integrity must include the following elements.16There are sensible, clearly communicatedvalues and commitments.These values and commitments spell out the organization’sobligations to external stakeholders (customers, suppliers,neighbors) while appealing to insiders. In highly ethicalorganizations, members take shared values seriously and don’thesitate to talk about them.Company leaders are committed to and act onthe values.Leaders consistently back the values, use them when makingchoices, and determine priorities when ethical obligations conflictwith one another. For example, former Southwest Airlinespresident Herb Kelleher put a high value both on the needs of hisemployees and on customer service. However, it’s clear that hisworkers came first. He didn’t hesitate to take their side whencustomers unfairly criticized them. Such principled leadership wasmissing at Uber under the leadership of founder Travis Kalanick.
The firm operated under a culture described as “toxic,”“aggressive,” and “unrestrained.” Male managers routinelyharassed female employees, workers reportedly snorted cocaineat a company retreat, top managers battled one another forpower, and the firm routinely operated in cities that had outlawedthe ride-sharing service. YouTube video captured CEO Kalanickberating an Uber driver. He was forced to resign and the newCEO appeared in a series of television ads touting the firm’scommitment to changing its culture and improving goingforward.17The values are part of the routine decision-making process and are factored into everyimportant organizational activity.Ethical considerations shape such activities as planning and goalsetting, spending, gathering and sharing information, evaluation,and promotion.Systems and structures support and reinforceorganizational commitments.Systems and structures, such as the organizational chart, howwork is processed, budgeting procedures, and productdevelopment, serve the organization’s values. (I’ll have more tosay about the relationship between ethics and structure below.)Leaders throughout the organization have theknowledge and skills they need to make ethicaldecisions.Organizational leaders make ethical choices every day. Todemonstrate integrity, they must have the necessary skills,knowledge, and experience. Ethics education and training mustbe part of their professional development.Paine and other observers warn us not to confuse integrity withcompliance. Ethical compliance strategies are generally
responses to outside pressures such as media scrutiny, the U.S.Sentencing Commission guidelines, or the Sarbanes–Oxley Act.Under these federal guidelines, corporate executives can be finedand jailed not only for their ethical misdeeds but also for failing totake reasonable steps to prevent the illegal behavior ofemployees. Although compliance tactics look good to outsiders,they frequently don’t have a lasting impact on ethical climate.18Large firms typically have formal ethics strategies in place,including ethics codes and policies, ethics officers, and systemsfor registering and dealing with ethical concerns and complaints.However, all too often, these programs have minimal influence oncompany operations. Policies may not be enforced; somecomplaint hotlines are rarely used; compliance efforts might beunderfunded; CEOs may fail to communicate to employees aboutethics.19
Structural ReinforcementAn organization’s structure and policies shouldn’t undermine theethical standards of its members. Instead, as I noted in ourdiscussion of integrity, structure should encourage higher ethicalperformance on the part of both leaders and followers. Fourelements of an organization’s structure have a particularly strongimpact on moral behavior:1. Monetary and nonmonetary reward systems. Organizationsoften encourage unethical behavior by rewarding it.20 Asoftware firm headquartered in Korea gave large incentives tosalespeople for making lofty sales targets. This encouragedemployees to misrepresent sales by reporting that customershad paid when they had not and by having fellow workerspose as clients. In one 9-month period, 70% of reported saleswere fictitious.21 A visit to the local 10-minute oil change shopprovides another case of the impact of misplaced rewards.Some lube and oil franchises pay managers and employeesbased in part on how many additional services and parts theysell beyond the basic oil change. As a consequence,unscrupulous mechanics persuade car owners to buyunneeded air filters, transmission flushes, and wiper blades. Itis not always easy to determine all the consequences of aparticular reward system. However, ethical leaders makeevery effort to ensure that desired moral behaviors arerewarded, not discouraged.2. Performance and evaluation processes. Performance andevaluation processes must monitor both how and whethergoals are achieved. In far too many organizations, leaders setdemanding performance goals but intentionally orunintentionally ignore how these objectives are to bereached. Instead, they pressure employees to produce salesand profits by whatever means possible. Followers then feelpowerless and alienated, becoming estranged from the restof the group. Sociologists use the term anomie to refer to thissense of normlessness and unease that results when ruleslose their force.22 Anomie increases the likelihood that group
members will engage in illegal activities and reduces theirresistance to demands from authority figures who want themto break the law. Loss of confidence in the organization mayalso encourage alienated employees to retaliate againstcoworkers and the group as a whole. Leaders can addressthe problem of anomie by making sure that goals areachieved through ethical means. False promises cannot beused to land accounts, all debts must be fully disclosed toinvestors, kickbacks are prohibited, and so on. They can alsomake a stronger link between means and ends through ethicsprograms that address all aspects of organizational ethicalperformance.Ethically insensitive monitoring processes fail to detectillegal and immoral behavior and may actually make suchpractices more likely. When poor behavior goesunpunished, followers may assume that leaders condoneand expect such actions. Former giant brokerage houseSalomon Brothers is a case in point. In the early 1990s, agovernment securities trader at the firm violated U.S.Treasury Department regulations and confessed to then-CEO John Gutfreund. Gutfreund took no action againstthe rogue trader, in part because he was a starperformer. Failure to swiftly punish this star employeeenabled him to continue his illegal behavior and costSalomon Brothers millions in fines and much of its stockand bond business.233. Decision-making rights and responsibilities. Ethical conduct ismore likely when workers are responsible for ethicaldecisions and have the authority to choose how to respond.Leaders at ethical organizations do all they can to ensure thatthose closest to the process or problem can communicatetheir concerns about ethical issues. These managers alsoempower followers to make and implement their choices.Unfortunately, employees with the most knowledge are oftenexcluded from the decision-making process or lack the powerto follow through on their choices. Such was the case in theColumbia space shuttle disaster. Lower-level managers wereconcerned that a piece of foam had damaged the shuttle’sprotective shield during liftoff. However, higher-rankingNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
officials dismissed their worries. During reentry, superheatedgas entered a 6- to 10-inch hole, triggering an explosion thatkilled seven astronauts.244. Corporate governance. Boards of directors occupy the top ofthe organizational structure. They select and oversee themanagers who run the company or nonprofit while protectingthe interests of the stockholders or supporters. Their ethicalduties include (1) ensuring that the CEO and seniormanagement operate in an ethical fashion, (2) guaranteeingthat top leadership establishes a culture of integrity andcompliance, (3) producing accurate financial statements, (4)listening to shareholders, and (5) treating employees andoutsiders fairly.25 Weak boards fail to carry out theseresponsibilities. Effective boards, on the other hand, aremade up of independent members who have the expertise aswell as the time and energy to devote to their duties. They areactively engaged in the life of the organization by gatheringinformation from employees and lower-level managers,regularly visiting store locations, and so on. Directors oneffective boards prevent groupthink by welcoming dissentrather than punishing those who threaten the group’scohesion.26
Organizational CitizenshipConcern for those outside the organization is another sign of ahealthy ethical climate. Ethical organizations act as good citizens.They acknowledge their obligations to their communities and usetheir influence to improve society. Organizational citizenship ismade of four components. The first is stakeholder focus.Organizational citizens recognize that their responsibilities extendto all groups who have an interest or stake in their policies andoperations. Stakeholder theorists argue that organizationalleaders have an ethical obligation to consider such groupsbecause they have intrinsic value and ought to be treated justly.Reaching out to these parties contributes to the common good ofsociety.27 Organizational stakeholders might include shareholders,suppliers, competitors, customers, creditors, unions, socialactivists, governments, local communities, and the generalpublic.28 Good corporate and organizational citizens seek to beaccountable to these groups, cooperating with them wheneverpossible and minimizing the negative impact of organizationalactivities. When needed, these organizations engage in dialoguewith their critics.Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the second component oforganizational citizenship. CSR describes the activities ofcompanies and other organizations aimed at improving thewelfare of society.29 CSR can take many different forms. Goodcorporate citizens send volunteers to work on Habitat forHumanity building projects, sponsor food drives, provide freedental clinics in developing countries, set up philanthropicorganizations to give money to worthy causes, and so forth. Thepublic increasingly demands that corporations behaveresponsibly. Eighty-one percent of consumers surveyed in theworld’s top 10 economies wanted firms to focus on more thanprofits, addressing social and environmental issues as well. Overhalf said that they would purchase a lesser quality product if wasmore socially or environmentally responsible.30 Companies thatengage in social responsibility efforts frequently benefit, buildingtheir reputations while attracting loyal customers. Their employees
are more committed to the business, perform better, and are morelikely to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors. CSR alsomakes firms more attractive as potential employers.31 CSR wouldbe ethically justified even if it didn’t pay practical dividends,however. CSR behaviors are altruistic, recognize the dignity ofothers and promote justice.Sustainability or environmental care makes up the third element oforganizational citizenship. Sustainable organizations try to protectthe environment, doing business in a way that protects futuregenerations.32 They address environmental problems by takingsuch steps as capping plant emissions, using recycledcomponents, creating less toxic products, reducing oilconsumption, and buying from environmentally friendly suppliers.Sustainability is woven into the corporate DNA of New BelgiumBrewing, the maker of Fat Tire Amber Ale. The firm became thefirst wind powered brewery in the United States and uses the heatfrom fermentation to warm water for brewing and cleaning tanks.Started by avid cyclists (a bike is on the company logo), NewBelgium gives a bicycle to every employee on the first anniversaryof employment, and provides lots of bike parking and on-siteshowers for those who peddle to work.33 Sustainableorganizations are constantly seeking to improve, as in the case ofmanufacturers that plan for all the environmental impacts over thelife cycle of a product. Patagonia, for example, encouragescustomers to only buy what they need and to return their items tobe recycled. The clothing manufacturer claims to recycle 100% ofits polyester goods.Responsible corporate citizens engage in “triple bottom line”accounting. They evaluate their success based not just onfinancial results but also on their social and environmentalperformance.34 The vast majority of the world’s largestcorporations report such information. Coca Cola, for example,describes its progress toward a variety of social andenvironmental objectives, including sustainable agriculturalsourcing, climate protection, recycling, contributions, water useand reuse, and empowering women.
Corporate (CEO) activism is the fourth and newest component oforganizational citizenship. In corporate activism, firms take moralstances on social-political issues like gun control, gay marriage,race relations, climate change, immigration bans, and transgenderrights. Past CEOs were reluctant to take positions on social issuesfor fear of alienating their customers. They generally only tookpositions directly related to their business interests, such as whena cereal company opposes restrictions on the use of geneticallymodified (GMO) grains. Now corporate leaders are speaking out.They are motivated by their commitment to social responsibility,pressure from the public and employees, access to social media,and their conviction that they have a moral duty to voice theirconcerns.35 According to Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan,“Our jobs as CEOs now include driving what we think is right.”36Business leaders signed letters protesting President Trump’s banon Muslim immigrants and his decision to withdraw from the Parisclimate agreement. The President’s Economic Council disbandedafter members, led by Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier, resigned inprotest of Trump’s sympathetic comments about whitesupremacists. PayPal, the National Basketball Association,Deutsche Bank, and other organizations vowed to curtailinvestments in North Carolina after the state passed a lawrequiring transgender individuals to use the bathrooms that matchthe sex listed on their birth certificates. Major airlines refused totransport immigrant children separated from their parents underthe Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy.CEO activists can have an impact. Hobby Lobby successfullyfought to prevent the government from requiring birth controlcoverage under the Affordable Care Act. The “bathroom bills” inNorth Carolina and Indiana were repealed or modified in responseto corporate pressure, and business opposition kept Georgia fromadopting a similar law. By speaking out, leaders reinforcecorporate values, particularly their firms’ commitment to diversity.They are more likely to retain employees, particularly millennials,who want their leaders to speak out. But taking social positions isrisky. Companies can become classified as red (Republican) orblue (Democrat). A Weber Shadwick study found that those whosupport the CEO’s position are more likely to buy the firm’sproducts while those who disagree intend to buy less. Many
surveyed remain skeptical about the motivation of corporateleaders, believing that they are acting in order to get mediaattention or to sell more products and services.37Every social stance seems to generate a counter stance. WhenTarget announced it would allow transgender individuals to usebathrooms and dressing rooms of their gender identity, over 1.2million people signed an online petition protesting the decision. Inresponse, the company spent $20 million building single-occupancy bathrooms in its stores. When liberals boycottedChick-fil-A after its CEO condemned homosexuality, conservativecommentator Mike Huckabee organized a “Support Chick-Fil-ADay,” which resulted in 125,000 diners flocking to the chain’soutlets. Nevertheless, despite the risks, more CEOs are likely totake public social stances. Early indications are that corporateactivism is following in the path of CSR, which at one time wasvoluntary but now is expected of all firms.
Climate-Building ToolsTo build or create ethical organizational climates, leaders relyheavily on five tools: core ideology, codes of ethics, enforcement,socialization, and ethics training.
Discovering and Communicating Core IdeologyManagement experts James Collins and Jerry Porras use theterm core ideology to refer to the central identity or character of anorganization. The character of outstanding companies remainsconstant, even as these firms continually learn and adapt.According to Collins and Porras, “Truly great companiesunderstand the difference between what should never change andwhat should be open for change, between what is genuinelysacred and what is not.”38 (Case Study 10.1 describes howuniversities are struggling to maintain what they view as sacred.)Core values are the first component of core ideology. (See Box10.2 for some examples.) One way to determine whether a valueis central to your organization is to ask, “What would happen if wewere penalized for holding this standard?” If you can’t honestlysay that you would keep this value if it cost your group marketshare or profits, then it shouldn’t show up on your final list. Todetermine core values, Collins and Porras recommend the MarsGroup technique. In this approach, participants imagine they havebeen asked to re-create the very best attributes of theirorganization (school, business, nonprofit) on another planet.Groups are limited to five to seven people, since space on therocket ship is scarce. Group members work from personal toorganizational values by considering these questions:What core values (values that you would hold regardless ofwhether they were rewarded) do you personally bring to yourwork?What values would you tell your children that you hold at workand that you hope they will hold as working adults?If you woke up tomorrow morning with enough money toretire, would you continue to live with those core values? Canyou envision them being as valid for you 100 years from nowas they are today?Would you want to hold these core values even if one ormore of them became a competitive disadvantage?If you were to start a new organization in a different line ofwork, what core values would you build into the new
organization, regardless of industry?Groups summarize their conclusions and present them to othersin the organization, comparing their values with those of othergroups traveling on other spaceships. Identifying common themescan be useful at this stage. Look for groups of related descriptors(i.e., integrity, honesty, transparency) and choose the word thatbest represents that values cluster. Then determine which values(generally three to five) are sacred to your organization.Appreciative inquiry (AI) is another effective tool for developing ashared understanding of ethical values. Participants in the AIprocess set out to discover the organization’s positive core anduse the group’s strengths to guide individual and collectiveaction.39 AI begins by choosing an affirmative topic, based on theassumption that what organizational members study willdetermine the kind of organizations they create. Asking positivequestions (“What are our values?” “What do ethics mean to us?”)elicits positive examples and achievements. Once the affirmativetopic is selected, AI moves through four stages: discovery, dream,design, and destiny.The discovery phase identifies the best of what has been andwhat is. Interviews and brainstorming sessions highlightorganizational achievements and important traditions. Thesecould include stories of organizational heroes and how theorganization lived up to its commitments during tough times ordescriptions of the group’s tradition of social responsibility. In thedream phase, participants look to the future to ask, “What mightbe?” They develop a vision of the organization’s ethical future,focusing on the group’s ultimate purpose (“What is the worldcalling us to become?”). The design stage incorporates both thediscovery and dream phases by describing exactly how theorganization will look and act if it lives up to its values. This idealorganization integrates the positive core elements of the groupinto the dream created by participants. For example: a placewhere everyone can voice his or her concerns about unethicalbehavior without fear of punishment or a place where commitmentto the community takes precedence over short-term profits. In thelast stage—destiny—participants collectively commit themselves
to building the desired organization. They might design tactics forencouraging dissent, for instance, or develop new communityoutreach programs.Box 10.2 Core Values
Levi StraussEmpathy—Walking in other people’s shoesOriginality—Being authentic and innovativeIntegrity—Doing the right thingCourage—Standing up for what we believe
AmgenBe science basedCompete intensely and winCreate value for patients, staff, and stockholdersBe ethicalTrust and respect each otherEnsure qualityWork in teamsCollaborate, communicate, and be accountable
First Horizon National CorporationAccountability—ask questions, raise issues, and see things tocompletionAdaptability—champion changeIntegrity—exercise judgment and understanding to do the rightthingRelationships—work inclusively with colleagues
Arby’sDream BigWork HardGet It DonePlay FairHave FunMake a Difference
Boys & Girls Clubs of AmericaIntegrity—authentic, honest, transparentCollaboration—work effectively within and across teamsAccountability—do what we say, stewards of resourcesRespect—honor diversity and inclusionExcellence—in service delivery
KrogerHonesty: Doing the right things, telling the truthIntegrity: Living our values in all we doRespect for Others: Valuing opinions, property andperspectives of othersDiversity: Including a variety of people from differentbackgrounds and opinionsSafety: Watching out for others, being secure and safe in yourworkplaceInclusion: Your voice matters, encouraging everyone’sinvolvementSources: Adapted from organizational websites.Core purpose is the second part of an organization’s ideology.Purpose is the group’s reason for being that reflects the ideals ofits members. Here are some examples of corporate purpose ormission statements from some of the largest corporations in fourEnglish-speaking nations:40United StatesAdvancing the health of the health care system by advancingthe health of our partners. (McKesson)To give people the power to build community and bring theworld closer together. (Facebook)Use our pioneering spirit to responsibly deliver energy to theworld. (ConocoPhillips)AustraliaTo provide exceptional quality in every product we sell andevery experience we deliver, to our customers and ourpeople. (National Australia Bank)To deliver to customers the right shopping experience eachand every time. (Woolworths)To create the best places; places that inspire and enrich thelives of people around the world. (Lendlease)Canada
To be the institution of choice in the financial sector, providingsuperior products and services, and being a good corporatecitizen to the benefit of our customers, shareholders and staff.(Scotiabank)To be the world’s best gold mining company by finding,acquiring, developing, and producing quality reserves in asafe, profitable, and socially responsible manner. (BarrickGold Corporation)To be the world’s leading manufacturer of planes and trains.(Bombardier)BritainServing Britain’s shoppers a little better every day. (Tesco)To be the most trusted retailer, where people love to work andshop. (J Sainsbury)To give our customers an essential edge, helping themprotect what matters most, and deliver shareholder value.(BAE Systems)Your organization’s purpose statement should inspire members.(Don’t make high profits or stock dividends your goal becausethese don’t motivate people at every level of the organization.)Your purpose should also serve as an organizational anchor.Every other element of your organization—business plans,expansion efforts, buildings, products—will come and go, but yourpurpose and values will remain. Asking the “Five Whys” is oneway to identify organizational purpose. Start with a description ofwhat your organization does and then ask why that activity isimportant five separate times. Each “Why?” will get you closer tothe fundamental mission of your group.Once your organization has identified its core values and purpose,use both formal and informal communication channels to transmitthem to members and outside groups. Formal channels areofficially recognized and recorded by the organization and include,for example, websites, recruitment materials, annual reports, andstockholder meetings. Your group’s purpose and values shouldregularly appear in all of these forums. Informal channels aregenerally not part of the organization’s official records. Two
informal channels—rituals and stories—play a particularlyimportant role in shaping ethical climate. Rituals are repeatedpatterns of behavior that occur at regular intervals.41 FedExdemonstrates how one type of ritual—the award ceremony—canbe a powerful tool for transmitting core beliefs. The PurplePromise Award honors employees’ commitment and unselfishservice. One winner, whose truck broke down, convinced the towtruck driver to take her (with her vehicle in tow) to the last deliveryof the day. Another winner strapped packages to his back anddelivered them in 90-degree heat by bicycle when his van died.The company also honors humanitarian heroes, like the employeewho saved a toddler wandering down a highway and the courierwho revived a nearly drowned child.42In Chapter 4, we noted that narratives play a critical role inshaping our character. Stories also play a significant role incommunicating shared values. For example, since its beginningNorthwest Mutual Insurance has relied on vignettes to capture itsvalues, which include integrity and building long-term relationshipswith clients. Members continue to tell the story of the company’sfounder who, when two policy holders were killed, borrowed$1,500 to pay the difference between what the company had incash and what he owed the beneficiaries. A recent CEO refusedto cancel an interview on the day that the stock market plunged,saying to staff, “No, we’re not going to behave any differentlywhether this reporter is here or not.” Following the 911 attacks,company executives were determined to do “the right thing.” Theydecided to accept nontraditional evidence of death, sent SWATteams of claims adjusters to New York and Washington, andstreamlined the company’s claim website. The insurer paid out$125 million in benefits in an average of just 5 days.Codes of EthicsCodes of ethics are among the most common ethics tools.Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange and theNASDAQ are required to have them, and under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, public firms must disclose whether they have suchcodes for their senior executives.43 Many government
departments, professional associations, social service agencies,and schools have developed codes as well. Nevertheless, formalethics statements are as controversial as they are popular.Skeptics make these criticisms:44Codes are too vague to be useful.Codes may not be widely distributed or read.Most codes are developed as public relations documentsdesigned solely to improve an organization’s image.Codes don’t improve the ethical climate of organizations orproduce more ethical behavior.Codes often become the final word on the subject of ethics.Codes are hard to apply across cultures and in differentsituations.Codes often lack adequate enforcement provisions.Codes often fail to spell out which ethical obligations shouldtake priority, or they put the needs of the organization aheadof those of society as a whole.Adherence to codes often goes unrewarded.The experience of Enron highlights the shortcomings of formalethical statements. Company officials had a “beautifully written”code of ethics that specifically prohibited the off-the-booksfinancial deals that led to its bankruptcy.45 Unfortunately, thesesame executives convinced the board of directors to waive thisprohibition.Defenders of ethical codes point to their potential benefits. First, acode describes an organization’s ethical stance both to membersand to the outside world. Newcomers, in particular, look to thecode for guidance about an organization’s ethical standards andvalues. They learn about potential ethical problems they may facein carrying out their duties. Second, a formal ethics statement canimprove the group’s image while protecting it from lawsuits andfurther regulation. In the case of wrongdoing, an organization canpoint to the code as evidence that the unethical behavior is limitedto a few individuals and not the policy of the company as a whole.Third, referring to a code can encourage followers and leaders toresist unethical group and organizational pressures. Fourth, awritten document can have a direct, positive influence on ethical
behavior. Students who sign honor codes, for example, aresignificantly less likely to plagiarize and cheat on tests.46Employees in companies with formal codes of ethics judgethemselves, their coworkers, and their leaders to be more ethicalthan do workers in companies that don’t have codes. Members ofcode organizations believe that their organizations are moresupportive of ethical behavior and express a higher level oforganizational commitment.47There’s no doubt that a code of ethics can be a vague documentthat has little impact on how members act. A number oforganizations use these statements for purposes of image, notintegrity. They want to appear concerned about ethical issueswhile protecting themselves from litigation. Just having a code onfile doesn’t mean that it will be read or used, as in the case ofEnron. Nonetheless, creating an ethical statement can be animportant first step on the road to organizational integrity.Although a code doesn’t guarantee moral improvement, it is hardto imagine an ethical organization without one. Codes can focusattention on important ethical standards, outline expectations, andhelp people act more appropriately. They have the most impactwhen senior executives make them a priority and follow theirprovisions while rewarding followers who do the same.Communication ethicists Richard Johannesen, Kathleen Valde,and Karen Whedbee believe that many of the objections to formalcodes could be overcome if organizations followed theseguidelines:48Distinguish between ideals and minimum conditions. Identifywhich parts of the statement are goals to strive for and whichare minimal or basic ethical standards.Design the code for ordinary circumstances. Membersshouldn’t have to demonstrate extraordinary courage or makeunusual sacrifices in order to follow the code. Ensure thataverage employees can follow its guidelines.Use clear, specific language. Important abstract terms suchas reasonable, distort, and falsify should be explained andillustrated.
Be logically coherent. Prioritize obligations. Whichcommitments are most important: The client? The public?The employer? The profession?Protect the larger community. Don’t protect the interests ofthe organization at the expense of the public. Speak to theneeds of outside groups.Focus on issues of particular importance to group members.Every organization and profession will face particular ethicaldilemmas and temptations. For instance, lawyers mustbalance duties to clients with their responsibilities as officersof the court. Doctors try to provide the best care while thehealth insurers pressure them to keep costs down. The codeshould address the group’s unique moral issues.Stimulate further discussion and modification. Don’t file thecode away or treat it as the final word on the subject ofcollective ethics. Use it to spark ethical discussion and modifyits provisions when needed.Provide guidance for the entire organization and theprofession to which it belongs. Spell out the consequenceswhen the business or nonprofit as a whole acts unethically.Who should respond, and how? What role should outsidegroups (professional associations, accrediting bodies,regulatory agencies) play in responding to the organization’sethical transgressions?Outline the moral principles behind the code. Explain why anaction is right based on ethical standards (deontology,utilitarianism, altruism) like those described in Chapter 5.Encourage widespread input. Draw on all constituencies,including management, union members, and professionals,when developing the provisions of the code.Back the code with enforcement. Create procedures forinterpreting the code and applying sanctions. Ethics officesand officers should set up systems for reporting problems,investigating charges, and reaching conclusions. Possiblepunishments for ethical transgressions include informalwarnings, formal reprimands that are entered intoemployment files, suspensions without pay, and terminations.Most codes of ethics address the following:49
Conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest arise when anemployee benefits at the expense of the organization or can’texercise independent judgment because of an investment,activity, or association. Even the appearance of a conflict ofinterest is problematic.Records, funds, and assets. Organizations must keepaccurate records and protect funds and other assets. Suchrecords (including financial statements) have to meet stateand federal regulations.Information. In for-profit organizations, employees can beliable if they or even their families reveal confidentialinformation that undermines performance or competitiveadvantage. In the public sector, codes of ethics encourageemployees to share information rather than to withhold it fromthe public.Outside relationships. This category addresses contact withcustomers, suppliers, competitors, contractors, and otheroutside individuals and organizations and includesprohibitions against bad-mouthing the competition, price-fixing, and the sharing of sensitive information.Employment practices. This category covers discrimination,sexual harassment, drug use, voluntary activities, and relatedhuman resource issues.Other practices. This category sets policies related to avariety of other topics, including health and safety, the use oftechnology, the environment, political activities, and the useof organizational assets for personal benefit.If you’re interested in developing or refining a code of ethics, youcan use the examples in Box 10.3 as a model.Box 10.3 Ethics Codes: A Sampler
Conflicts of Interest (Cummins Inc.)Employees cannot have improper relationships with suppliers orother third parties and must be vigilant in ensuring that personal orfamily relationships do not pose even an appearance of a conflict ofinterest. Employees also cannot accept favors, gifts or othergratuities from suppliers or consumers in exchange for securingbusiness or other favorable treatment.
Records, Funds, and Assets (PepsiCo)Business records, including our financial statements, contracts andagreements, must always be accurate and reflect a forthrightpresentation of the facts.Our investors and the general public rely on our company, and thelaw obligates us, to report accurately on our business, our earningsand our financial condition.
Protecting Information (Citigroup)You are expected not to disclose personal, proprietary, or confidentialinformation about any client, supplier, vendor, distributor,shareholder, business partner, former colleague, Citi’s workforce, orCiti to any unauthorized person, including another Citi employee.
Outside Relationships (Rockwell Collins)Human rights.We believe that all human beings should be treated with dignity,fairness and respect.Our company will only engage suppliers and agents whodemonstrate a serious commitment to the health and safety of theirworkers, and operate in compliance with human rights laws andregulations.
Employment PracticesTreatment of Other Workers (Cummins Inc.)We strictly forbid discrimination, harassment and retaliation andstrive to provide equal opportunity and fair treatment for all. Cumminsprohibits discrimination or harassment based on an individual’s race,color, religion, gender, gender identity and/or expression, nationalorigin, disability, union affiliation, sexual orientation, age, veteranstatus, citizenship or other status protected by applicable law.
Other PracticesPersonal Political Activity (Boeing)All political activities, including holding public office, must be onemployee’s personal time, vacation time or leave of absence.Employees may not use Boeing resources such as equipment, e-mail, phones, computers and copiers in support of their politicalactivities. When engaging in political activities, employees should notwear clothing, badges or accessories featuring Boeing trademarks orother indicia of Boeing employment.Dog Policy (Google)Google’s affection for our canine friends is an integral facet of ourcorporate culture. We like cats, but we’re a dog company, so as ageneral rule we feel cats visiting our offices would be fairly stressedout.Sources: Retrieved from the Cummins, PepsiCo, Citigroup, RockwellCollins, Boeing, and Google corporate websites.
Preventing and Eliminating DestructiveBehaviorsAs we saw earlier, inclusive leaders set clear boundaries andrules for acceptable behaviors. When it comes to fosteringdiversity and inclusion, sexual harassment and discrimination areparticularly damaging. Sexual harassment is a form of aggressionbased on biological sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.50Quid pro quo harassment occurs when targets are coerced intoproviding sexual favors in return for keeping their jobs or gettingpromoted. Hostile work environment harassment exists when jobconditions interfere with job performance. Components of hostileworking conditions include demeaning comments, suggestivegestures, threats, propositions, bribes, and sexual assault. Thework performance of victims declines, and they may quit theirjobs. Targets also suffer physically (headaches, sleep loss,nausea, eating disorders) and psychologically (depression, fear, asense of helplessness). (Case Study 10.2 describes a firm thatwas slow to respond to sexual harassment by top companyleaders.) Over 80% of women report being victims of sexualharassment at work or in public.Discrimination (negative bias) is putting members of selectedgroups, such as women, minorities, disabled employees, olderworkers, and homeless people, at a disadvantage. Such negativetreatment is generally based on stereotypes and prejudice (e.g.,older workers can’t learn new skills, Hispanics are lazy). Becauseof the passage of antidiscrimination laws and changes in societalvalues, employment discrimination is generally expressed subtlythrough such behaviors as dismissing the achievements of peopleof color and women, avoiding members of low-status groups, andhiring and promoting those of similar backgrounds. (See ourearlier discussion of microaggressions.)51 The impact ofdiscrimination can be seen in the fact that the unemployment ratefor African Americans is almost double that of Caucasians.Middle-income white households own eight times more wealththan middle-income black households and ten times as much asmiddle-income Latino families.
In addition to sexual harassment and discrimination, researchershave also identified other destructive or antisocial actions thatcause harm.52 Those who engage in such unethical behaviors aredriven to meet their own needs at the expense of coworkers andthe group as a whole. Workplace incivility and aggression arecommon dark side behaviors. Incivility consists of rude ordiscourteous actions that disregard others and violate norms forrespect.53 They include leaving a mess for the maintenance staffto pick up, sending a “flaming” e-mail, claiming credit for someoneelse’s work, making fun of a peer, and inadvertently ignoring ateam member on the way into the office. Incivility reducesemployee job satisfaction, task performance, motivation, loyalty,performance, creativity, and willingness to cooperate. Twentypercent of the sample in one study reported being the targets ofuncivil messages in a given week.Aggression refers to deliberately trying to hurt others or theorganization itself.54 Aggressive behaviors can take a variety offorms, ranging from refusing to answer e-mails to swearing atcoworkers to murder. Such behaviors can be categorized alongthree dimensions. They can be physical–verbal (destructive wordsor deeds), active–passive (doing harm by acting or failing to act),or direct–indirect (doing harm directly to the other person orindirectly through an intermediary and attacking something thatthe target values). Aggression does extensive damage toindividuals and organizations. Victims may be hurt; experiencemore stress, which leads to poor health; become fearful,depressed, or angry; lose the ability to concentrate; and feel lesscommitted to their jobs. Observers of aggressive incidents alsoexperience more anxiety and have a lower sense of well-beingand commitment. Performance at the organizational level dropsas a product of the aggressive actions of employees. Workplaceaggression reduces productivity while increasing absenteeism andturnover. Organizations become the targets of lawsuits andnegative publicity. In the United States, there were 16,890incidents of violence resulting in time away from work in 2016 and500 workplace homicides.55Moral leaders significantly reduce the rate of sexual harassment,discrimination, incivility, aggression, and other destructive
behaviors when they do the following:1. Create zero-tolerance policies that prohibit antisocial actions.They insist on employee-to-employee civility, forbidaggression and sexual harassment, and prohibitdiscrimination. These policies also outlaw other unethicalpractices like lying to customers or paying kickbacks.2. Obey guidelines. As noted earlier, leaders are powerful rolemodels. Zero-tolerance policies will have little effect if leadersdo not follow the rules they set. Ironically, leaders are mostlikely to violate standards because they believe that they areexceptions to the rules (see the discussion of unhealthymotivations in Chapter 2). Furthermore, because they are inpositions of power, leaders are freer to act uncivilly, to bullyothers, or to offer favors in return for sex.3. Constantly monitor for possible violations. Destructivebehavior may be hidden from the view of top leaders. Somemanagers are good at “kissing up and kicking down,” forexample. They act respectfully toward superiors whilebullying employees and treating them with disrespect. Ethicalleaders actively seek feedback from employees further downthe organizational hierarchy. They conduct 360-degreereviews that allow employees to rate their supervisors andprovide channels—human relations departments, open-doorpolicies—for reporting misbehaviors. Those who comeforward with complaints are protected from retribution. (The“Focus on Follower Ethics” box outlines the reasons whyemployees keep silent about misbehavior.)4. Move quickly when standards are violated. Ethical leadersrecognize that failing to act sends the wrong message,undermining ethical climate. If left unchecked, incivilityescalates into aggression. A culture of aggression formswhen abusive members are allowed to act as role models.Victims of sexual harassment won’t come forward if they thinkthat their leaders won’t respond. Patterns of discriminationperpetuate themselves unless leaders intervene. The U.S.military has been accused of moving slowly to address sexualassaults of both women and men. Officers often discouragevictims from reporting sex crimes. Commanding officers, not
legal personnel, determine if charges should be brought.Decisions are generally made in secret.565. Address the underlying factors that trigger destructiveactions. Ethical leaders try to screen out potential employeeswho have a history of destructive behavior. They also try toeliminate situational elements that produce antisocial action.Important contextual triggers include unpleasant workingconditions, job stress, oppressive supervision, perceivedinjustice, and extreme competitiveness.57Moral leaders also move quickly to address the destructiveactions of groups of employees. In collective corruption, two ormore individuals cooperate in unethical behavior.58 They abusetheir organizational positions and authority to benefit themselves,their work units, or their organizations. Examples of collectivecorruption include accounting fraud, price-fixing, kickbacks,inflating test results, bribery, covering up criminal behavior, graft,and nepotism. Observers note that corruption is a slippery slopewhere the corrupt behaviors of a few individuals can rapidlybecome part of the organization’s culture and ethical climate. First,an individual or group—often encouraged by a leader—decides toengage in an unethical behavior, like bribing a local official tosecure a construction contract. If the corrupt decision or act issuccessful (the bribe leads to a significant profits), then thisinformation is stored in organizational memory and the destructivebehavior (bribery) is more likely to be used again in the future.Corruption then becomes the normal routine.Those participating in corrupt activities use a variety ofrationalizations to defend their behavior. For instance, they denythat anyone was harmed, claim that they were forced to go along,and appeal to group loyalty to defend their choices. FIFA, thegoverning body of international soccer, is one prominentorganization that apparently normalized corruption. A number oftop FIFA officials have been arrested on charges of taking bribes.They are accused of accepting money from media outlets, sportsequipment companies, and governments in return for grantingbroadcast and equipment rights and selecting World Cup hostcountries. (Turn to the “Leadership Ethics at the Movies” case on
the student study site for another example of a corrupt sportsorganization.)Leaders need to set forth clear ethical expectations and punishoffenders before their isolated misbehaviors become part of theorganization’s memory and operations. If corruption does becomepart of the group’s normal way of doing business, more drasticsteps are called for, such as those taken by Siemens Global. Formany years, employees at the German engineering firmchanneled payments to government officials, primarily indeveloping countries, to secure contracts. For example, Siemenspaid as much as $60 million to produce Argentina’s nationalidentity cards and $20 million to build power plants in Israel. Whenthe illegal payment scheme was unearthed in 2006, new CEOPeter Loescher rooted out the corruption by instituting a zero-tolerance policy, removing half the board, hiring a chief ethicsofficer, starting an anticorruption training program, and increasingthe compliance staff from 86 to 500. The firm, which had to pay$1.6 billion in fines, earned praise from U.S. regulators who citedit as a model for other companies charged with corruption.59Focus on Follower Ethics Employee SilenceLeaders can’t punish destructive behaviors until they are brought totheir attention. All too often, employees who witness sexualharassment, bullying, theft, fraud, and other immoral and illegalbehaviors remain silent. By not expressing their concerns to leaderswho can correct the situation, they put their organizations at risk.Employees maintain their silence for a variety of reasons. Germanprofessors Michael Knoll and Rolf van Dick identify four kinds ofemployee silence. Acquiescent silence is the passive withholding ofinformation motivated by the belief that supervisors and topmanagement aren’t interested in what workers have to say.Employees have given up any hope of improvement and aredisengaged. Quiescent silence is actively withholding information toprotect the self. Workers fear punishment for bringing bad news.Though still engaged with their jobs and organizations, they sufferquietly. Prosocial silence is motivated by the desire to benefit othersand the organization. Employees driven by altruistic or cooperativemotives may decide to overlook negative behaviors by, for example,failing to report the medical mistakes of a fellow doctor or going
along with shady sales practices that boost the bottom line.Opportunistic silence is the withholding of information to gainpersonal advantage. Members keep quiet to damage theorganization, to keep their power and status, or to avoid additionalwork.Knoll and van Dick discovered that acquiescent and quiescentsilence have the most negative impact on employees. Thosewithholding information for passive or defensive reasons report thelowest job satisfaction, the lowest sense of well-being, and the moststrain (stress). These individuals are also most likely to leave theorganization. Yet, even those engaged in prosocial and opportunisticsilence report negative effects. They, too, are more dissatisfied, havelower well-being, experience more stress, and feel less attachment totheir organizations. Apparently, followers who keep silent for anyreason pay a price. Encouraging employees to speak up throughsuggestion boxes, employee–management meetings, andombudsmen programs can break the silence of disengaged or fearfulworkers. However, these strategies aren’t likely to break the silenceof members acting out of prosocial or selfish motivations.SourcesKnoll, M., & van Dick, R. (2013). Do I hear the whistle . . .? A firstattempt to measure four forms of employee silence and theircorrelates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 349–362.See alsoBrinsfield, D. T. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation ofdimensionality and development of measures. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 34, 671–697.Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizingemployee silence and employee voice as multidimensionalconstructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392.
Ethical Socialization ProcessesSocialization describes how individuals make the transition fromoutsiders to organizational members. During this process, theylearn how to perform their individual roles and, at the same time,absorb information about the organization’s culture. There are anumber of reasons why an organization’s socialization efforts canhelp create a positive ethical climate.60 Newcomers are generallyanxious about how to perform in a new environment. This makesthem more open to influence and instruction about ethicalbehavior. Their values are being formed and, once in place, theseprinciples will shape their behavior for the rest of theirorganizational careers. When newcomers become establishedorganizational members, they then communicate and modelimportant values and behaviors to the next generations ofmembers.Socialization occurs in three phases.61 Anticipatory socializationbegins before an individual joins a new organization ororganizational unit and is shaped by past work experiences,friends, families, and other factors. You probably had expectationsabout what college would be like well before you completed highschool, for example. You then formed impressions of yourparticular school based its website, talking with alums, and,probably most importantly, speaking with a representative andvisiting campus. Your college experiences, in turn, are shapingyour expectations of the profession you’ll enter after graduation.62Encounter socialization takes place after newcomers begin theirmembership. This phase includes formal training and orientationsessions (such as freshmen orientation) designed to integratenewcomers into the organization. Rookies also come under theinfluence of socializing agents. These include veteran coworkers,supervisors, and mentors. In the college setting, residentassistants, peer advisors, student life staff, upperclassmen, andothers act as socializing agents. Metamorphosis socializationmarks the end of the transition to organizational life. At this point,the individual has mastered basic skills and organizationalknowledge and is considered a group member. If you are a
sophomore or a second-year graduate student, chances are youhave entered this phase. (You can evaluate your ethicalsocialization process as a student or employee by completingItem #11 under “For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment.”)Ethical leaders make the most of the socialization process byclearly describing the organization’s values and ethical climate inrecruitment materials and during face-to-face interviews. They askapplicants about their ethical experiences and standards. Ethics isa top priority in orientation and training sessions (see thediscussion of training below). Managers present the group’s coreideology and code of ethics, introduce ethics officers andprocedures, and so on. Newcomers are placed with socializingagents who reinforce values and standards and are givenchannels for expressing their concerns about current practices.Ethical theorists Blake Ashforth and Vikas Anand argue that,unfortunately, organizational newcomers can be socialized intocorrupt activities as well as ethical ones.63 (See our discussion ofcontextual pressures in Chapter 2.) These individuals acceptunethical and illegal behavior as part of becoming a groupmember. They can be corrupted through three different avenues:co-optation, incrementalism, and compromise. In co-optation,leaders offer rewards that reduce newcomers’ discomfort withunethical behavior. Followers may not realize that these incentivesare skewing their judgment, making it easier to rationalizedestructive behavior. For example, health maintenanceorganization (HMO) doctors earning cost-reduction bonuses mayconvince themselves that they are justified in not ordering neededmedical tests for patients.Incrementalism gradually introduces newcomers to unethicalpractices, leading them up the “ladder of corruption.” Newmembers are first persuaded to engage in a practice that is onlymildly unethical, such as using private customer information tomake additional sales. They then turn to rationalizations offeredby peers (“Everybody does it.” “Nobody was really hurt.” “They gotwhat they deserved.”) to relieve the cognitive dissonanceproduced by this act. After the initial practice becomes typical,
acceptable behavior, individuals are then encouraged to move toincreasingly corrupt activities. Eventually, they find themselvesengaging in behaviors (e.g., secretly selling private customerinformation to other companies) they would have rejected whenthey first joined the organization.Compromise backs individuals into corruption as they try to solvedifficult problems and resolve conflicts. Politicians, for example,make lots of compromises as they try to keep and expand theirpower. Cutting deals and forming alliances makes it harder forthem to maintain their ethical principles. Police detectives also findthemselves making compromises. To gather the information theyneed 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 muchmore serious crimes. Boston Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)agent John Connolly fell victim to compromise when he enlistedchildhood friend Whitey Bulger as an informant to crack down onthe Italian mafia. Bulger, convicted of murdering 11 people, ran hisown crime syndicate. Connolly protected Bulger instead ofprosecuting him. He gave Bulger information that led to the deathof one potential witness and warned the gangster that he wasabout to be arrested, allowing Bulger to remain free for another 16years.The danger of dysfunctional socialization is greatest whenfollowers join social cocoons. A social cocoon is a strong culturethat holds values and norms very different from those held by therest of the organization or society as a whole. New employeeswho strongly identify with the group tend to compartmentalize theirlives, holding one set of values while at work and another outsidethe job.Ashforth and Anand believe that recognizing the routes tocorruption can equip followers to resist their influence, as canconsidering the perspective of suppliers, community members,and others outside the group. These investigators encourageorganizations to have periodic “introspection days,” whenorganizational members take a careful look at all of their activitiesand determine the ethical implications of their actions. External
facilitators can help employees determine if they are usingrationalizations to excuse corrupt behavior.
Ethics TrainingFormal ethics training can play an important role in creating andmaintaining ethical, inclusive climates. As noted above, ethicsinstruction can help promote ethical behavior in newcomers.Training sessions for experienced employees can heightensensitivity to moral danger signs and barriers to inclusion, reducedestructive behaviors, foster trust, promote organizationalintegrity, reinforce shared purpose and values, and clarify ethicalstandards and expectations. Ethics training plays a critical role inhelping large organizations meet compliance guidelines set by theU.S. Sentencing Commission. Of course, training efforts do notguarantee that participants will make better moral choices orbehave ethically. Nevertheless, effective ethics training can makea positive difference. Effective training does the following:641. Focuses on the organization’s unique ethical problems. Everyorganization faces a unique set of ethical problems andissues. Issues that accountants face (audits, tax advice,financial statements, earning projections, quarterly earningsstatements) are different from those faced by salesprofessionals (product safety, pricing, product placement,advertising claims), for instance. Every organization will haveits own blend of diverse groups and face unique challenges tofostering inclusion. Introduce examples drawn directly fromthe organization, industry, and profession. Then equiptrainees with the tools they need to address these topics.2. Taps into the experiences of participants. Encourage traineesto reflect on their own values and decision-making strategiesas well as on important moral moments or episodes in theirlives. They can also reflect on what inclusion means to themand what it takes to create an inclusive climate. Solicit theirinput when selecting issues and cases to discuss. Askparticipants to provide dilemmas and insights from their ownexperiences. They then become instructors, teaching oneanother. They also receive valuable feedback that enablesthem to better manage their dilemmas.3. Actively engages participants. Key concepts can bepresented in lectures and handouts but you should spend
most class time in dyadic, small-group, and large-groupdiscussion, acting as a facilitator. Introduce case studies thatraise significant issues and engage the emotions ofparticipants (See the discussion of dual processing inChapter 6.) Ask questions and debate issues. Make sure thetraining space can be adapted to a variety of teachingstrategies. Use online tools to augment—not replace—classroom interaction. (Case Study 10.3 describes how oneorganization engaged participants in its attempts to addressbias.) Even though web-based ethics/diversity training isbecoming increasingly popular because it is cheap andconvenient, online-only programs don’t appear to be aseffective as classroom training. That’s because onlineinstruction doesn’t facilitate in-depth consideration of complexethical cases and issues.4. Reinforces the organization’s ideology and standards.Training sessions ought to support other components of thegroup’s ethical climate. Trainers, supervisors, and executivesshould highlight the group’s commitment to inclusion, purposeand core values, tell stories about the organization’s ethicalheroes, discuss the code of ethics, provide information aboutreporting systems, and so on.5. Is integrated into the entire curriculum. Ethics instructionshouldn’t be limited only to stand-alone sessions but ought towoven throughout organization’s training program. Forexample, discussion of bribery and price-fixing can beintegrated into sales instruction. Raising awareness ofmicroaggressions and subtle bias can be included intoworkshops on hiring and performance evaluation.Incorporating ethics in a variety of workshops increases thelikelihood that moral concerns will become part of theorganization’s fabric, helping it to act with integrity.Implications and ApplicationsOrganizations have varying ethical orientations or ethicalclimates that affect their ethical decision making and behavior.Climates marked by self-interest are most likely to encourageunethical behavior.
Moral leaders foster diversity and inclusion. They promotediversity initiatives with the end goal of making all members,whatever their differences, feel valued and included. Todemonstrate inclusive leadership, you will need to address theindividual, relational, and system levels of your organization.Build organizational trust—collective perceptions ofcompetence, openness, concern, reliability, and identification—by acting in a trustworthy manner and encouraging others to dothe same.Create perceptions of organizational justice by distributingresources fairly, following equitable processes, and treatingothers with dignity and respect.Recognize that organizational integrity develops through clearlycommunicated values and commitments, leaders who arecommitted to these values, application of the values to routinedecisions, systems and structures that support organizationalcommitments, and members who are equipped to make wiseethical choices.Don’t confuse compliance with integrity. Compliance protectsan organization from regulation and public criticism but oftenhas little impact on day-to-day operations. Integrity is at thecenter of an organization’s activities, influencing every type ofdecision and activity.Reinforce ethical commitments in your organization through thedesign of monetary and nonmonetary reward systems,performance and evaluation processes, allocation of decision-making authority, and effective governance.Ethical organizations recognize their responsibilities to theircommunities. They honor their ethical obligations to stakeholdergroups, actively work to better society, seek to operate in anenvironmentally sustainable fashion, and take stands onimportant social and political issues.Core ideology is essential to any healthy ethical climate.Encourage your organization to identify and communicate itsvalues and purpose through both formal and informal channels(ritual and stories).Useful codes of ethics can play an important role in shapingethical climate. Make sure they define and illustrate importantterms and address the problems faced by the members of yourparticular organization. View ethics statements as discussionstarters, not as the final word on the topic of organizationalmorality.Act quickly to eliminate sexual harassment, discrimination,incivility, aggression, and other destructive behaviors. Set forthclear expectations and punish offenders so that isolatedmisbehaviors don’t result in collective corruption.
Socialization processes introduce ethical standards and valuesto new members and reinforce their importance toorganizational veterans. Use the website, brochures,interviews, training, orientation sessions, and socializationagents to promote ethical socialization. Beware of co-optation,incrementalism, and compromise that socialize newcomers intoimmoral behavior.Effective ethics training can promote a positive ethical, inclusiveclimate if it is adapted to the ethical problems of theorganization, taps into the experiences of participants, andactively engages them. Instruction should reinforce otherelements of the organization’s ethics strategy and be integratedinto the entire training program.For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment1. Analyze the ethical climate of your organization. In your paper,consider the following questions: How would you classify theorganization’s ethical orientation based on Self-Assessment10.1? Overall, would you characterize the climate as positive ornegative? Why? What factors shape the moral atmosphere?What role have leaders played in its formation andmaintenance? What steps does the organization take to dealwith misbehaviors? Does the organization consider both meansand ends? How does the group’s structure reinforce (or fail toreinforce) espoused values and ethical behavior? Whatinconsistencies do you note?2. Complete Self-Assessment 10.2. What accounts for differencesin your scores between system levels and inclusiondimensions? What steps can you, your colleagues, and yourleaders take to create a more inclusive climate?3. Discuss each of the following statements in a group or, as analternative, argue for and against each proposition in a formaldebate. Your instructor will set the rules and time limits. Refer tothe discussion of argumentation in Chapter 7 for moreinformation on constructing effective arguments.Pro or con: Organizations are less ethical now than theywere 10 years ago.Pro or con: Subtle forms of discrimination are impossibleto eliminate.Pro or con: Formal codes of ethics do more harm thangood.Pro or con: Being good is good business.
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 beinspirational.Pro or con: An organization can change everything exceptits core values and purpose.Pro or con: CEOs should take public stances on socialand political issues.4. Write a research paper on one form of individual or collectivedestructive behavior in the workplace. Conclude withsuggestions to help leaders curb this type of behavior.5. Compare and contrast an organization that has a climate ofintegrity with one that pursues ethical compliance.6. Create a CEO activism case study. Provide background on theissue and describe how CEOs responded. What motivatedthese leaders to take action? What impact did they have onpublic policy and opinion? What pushback did the companiesface for taking a stance? What conclusions can you draw aboutthe effectiveness and consequences of CEO activism based onyour analysis?7. Develop a shared set of values for your class using strategiespresented in this chapter.8. Conduct an analysis of the purpose or mission statements of 10different companies or organizations. Which are most effective?Why?9. Evaluate an ethical code based on the guidelines presented inthis chapter. What are its strengths and weaknesses? Howuseful would it be to members of the organization? How couldthe code be improved? What can we learn from this statement?10. Design an ethics or diversity/inclusion training program for yourorganization using the guidelines presented in this chapter.11. Describe your socialization into your school or some otherorganization from an ethical vantage point. Then evaluate theprocess. What did the organization do well? What could it havedone better? What suggestions would you make to improve theethical socialization process for future newcomers? As analternative, describe how your college major is preparing youfor your profession from an ethical vantage point, answering thequestions above.Student Study SiteVisit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE
journal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.
Case Study 10.1When Donors Call the Shots on CampusCollege and university officials are often caught between the proverbialrock and a hard place when it comes to funding. Schools turn to privatedonors to pay for faculty, buildings, and programs as the federalgovernment reduces money for research and state governments cut backon education spending. But those giving millions may want to direct howthe money is spent, demanding that they have a voice in decisionstypically made by faculty and administrators.Billionaire energy moguls Charles and David Koch have been able toexert unprecedented control over how their higher-education gifts aredistributed. The politically conservative brothers are out to promotelibertarian, free market principles, hoping to create a “talent pipeline” filledwith students who then will occupy powerful political positions in thefuture. They use a set of related charities to reach this goal. Between2005 and 2015 they contributed an estimated $150 million to 300 schools.(recently died after retiring from Koch Industries and relatedorganizations.)Koch grants often come with detailed stipulations and are dispersed overa period of years, so the money can be cut off if conditions aren’t met. AtFlorida State (FSU), the Charles Koch Foundation pledged $6.6 million tohire five professors and to establish two new educational programs forundergraduates. In return, the foundation required that FSU create anadvisory board made up of members it selected. The board thendetermined which faculty would be funded, reviewed applicants for facultypositions, and evaluated the work of current faculty to determine if it metthe “objectives and purposes” of the foundation. Koch officials were alsogiven control over any university publicity that mentioned the foundation.The BB&T Charitable Foundation, which shares the conservative valuesof the Koch brothers, also contributed to FSU. It spelled out, among otherthings, that the Department of Economics create a new course. Everyundergraduate business student would receive a copy of libertarian AynRand’s Atlas Shrugged and discuss the book in groups. The gift funded adistinguished speakers’ series focused on the ethical foundations ofcapitalism with the stipulation that the Ayn Rand Institute be consultedabout speakers. The BB&T Foundation also made similar demands whenit awarded $1 million for business education at Western CarolinaUniversity.Concern over the growing influence of the Koch brothers on collegecampuses produced the UnKoch My Campus campaign. UnKoch My
Campus is out to “expose and expel undue donor influence in academia.”1 Students and faculty protested Koch-funded programs andprofessorships at Wake Forest, Montana State University, the Universityof 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 economicspositions and to create the Mercatus Center, a think tank that studiesmarkets and government regulations. Transparency GMU (an UnKoch MyCampus affiliate) successfully sued the university for the release ofdocuments that revealed the extent of donor influence on campus. AtGeorge Mason, as at FSU, conservative givers were involved in selectingprofessors. The GMU law school was named for conservative SupremeCourt justice Antony Scalia after a receiving $10 million donation from theKoch Foundation and $20 million from an anonymous donor.Those worried about restrictive gifts argue that they undermine theacademic freedom, considered a sacred value by many in academe.Outsiders with political agendas are setting curriculum, determining whatstudents read and hear, and limiting discussion and debate. And they aredoing so largely in secret. As one George Mason student noted, “Youshould know, if you’re going into a classroom, that $30 million is going intoyour school from someone who wants you to think a certain way.”2 Donorinfluence can result in biased research findings. Tainted research can beparticularly damaging in the field of economics because findings can havea significant impact on tax policy and federal regulation. Research fundedby Koch contributions has been used to support their political positions.Then, too, the Koch organizations oppose causes favored by manystudents, including expanded access to health care, workers’ rights, andprotecting the environment.Defenders of the Kochs point out that the brothers also give heavily toless partisan causes like medical research, the Smithsonian, and musicscholarships. They argue that donors should have the right to control howtheir gifts are spent. Conservatives see investment in higher education asone way to counteract the left-leaning bias of colleges and universities.An official at the Koch foundation notes that many of the originalrestrictive agreements at FSU, George Mason, and elsewhere are nolonger in effect. For their part, some university officials aren’t bothered bygift restrictions. An FSU dean was quoted as saying he didn’t see aproblem if a donor wanted to give money to get students to read a book.Intrusive donor influence can be troubling no matter what the politicalagenda of the funder. Concerns have been raised about massive giftsfrom liberal billionaire George Soros, who gives heavily to Bard College,and the Susan Thompson Buffett foundation, which supports reproductivehealth research at the University of Texas. Republican Senator Ted Cruz
warned Texas universities that gifts from a Hong Kong foundation mightfund communist propaganda. Australian officials believe that Chinesestate-backed companies giving money to the country’s universities mightpressure them into producing research that will support the communistparty.Public outcry is forcing colleges and universities to rethink their donorpolicies. The presidents of FSU and George Mason called for a reviewand tightening of gift agreements. Faculty senates at both institutionshave demanded a role in overseeing donor requirements.Representatives of the American Association of University Professorsurge faculty to be more involved in grant writing and to encourage moretransparency about donor restrictions. However, financial need may givedonors the upper hand. Writing about the UnKoch GMU protests, NewYork Times writers Erica Green and Stephanie Saul noteFollowing a period of deep cuts in public funding, the [GMU]documents and related emails raised broad questions aboutwhether universities that rely heavily on private donors canremain free from influences of contributors who may be pursuinga commercial, political or philosophical agenda.3
Discussion Probes1. 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 donoragreements even if the donors object? Why or why not?3. Do you think that donor influence can undermine academic freedomand bias research findings? Why or why not?4. What guidelines should colleges and universities follow whendeciding whether to accept donations? What role should faculty andstudents 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?
Notes1. 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.
SourcesBall, 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 offunding universities. FT Life.Miller, K. S., & Bellamy, R. (n.d.) Fine print, restrictive grants, andacademic freedom. Academe, AAUP American Association of UniversityProfessors.Najmabadi, S. (2018, April 24). From the Chinese government to theKoch brothers, outside donors receive scrutiny at Texas universities.Texas Tribune.UnKoch my campus. (n.d.) Retrieved fromhttp://www.unkochmycampus.org
Case Study 10.2Nike’s Boys-Club CultureThe sudden departure of a group of high-level executives signaled that allwas not well at Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company. Thoseretiring or resigning included Trevor Edwards, president of the Nike brandand the company’s second in command; the vice president and generalmanager of global brands; and vice presidents and directors of NorthAmerican operations, diversity, running, and sports marketing.The executives were forced out after a group of female employeessubmitted the results of an informal survey to CEO and Board Chair MarkParker. The women reported being marginalized in meetings and deniedadvancement in favor of less qualified men. In interviews with The NewTimes and The Wall Street Journal, female employees described anumber of instances of sexual harassment. In one case, a malesupervisor 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 anotherreferred to a female employee’s breasts in his e-mails to her. Off-sitemeetings were sometimes followed by visits to strip clubs. A top executivesigned off on an ad that featured a stripper and male athletes dressed insports bras. (Company founder Phil Knight nixed the commercial.)Officials at Nike’s human resources department frequently ignoredcomplaints, communicating that the women were the problem. At othertimes, they treated their concerns causally, as in the case of a womanwho was asked to meet an HR representative at the company’s café, apublic open space. Offenders kept their positions and one, who wasreported to human resources for berating women in meetings, waspromoted. (The head of HR was let go after being accused of creating ahostile work environment.)The boys-club atmosphere wasn’t the only problem with Nike’s corporateculture. 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 oustedexec who was slated to become the next CEO. Males inside this groupsaw themselves as rising stars; females and males outside the cliquecould expect to be passed over for promotion. Older employeescomplained of ageism, noting that senior workers were most likely to belaid off. Others spoke of being “fired by PowerPoint.” When Nike stoppedmaking golf equipment, employees came to a meeting where their names
appeared on a big screen telling them to go to different rooms wheremany were let go.The executive purge was part of CEO Parker’s efforts to address Nike’sbroken culture. In a memo to staff, he noted that complaints had identifiedbehaviors that “do not reflect our core values of inclusivity, respect andempowerment.”1 He went on to declare that he was committed “to makinga Nike a place where everyone can thrive in an environment of respect,empathy, and equal opportunity for all.”2 In a company-wide meeting theCEO apologized to employees for allowing a culture that excluded someworkers while failing to take their complaints seriously. He pledged tofoster an atmosphere of collaboration, where “every voice is heard, notjust the loudest.”3 Two women were named to succeed departing maleexecutives and the diversity and inclusion office was elevated to a C-levelposition. The company revised its grievance reporting systems andpledged to be more transparent about its diversity results. Ten thousandmanagers must now undergo diversity and unconscious bias training. Aninitiative has been launched to improve diversity in hiring. Mentorshipprograms for women will be developed. (Currently, while nearly half of allstaff 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 billionby 2022. Meeting this objective depends in large part on selling moreproducts to women. Yet, sales to women have faltered. Some employeesbelieve that the company’s male-dominated culture and lack of femaleleadership have hindered its outreach to female consumers.
Discussion Probes1. How should HR departments respond to complaints like those madeat 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 culturalchange?5. Do you think Nike’s culture has hindered its ability to market towomen?
Notes1. Abrams, R. (2018, March 8). Second top Nike executive departs amidcomplaints of workplace behavior. The New York Times.2. Germano, S. (2018, May 3). Nike CEO apologizes for corporate culturethat excluded some staff. The Wall Street Journal.3. Low, E. (2018, May 9). Here’s what Nike execs were getting away withas bullying culture ran deep. Investor’s Business Daily.
SourcesCresswell, J., Draper, K., & Abrams, R. (2018, April 28). At Nike, revolt ledby women leads to exodus of male executives. The New York Times.Creswell, J., & Draper, K. (2018, May 9). Nike exodus of managers growsto 11 after inquiry. The New York Times, p. B1.Germano, S., & Lublin, J. S. (2018, March 31). Inside Nike, a boys-clubculture and flawed HR. The Wall Street Journal.Howland, D. (2018, April 30). Nike promotes 2 women to replaceexecutives departing amid ‘toxic’ environment. HR Drive.Lieber, C. (2018, March 16). Did Nike’s ‘frat boy culture’ lead to thedepartures of two executives? Racked.Nakamura, B. (2018, April 28). Nike’s ‘bro culture’ collides with #MeToomovement. OregonLive.comStanley, J. (n.d.). Nike announces new diversity initiatives followingscandal. Hypebeast.
Case Study 10.3Tackling Implicit Bias at StarbucksStarbucks has a reputation for being one of the world’s most sociallyconscious companies. The coffee retailer’s progressive image makes itparticularly vulnerable when employees fail to live up to its standards.When two black men were arrested and detained for trespassing at aPhiladelphia Starbucks, the media took note. The store manager calledpolice after Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, who were waiting tostart a meeting, failed to order drinks or food. Officers cuffed the two menand took them to jail where they were later released without beingcharged.Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson apologized to Nelson and Robinson andreached a financial settlement with the two that includes free collegetuition through the Starbucks College Achievement Plan. The firmloosened its requirement that those entering its stores must purchaseitems. In addition, executives decided to close 8,000 U.S. company-owned stores to conduct a 4-hour racial bias training session for 175,000employees. Company founder Howard Schultz called the training “atransformational moment in the history of Starbucks.”1To create the training session, which focused on implicit or unconsciousbias, Starbucks officials consulted with former U.S. attorney general EricHolder and representatives from the NAACP and other social justiceorganizations. Course materials were pretested in selected stores andthen modified based on employee feedback. The training included nearlytwo dozen videos featuring rapper Common, filmmaker Stanley Nelson,Starbucks officials, and others discussing experiences of blacks in publicspaces, bias and brain science, company mission and values, and othertopics. Videos were followed by self and group reflection. (Employeesreceived notebooks in which to record their thoughts.) One exerciseasked participants to reflect on their experience of racial identity,considering, for example, when they altered a communication style toavoid activating stereotypes or if they felt their race affected their ability toestablish rapport with a manager. In another exercise, staffers were askedto rate how easy or hard it would be for them to talk to people of their raceand of a different race in a series of situations.Experts worry that the Starbucks training session, like other diversitytraining, could backfire. Participants who feel forced to attend diversityworkshops can become defensive. Any benefit often fades after a fewdays. Starbucks may have overlooked key components of effective
training, like concrete goals and assessments, in order to respond quicklyto the Philadelphia incident. But company officials recognize thatovercoming implicit racial bias will take more than one training session.According to the firm’s executive vice president of U.S. retail, “May 29 [thetraining day] isn’t a solution—it’s a first step.”2 Starbucks plans to holdadditional sessions in coming years to further address bias and inclusion.
Discussion Probes1. Did the Philadelphia incident generate more publicity because itinvolved Starbucks instead of another, less socially responsiblecompany?2. What elements of an effective ethics training program do you see inthe Starbucks workshop? Are there any elements missing?3. Do you think the Starbucks training session will reduce implicit biasand prevent future incidents of racial profiling at its stores?4. What additional steps should Starbucks take to improve itsrelationships with diverse customers?5. How should Starbucks assess the effectiveness of this and otheranti-bias efforts?
Notes1. 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 racialbias training. Here’s what employees will learn. Newsweek.
SourcesAbrams, R., Hsu, T., & Eligon, J. (2018, May 30). Closing up shop for anafternoon 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 theirracial bias training day. The Independent.Meyer, Z. (1028, May 2). Starbucks and two black men arrested inPhiladelphia incident reach private settlement. USA Today.SELF-ASSESSMENT 10.1 Ethical Climate QuestionnaireInstructions: Indicate whether you agree with each of the followingstatements about your company or organization. Use the scale belowand write the number that best represents your answer in the spacenext to the item.CompletelyFalseMostlyFalseSomewhatFalseSomewhatTrueMostlyTrueCompletelyTrue0123451. In this company (organization), people are mostly out forthemselves. ______2. The major responsibility for people in this company(organization) is to control costs. ______3. In this company (organization), people are expected to followtheir 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’sgood. ______6. There is no room for one’s personal morals or ethics in thiscompany (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 thecompany’s (organization’s) interests. ______
9. Each person in this company (organization) decides for himselfor herself what is right and wrong. ______10. In this company (organization), people protect their owninterests 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 thecompany (organization). ______13. The first consideration is whether a decision violates any law. ______14. People are expected to comply with the law and professionalstandards over and above other considerations. ______15. Everyone is expected to stick to company (organization) rulesand procedures. ______16. In this company (organization), our major concern is alwayswhat 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 thebook. ______19. The most efficient way is always the right way in this company(organization). ______20. In this company (organization), people are expected to strictlyfollow legal or professional standards. ______21. Our major consideration is what is best for everyone in thecompany (organization). ______22. In this company (organization), people are guided by their ownpersonal ethics. ______23. Successful people in this company (organization) strictly obeythe company (organization) policies. ______24. In this company (organization), the law or ethical code of one’sprofession is the major consideration. ______25. In this company (organization), each person is expected, aboveall, to work efficiently. ______26. It is expected that you will always do what is right for thecustomer and public. ______Scoring:Caring Climate ScoreAdd up scores on items 5, 12, 16, 21, 26 = (Range 0–25)______Law and Code Climate Score
Add up scores on items 13, 14, 20, 24 = (Range 0–20)______Rules Climate ScoreAdd up scores on items 7, 15, 18, 23 = (Range 0–20) ______Instrumental Climate ScoreAdd up scores on items 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 17, 19, 25 = (Range0–45) ______Independence Climate ScoreAdd up scores on items 3, 9, 11, 22 = (Range 0–20) ______Sources: Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J. W. (1993). TheEthical Climate Questionnaire: An assessment of its developmentand validity. Psychological Reports, 73, 667–674; used withpermission. See also Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). Theorganizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 33, 101–112.SELF-ASSESSMENT 10.2 The Climate for Inclusion-Exclusion Scale(MBIE)
InstructionsRespond to each of the following items on the following scale.1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Moderately Disagree 3 = Slightly Disagree4 = Slightly Agree 5 = Moderately Agree 6 = Strongly Agree1. I have influence in decisions taken by my work group regardingour 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 inthe organization. (R)6. I am usually invited to important meetings in my organization.7. My supervisor often asks for my opinion before makingimportant decisions.8. My supervisor does not share information with me. (R)9. I am invited to actively participate in review and evaluationmeetings with my supervisor.10. I am often invited to contribute my opinion in meetings withmanagement higher than my immediate supervisor.11. I frequently receive communication from management higherthan my immediate supervisor (i.e., memos, e-mails)12. I am often invited to participate in meetings with managementhigher than my immediate supervisor.13. I am often asked to contribute in planning social activities notdirectly related to my job function.14. I am always informed about informal social activities andcompany social events.15. I am rarely invited to join my coworkers when they go to lunchor drinks after work. (R)
Scoring:This scale measures five work-organization system levels (workgroup, organization, supervisor, higher management, social/informal)intersected by three inclusion dimensions (decision making,information networks, and participation/involvement).Levels1. 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 Dimensionsa. 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 inclusiondimensions to determine where you feel least and most included.Add up your responses to the 15 items to create a total score. Thehigher score (top score 90), the higher your sense of inclusion.Source: Mor Barak, M. E. (2017). Managing diversity: Toward aglobally inclusive workplace (4th ed.), pp. 303–305. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage. Used by permission.
Notes1. 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 EthicalClimate Questionnaire: An assessment of its development andvalidity. 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 inorganizations. In W. C. Frederick & L. E. Preston (Eds.), Businessethics: 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 organizationalcommitment: A two-study analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46,127–141; Fritzsche, D. J. (2000). Ethical climates and the ethicaldimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 125–140; Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities andextensions 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 perspectiveon ethical climate. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F.Peterson, (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture andclimate (2nd ed., pp. 600–617). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;Peterson, D. K. (2002). The relationship between unethicalbehavior 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 inorganizations: 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 betweenethical climate and job satisfaction: A multilevel analysis. Journalof Business Ethics, 15, 535–545.
4. Fulp, C. (2018). Success through diversity: Why the mostinclusive 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 andthe viability of ethnically diverse institutions. In S. Otten, K. vander 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 authenticrelationships, 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. CorporateReputation Review, 13, 82–97; Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., &Cesaria, R. (2000). Measuring organizational trust: A diagnosticsurvey 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 oforganizations. 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 oftrust. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.11. Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The OrganizationalTrust Inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. M.
Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers oftheory and research (pp. 302–329). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.12. Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2010).13. Cropanzano, R., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Organizational justiceand behavioral ethics: Promises and prospects. Business EthicsQuarterly, 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-analyticreview of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 425–445; Fortin, M. (2008). Perspectiveson organizational justice: Concept clarification, social contextintegration, time and links with morality. International Journal ofManagement 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 idealmanagers and organizations. See Brown, M. T. (2005). Corporateintegrity: 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). Buildingorganizational 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. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press; Srivastva, S. (Ed.). (1988).Executive integrity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.16. Paine, L. S. (1996, March–April). Managing for organizationalintegrity. Harvard Business Review, 106–117.17. Richards, K. (2018, May 14). Uber promises to do better in anew brand campaign featuring the company’s CEO. Adweek.
18. Andreoli, N., & Lefkowitz, J. (2008). Individual andorganizational antecedents of misconduct in organizations.Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 309–332; McKendall, M., DeMarr,B., & Jones-Rikkers, C. (2002). Ethical compliance programs andcorporate illegality: Testing the assumptions of the corporatesentencing guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 367–383;Rockness, H., & Rockness, J. (2005). Legislated ethics: FromEnron 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 corporateethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 539–552;Weber, J., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2013). Corporate ethics andcompliance programs: A report, analysis and critiques. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 112, 609–626.20. James, H. S. (2000). Reinforcing ethical decision makingthrough organizational structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 28,43–58.21. Dunn, J., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Why good employeesmake 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 workclimates: Anomie in the workplace and implications for managingchange. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3, 343–358.23. Useem, M. (1998). The leadership moment: Nine stories oftriumph and disaster and their lessons for us all. New York, NY:Times Books, Ch. 7.24. Glanz, W. (2003, August 27). NASA ignored dangers toshuttle, 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.
25. Business Roundtable. (2012, March 27). 2012 principles ofcorporate governance. Retrieved fromhttp://businessroundtable.org26. MacAvoy, P. W., & Millstein, I. M. (2003) The current crisis incorporate governance. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan;Monks, R. G., & Minow, N. (2004). Corporate governance (3rded.). Malden, MA: Blackwell; Rezaee, A. (2009). Corporategovernance and ethics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.27. Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2005). Toward aconceptual framework for stakeholder theory. Journal of BusinessEthics, 58, 137–148; Sims, R. R. (2003). Ethics and corporatesocial responsibility: Why giants fall. Westport, CT: Praeger.28. Buchholz & Rosenthal; Cooper, S. (2004). Corporate socialperformance: A stakeholder approach. Burlington, VT: Ashgate;Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory ofthe corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academyof 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 stakeholderanalysis. 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 personalsacrifices to address social, environmental issues. (n.d.).Sustainable Brands.31. Aquinas, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’tknow about corporate social responsibility: A review and researchagenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968.32. Wheeler, D., Colbert, B., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusingon values: Reconciling corporate social responsibility,
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 Jordantalks 25th anniversary, a new CEO and staying independent. TheDenver Post.34. Panchak, P. (2002). Time for a triple bottom line. IndustryWeek, p. 7; Robins, F. (2006). The challenge of TBL: Aresponsibility to whom? Business and Society Review, 111, 1–14.35. Davis, J. (2016, September 27). When did Che Guevarabecome CEO? The roots of the new corporate activism. TheConversation; McGregor, J., & Dwoskin, E. (2017, February 17).The cost of silence: Why more CEOs are speaking out in theTrump era. The Washington Post; Taylor, A. (2018, May 21). Whythe new CEO activism is bad for everyone. Quartz at Work.36. Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2018, January/February). Thenew CEO activists. Harvard Business Review.37.The dawn of CEO activism. (2016, June 21). WeberShandwick. Retrieved from https://www.webershandwick.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/the-dawn-of-ceo-activism-2.pdf38. 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 fromhttps://www.jimcollins.com/TOOLS/VISION-FRAMEWORK.PDF;Jeffrey, S. (n.d.). How to discover your company’s core values andstart 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. SanFrancisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler; Lewis, D., Medland, J., Malone,S., Murphy, M., Reno, K., & Vaccaro, G. (2006). Appreciative
leadership: Defining effective leadership methods. OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 24(1), 87–100; Van Vuuren, L. J., & Crous,F. (2005). Utilising appreciative inquiry (AI) in creating a sharedmeaning of ethics in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 57,399–412; Whitney, D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003). The power ofappreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change. SanFrancisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.40. King, D., Case, C. J., & Premo, K. M. (2011). A missionstatement analysis comparing the United States and three otherEnglish speaking countries. Academy of Strategic ManagementJournal, 10, Special Issue, 21–45.41. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1984). Studying organizationalcultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of ManagementReview, 9, 653–699.42. Clark, E. (2004). Around the corporate campfire: How greatleaders use stories to inspire success. Sammamish, WA: C&CPublishing.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 ofconduct, see Darley, J. M. (2001). The dynamics of authorityinfluence in organizations and the unintended actionconsequences. 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 andHRD: A new approach to leading responsible organizations.Cambridge, MA: Perseus; Mathews, M. C. (1990). Codes ofethics: Organizational behavior and misbehavior. In W. C.Frederick & L. E. Preston (Eds.), Business ethics: Researchissues and empirical studies (pp. 99–122). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress; Metzger, M., Dalton, D. R., & Hill, J. W. (1993). Theorganization of ethics and the ethics of organizations: The casefor expanded organizational ethics audits. Business EthicsQuarterly, 3, 27–43; Trevino et al. (1998); Wright, D. K. (1993).
Enforcement dilemma: Voluntary nature of public relations codes.Public Relations Review, 19, 13–20.45. Countryman, A. (2001, December 7). Leadership keyingredient 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 HigherEducation, 64, 522–569.47. Adams, J. S., Taschian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes ofethics as signals for ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,29, 199–211; Ki, Eyun-Jung, Choi, H-L, & Lee, J. (2012). Doesethics 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 ethicalvalues, and organizational commitment. Journal of PersonalSelling & 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 leadershipobligation, not a choice. Journal for Quality & Participation, 25, 15–19.50. Woods, K. C., & Buchanan, N. T. (2008). Sexual harassmentin the workplace. In M. Paludi (Ed.), The psychology of women atwork: 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 sosubtle) 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 darkside of organizational behavior. 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: Individualand situational influences. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 115–147.53. Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2004). On incivility, its impactand 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 ofworkplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy ofManagement Executive, 19, 7–18; Porath, C. L., & Erez, A.(2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness ontask performance and helpfulness. Academy of ManagementJournal, 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 fromChatterji, R. (2018, February 21). A new survey finds 81 percentof women have experienced sexual harassment. NPR; White, G.B. (2018, January 8). The Black and Hispanic unemploymentrates 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 fromhttps://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/violence/56. Whitlock, C. (2017, September 30). How the military handlessexual 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). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.58. Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business asusual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption inorganizations. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 39–53;Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization ofcorruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,25, 1–52; Darley, J. M. (1996). How organizations socialize
individuals into evildoing. In D. M. Messick & A. E. Tenbrunsel(Eds.), Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into businessethics (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). TheChristian Science Monitor, p. 8; CEO’s moral compass steersSiemens. (2010, February 15). USA Today, p. 3B; Schubert, S., &Miller, T. C. (2008, December 21). Where bribery was just a lineitem. The New York Times, p. BU1.60. Albrecht, T. L., & Bach, B. W. (1997). Communication incomplex organizations: A relational approach. Fort Worth, TX:Harcourt Brace.61. Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2006). Fundamentals oforganizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills,values (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.62. Elias, R. Z., (2007). The relationship between auditingstudents’ anticipatory socialization and their professionalcommitment. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11, 81–90.63. Ashforth & Anand.64. See, for example, Ferdman, B. M. (2014). The practice ofinclusion in diverse organizations: toward a systemic and inclusiveframework. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity atwork: 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.), Microaggressiontheory: Influence and implications (pp. 261–275). Hoboken, NJ:Wiley; Knapp, J. C. (2011). Rethinking ethics training: Newapproaches 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). Usingthe business integrity capacity model to advance ethics education.In D. L. Swanson & D. G. Fisher (Eds.), Advancing business
ethics education (pp. 103–124). Charlotte, NC: Information Age;Sauser, W. I. (2011). Beyond the classroom: Business ethicstraining 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 trainingin 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-analyticinvestigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of BusinessEthics, 87, 133–151; Weber, J. A. (2007). Business ethics training:Insights from learning theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 61–85.
11 Meeting the Ethical Challenges ofLeadership in a Global Society
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 valuesclassification systems.> Link the four cultural values classification systems to differences inethical decision making and behavior.> Devise a strategy for overcoming attitudinal obstacles to ethicalbehavior in cross-cultural settings.> Defend the existence of universal ethical standards.> Analyze an ethical dilemma in a culturally diverse setting usingone of the three sets of ethical decision-making guidelines.For all human beings must have some common valuesor they cease to be human, and also some differentvalues else they cease to differ, as in fact they do.—RUSSIAN/BRITISH SOCIAL AND POLITICALTHEORIST ISAIAH BERLINHuman beings draw close to one another by theircommon nature, but habits and customs keep themapart.—CONFUCIUS
What’s AheadIn this chapter, we examine the moral complexities posed bycultural differences. Ethical global leaders acknowledge the darkside of globalization and recognize the difficulty of making moralchoices in cross-cultural settings. To master these challenges,they understand the relationship between cultural values andethical decisions, address attitudinal obstacles, seek moralcommon ground, and develop strategies for solving ethicaldilemmas across cultures.
The Dark Side of GlobalizationGlobalization may be the most important trend of the twenty-firstcentury. We now live in a global economy shaped by multinationalcorporations, international travel, the Internet, immigration, andsatellite communication systems. Greater cultural diversity is oneproduct of globalization. Not only is there more contact betweencountries, there is greater cultural diversity within nations. Forexample, nonwhites account for most of the population growth inthe United States. Hawaii, California, Texas, New Mexico, and theDistrict of Columbia have majority minority populations. By 2045,whites will be in the minority.1Supporters of globalization sell the world on its benefits. Freetrade produces new wealth by opening up international markets,they argue. At the same time, the costs of goods and servicesdrop. People have greater freedom to travel, move, andcommunicate across borders. The greater flow of information andpeople 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 poorcountries, keeps growing. Global capitalism encourages greedrather than concern for others. Ethical and spiritual values havebeen overshadowed by the profit motive. Local cultural traditionsand the environment are being destroyed in the name ofeconomic growth. Repressive governments use technology tofurther oppress rather than to liberate their citizens. Citizens feelthreatened by immigration.2The high costs of globalization have generated significantpushback, leading, for example, to increased nationalist fervor inthe United States (“Make America Great Again”) and Europe,Britain’s exit from the European Union, the international decline ofdemocracy, and strict limits on immigrants and refugees. Thesedevelopments give added urgency to considering the dark side ofthe global society. Doing so can help prevent ethical abuse andthus reduce the price of globalization. With that in mind, let’s take
a closer look at how leaders cast the shadows outlined in Chapter1 in a global environment.
The Global Shadow of PowerIn the modern world, a leader’s power is no longer limited bynational boundaries. Increasing interdependence brought aboutby the integration of markets, communication systems, computers,and financial institutions means that the actions of one leader ornation can impact the rest of the world. Take President Trump’sdecision to impose stiff tariffs on steel imports from China, forinstance. The President wanted to protect the U.S. steel industrybut the Chinese government retaliated by imposing a 25% tariff onsoybeans and other U.S. products. Agricultural economists predictthe soybean tariff will have global impact. Not only will this taxharm American farmers by limiting sales to a major market, it will(1) result in increased soybean production in South America andin China, (2) encourage other nations not under the tariff (such asSpain) to buy from the United States, and (3) lower overallsoybean imports around the world.3Ethical leadership in the multinational context must take intoaccount the potential far-ranging consequences of every choice.Shadows fall when leaders forget this fact. Well-meaningdonations of used clothing from developed nations undermine thetextile industry in East Africa. Coal-fired plants in Indonesia, India,Turkey, Brazil, Chile, and elsewhere contribute to the globalproblem of climate change. Apple, Intel, and other electronicsmanufacturers were accused of funding mass rape, murder, andslave labor in the Congo through their purchase of “conflictminerals” mined in the region. Now they must disclose whetherthey use Congolese titanium, tantalum, tungsten, and gold in theirproducts.4Concentration of power is a by-product of globalization thatincreases the likelihood of abuse. China, for example, standsaccused of using its power to exert control over sub-SaharanAfrica. (See Case Study 11.1.) Corporations also wield greatinfluence in the global marketplace. Multinational companies havemore economic clout than many nations. According to oneestimate, 69 of the world’s 100 largest economies arecorporations.5
The Global Shadow of PrivilegeAs noted earlier, globalization appears to be increasing, notdecreasing, the gap between the haves and the have-nots bothwithin and between nations. Oxfam reports that 82% of the wealthgenerated in 2018 went to the richest 1% of the world’spopulation; the 61 richest people in the world own as much as thebottom half (3.6 billion people).6 The only good news is that therehas been a decline in the number of people in absolute poverty(those earning less than $1.25 a day).7 Income inequality meansthat 795 million people in the world suffer from chronic hunger and21,000 people (many of them children) die from starvation andmalnutrition every day. Citizens in the world’s poorest nations lackbasic health care and have much shorter life spans. (The averageglobal life expectancy is 71 years while residents of Chad, GabonGuinea-Bissau, Swaziland, and Afghanistan can expect to liveapproximately 50 years.)8 Privileged nations consume more,which leads to environmental damage in the form of logging, oildrilling, and mineral extraction. This damage has adisproportionate impact on the disadvantaged. Whereas thewealthy can move to cleaner areas, the poor cannot. Instead, poorcitizens 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 tomake 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 anddeveloped nations,(c) encourage firms to invest in improving the communities (athome and abroad) where they do business,(d) put the common (international) good above private gain orself- or national interest,(e) create a global economy that recognizes theinterconnectedness of all peoples and the importance ofsustaining the environment,
(f) practice restraint and moderation in the consumption ofgoods, and(g) seek justice and compassion by helping marginalizedgroups.9
The Global Shadow of Mismanaged InformationDeceit is all too common on the international stage. Nationsroutinely spy on each other for economic and military purposesand do their best to deceive their enemies. Russia createdthousands of fake Facebook and Twitter accounts to influence the2016 U.S. elections. The fake Facebook material, designed tosow discord, was seen by an estimated 126 million Americans(one third of the nation’s population).10 Businesses fromindustrialized countries frequently take advantage of consumers ineconomically depressed regions. Take the marketing of infantformula, for instance. Save the Children estimates that the lives of823,000 babies in low- and middle-income countries could besaved every year if they were adequately breastfed rather thanbottle fed.11 Breastfed babies are more resistant to disease andare less likely to sicken and die of diarrhea and pneumonia; theirmothers are less likely to develop breast cancer. As an addedbenefit, poor households could then spend their money on otherpressing needs. Despite the adoption of the International Code ofMarketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes in 1981, Nestlé, Danone,Abbott, and other formula manufacturers continue to engage in avariety 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 socialmedia, (d) marketing milk substitutes for toddlers, and (e) gainingmedical endorsement by providing free samples to hospitals andgifts to doctors.In addition to casting shadows through deception, global leaderscast shadows by withholding information. They don’t feel as muchobligation to share data about safety problems and environmentalhazards with foreign nationals as they do with their own citizens.They are guilty of extracting information from poor countries andgiving little in return. For example, clinical drug trials in developingcountries produce data that go back to company headquarters inEurope or the United States. Weaker countries are given littlesupport in their efforts to develop their own research facilities.12
The Global Shadow of InconsistencyEconomic and social disparities make it hard for leaders ofmultinational firms and nonprofits to act consistently. For instance,what are “fair” wages and working conditions in developingnations? Do workers in these countries deserve to be protected bythe same safety standards as employees in industrializedcountries? Should drugs that are banned in the United States fortheir undesirable side effects be sold in countries where theirpotential health benefits outweigh their risks? Should amultinational corporation follow the stringent pollution regulationsof its home country or the lower standards of a host nation?Should expatriates working for NGOs in other nations enjoy astandard of living far greater than those they serve? All too often,global leaders answer these questions in ways that cast shadowson disadvantaged world citizens. They pay the bare minimum toworkers in developing countries and provide them with inadequatemedical care, focus less attention on safety and environmentalproblems in overseas locations, dump dangerous products theycan’t sell in their homelands, live privileged lives among the poor,and so forth. The 2014 Ebola epidemic in West Africa provides avivid demonstration of the shadow of inconsistency in action.Stricken Western workers were airlifted to first-class medicalfacilities in their homelands while infected African medicalpersonnel remained on site, receiving treatment in rudimentaryhospitals and clinics.13
The Global Shadow of Misplaced and BrokenLoyaltiesTraditional 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 othernations, they must consider their duties to people they may nevermeet. Failure to do so produces shadow in the form ofenvironmental damage, poverty, hunger, and the widening incomegap.Broken loyalties cast shadows in a global society just as they doin individual leader–follower relationships. Citizens in both wealthyand poor nations feel betrayed by the shattered promises ofglobalization. Life has not improved as they had been led tobelieve. Special interests continue to receive favored treatment asmany are left behind. The global economy often creates moreeconomic losers than winners. Millions of U.S. workers discoveredthis fact when their manufacturing jobs were shifted overseas.These jobs are moving again as executives on the continuallookout for cheaper labor transfer production from China (wherewages have increased) to Malaysia and Vietnam.
The Global Shadow of IrresponsibilityGlobalization increases the breadth of leaders’ responsibilitiesbecause they are accountable for the actions of followers in manydifferent geographic locations. Like local leaders, they can’t beblamed for all the misdeeds of their followers. Yet they should beheld to the same set of responsibility standards outlined in ourdiscussion of the shadow side of leadership in Chapter 1. In orderto cast light instead of shadow, global leaders must do thefollowing:1. Make reasonable efforts to prevent followers’ misdeeds.Fostering a consistent, ethical organizational climate in everylocation can prevent many moral abuses. Integrity and a clearset of guiding values should be as characteristic of branchoffices as they are of headquarters. Leaders can establishsuch climates by (a) clearly stating organizational values, (b)communicating these values to all branches through print andelectronic media and training programs, (c) letting businesspartners know about standards, and (d) translating ethicalbehavior into performance standards and then evaluatingfollowers based on those criteria.142. Acknowledge and address ethical problems wherever theyoccur. Geographic and cultural distance makes it easy forglobal leaders to deny responsibility for the misbehavior offollowers. Subcontractors often get the blame for low wagesand poor working conditions at foreign manufacturingfacilities. More responsible firms acknowledge their duty toadequately supervise the activities of their contractors.Monster Energy has been criticized for refusing to investigatelabor conditions at its sugar suppliers, even though forcedlabor and slavery are problems in Brazil, Bolivia, theDominican Republic, and other sugarcane producingnations.153. Shoulder responsibility for the consequences of theirdirectives. Wise global leaders recognize that in trying to dothe right thing, they might end up producing some unintendednegative consequences. Take efforts to eliminate child labor,for instance. Poor children are an important source of incomefor their families. Removing them from the factory floor or
brick kilns in Cambodia, Pakistan, and other developingcountries can do significant harm. Recognizing this fact, thePunjab regional government in Pakistan pays a monthlystipend to send child workers to school and covers all of theireducational expenses. The children will likely be forced backto work if the program is discontinued.164. Admit their duties to followers. Multinational leaders haveobligations to all their followers, regardless of citizenship orethnic and cultural background, and to the communitieswhere they operate. Following the collapse of Bangladesh’sRana Plaza garment factory, which killed over 1,100 workersand injured 1,800 more, Primark and Loblaw clothing brandscreated a compensation fund for victims and their families.However, several large retailers, including Sears, JC Penney,Benetton, and Carrefour, refused to participate although theymay have had subcontractors producing clothing at thebuilding on the day of the collapse.175. Hold themselves to the same standards as followers. Leadersare not above the values, rules, and codes of conduct theyimpose on their global organizations. While they hold diversefollowers to consistent standards, ethical leaders also live upto the same guidelines.
Cultural Differences and EthicalValuesAlong with taking stock of the potential moral pitfalls ofglobalization, leaders need to recognize that cultural diversitymakes ethical decision making even harder. Every ethnic group,nation, and religion approaches moral dilemmas from a differentperspective. What is perfectly acceptable to members of onegroup may raise serious ethical concerns for another.Understanding the reasons for these differences is an importantfirst step in increasing our ethical competence in cross-culturalencounters.
Defining CultureThe same factors that make up an organization’s culture—language, rituals, stories, buildings, beliefs, assumptions, powerstructures—also form the cultures of communities, ethnic groups,and nations. Cultures are comprehensive, incorporating both thevisible (architecture, physical objects, nonverbal behavior) and theinvisible (thoughts, attitudes, values). In sum, a culture is “the totalway of life of a people, composed of their learned and sharedbehavior patterns, values, norms, and material objects.”18Several features of cultures are worth noting in more detail. Theseelements include the following:Created. We often assume that ours is the only way to solveproblems. In fact, there are countless ways to deal with theenvironment, manage interpersonal relationships, producefood, and cope with death. Each cultural group devises itsown way of responding to circumstances.Learned. Elements of culture are passed on from generationto generation and from person to person. Culturalconditioning is both a formal and an informal process thattakes place in every context—homes, schools, playgrounds,camps, games. The most crucial aspects of a culture, such asloyalty to country, are constantly reinforced. Patriotism in theUnited States is promoted through high school civics classes,the singing of the national anthem at sporting events, flagsflying on everything from pickup trucks to skyscrapers andgiant construction cranes, and Fourth of July and MemorialDay programs.Shared. The shared nature of culture becomes apparentwhen we break the rules that are set and enforced by thegroup. There are negative consequences for violating culturalnorms of all types. Punishments vary depending on theseverity of the offense. For example, you might receive a coldstare from your professor when your cell phone goes off inclass. However, you may face jail time if you break drug laws.Dynamic. Cultures aren’t static but evolve. Over time, thechanges can be dramatic, as in the case of gay marriage,
which was once banned but now is the law of the land in theUnited States.Although each culture has its own set of ethical priorities,researchers have discovered that ethnic groups and nations holdvalues in common. As a result, cultures can be grouped accordingto their value orientations. These orientations help explain ethicaldifferences and enable leaders to predict how members of othercultural groups will respond to moral dilemmas. In this section ofthe chapter, I’ll describe four widely used cultural classificationsystems. Before we examine the cultural classification systems,however, there are four cautions to keep in mind. First, allcategories are gross overgeneralizations. They describe whatmost people in that culture value. Not all U.S. residents areindividualistic, for example, and not all Japanese citizens arecollectivists. However, in general, more Americans put theindividual first, whereas more Japanese emphasize grouprelations. Second, scholars may categorize the same nationdifferently and have not studied some regions of the world (suchas Africa) as intensively as others (Europe, Asia, and the UnitedStates). Third, political and cultural boundaries aren’t alwaysidentical. For instance, the Basque people live in both France andSpain. Fourth, as noted earlier, cultures are dynamic, so valueschange. A society may alter its ethical priorities over time.
World Values SurveyThe World Values Survey is specifically designed to capture thedynamic nature of cultures, marking changes in societal valuesand beliefs over decades. Since 1981, researchers headquarteredin Sweden have periodically surveyed countries accounting for90% of the world’s population.19 They track shifts in two sets ofvalues that shape responses to moral issues. The first values setconsists of traditional values vs. secular-rational values.Traditional values highlight the importance of religion, family,deference to authority, and national pride. Rules are to befollowed 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 andbad behavior isn’t so clearly defined. People holding traditionalvalues typically reject abortion, divorce, euthanasia, and suicide;those holding secular-rational values are more accepting of thesebehaviors.The second values set consists of survival values versus self-expression values. Survival values focus on economic andphysical security. People with these values tend to be moreethnocentric, reject outsiders, and are less trusting and tolerant.Self-expression values emphasize autonomy, freedom of choice,and political participation. Quality of life and tolerance arepriorities. Those who value self-expression are concerned aboutprotecting the environment; are more accepting acceptance offoreigners, gays, and lesbians; support gender equality; anddesire to shape how societal decisions are made. The two valuesets then combine to form different cultural clusters.Traditional/survival societies include Morocco, Jordan,Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe. Traditional/self-expression societiesinclude the United States, much of Latin America, and Ireland.Secular-rational/survival societies include Russia, Ukraine,Bulgaria, and Estonia. Secular-rational/self-expression countriesinclude Sweden, Norway, Japan, Germany, and the CzechRepublic.
According to Ronald Inglehart and other World Values Survey(WVS) investigators, security is a primary driver of values andbehaviors. When humans feel insecure, they focus on traditionand self-preservation, making survival paramount in agrarianeconomies—where the weather poses a constant threat—and tothose facing economic uncertainty. As societies become moreprosperous, as many Western nations did after World War II,citizens become less concerned with day-to-day survival and aremore open to secular values and freedom of self-expression.Modern knowledge-based societies, which rely on technology andinformation, put the greatest importance on self-expression. Yet,despite economic progress, some values persist, depending onthe cultural history of a society. Survival values are morecharacteristic of former Communist Eastern European nations, forinstance, because of past political repression and economicstruggles. Religion also plays a role maintaining or changingvalues. Islam weakens self-expression, for example, while self-expression is more likely to flourish under Protestantism.Feelings of insecurity help account for the revolt againstglobalization. Threatened by declining incomes and an influx ofimmigrants, residents of both wealthy and poor nations turn toauthoritarian leaders to protect them. Inglehart describes theprocess this way: “When survival is insecure, people tend to closeranks behind a strong leader, forming a united front againstoutsiders—a strategy that can be called the Authoritarian Reflex.”20
Programmed Value PatternsGeert Hofstede of the Netherlands conducted an extensiveinvestigation of cultural value patterns.21 According to Hofstede,important values are “programmed” into members of everyculture. He surveyed more than 100,000 IBM employees in 50countries and three multicountry regions to uncover these valuedimensions. He then checked his findings against those of otherresearchers who studied the same countries. The following fourvalue orientations emerged.Power DistanceThe first category describes the relative importance of powerdifferences. Status differences are universal, but cultures treatthem 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 reducepower differentials; however, they are expected to care for theless fortunate. Low power distance cultures (Ireland, NewZealand), in contrast, are uneasy with large gaps in wealth, power,privilege, and status. Superiors tend to downplay thesedifferences and strive for a greater degree of equality.Individualism versus CollectivismHofstede’s second value category divides cultures according totheir preference for either the individual or the group.Individualistic cultures put the needs and goals of the person andher or his immediate family first. Members of these cultures seethemselves as independent actors. In contrast, collectivisticcultures give top priority to the desires of the larger group—extended family, tribe, community. Members of these societiesstress connection instead of separateness, putting a high value ontheir place in the collective. Think back to your decision to attendyour current college or university. As a resident of Canada or theUnited States, you probably asked friends, high schoolcounselors, and family members for advice, but in the end, you
made the choice. In a collectivistic society such as Peru orPakistan, your family or village might well have made this decisionfor you. There’s no guarantee that you would have even gone tocollege. Families with limited resources can afford to send onlyone child to school. You might have been expected to go to workto help pay for the education of a brother or sister. (Complete Self-Assessment 11.1 to determine how individualistic or collectivisticyou are.)Masculinity versus FemininityThe third dimension reflects attitudes toward the roles of men andwomen. Highly masculine cultures such as Venezuela and Italymaintain clearly defined sex roles. Men are expected to bedecisive, assertive, dominant, ambitious, and materialistic; womenare encouraged to serve. Females are to care for the family,interpersonal relationships, and the weaker members of society. Infeminine cultures such as Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands,the differences between the sexes are blurred. Both men andwomen can be competitive and caring, assertive, and nurturing.These cultures are more likely to stress interdependence,intuition, and concern for others.Uncertainty AvoidanceThis dimension describes the way in which cultures respond touncertainty. Three indicators measure this orientation: anxietylevel, 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 morerituals, and accept directives from those in authority. In addition,they are less likely to change jobs and view long-termemployment as a right. People who live in low uncertaintyavoidance cultures (Ireland, Sweden) are more comfortable withuncertainty, viewing ambiguity as a fact of life. They experiencelower stress and are more likely to take risks such as starting anew company or accepting a new job in another part of thecountry. These people are less reliant on written regulations and
rituals and are more likely to trust their own judgments instead ofobeying authority figures.Hofstede argues that value patterns have a significant impact onethical behavior.22 For example, masculine European countriesgive little to international development programs but invest heavilyin weapons. Feminine European nations do just the opposite.High uncertainty avoidance cultures are prone to prejudicebecause they follow the credo “What is different is dangerous.”Low uncertainty avoidance cultures follow the credo “What isdifferent is curious” and are more tolerant of strangers and newideas.Other researchers have joined Hofstede in linking value patternsto ethical attitudes and behavior.23 They have discovered thatmembers of feminine cultures are more sensitive to the presenceof moral issues. Masculine/high power distance/high uncertaintyavoidance countries are generally more corrupt, and their citizensare more likely to look to formal codes and policies for ethicalguidance. Firms operating in these cultures are generally lessattune to the concerns of stakeholders. Consumers from lowpower distance/low uncertainty avoidance societies generallypunish socially irresponsible firms. National accountingorganizations in high individualism/high uncertainty avoidancesocieties are less likely to adopt ethical standards set byinternational accounting groups.Of the four value dimensions, individualism versus collectivismhas attracted the most attention. Scholars have used thisdimension to explain a variety of cultural differences, includingvariations in ethical behavior. Individualistic countries preferuniversal ethical standards such as Kant’s categorical imperativeand justice.24 Collectivistic societies take a more utilitarianapproach, seeking to generate the greatest good for in-groupmembers. Citizens of these nations are more sensitive toelements of the situation and consider the impact on relationships.Here are examples of how these orientations impact ethicalchoices:
False information. Individualists are more likely to lie in orderto protect their privacy; collectivists are more likely to lie inorder to protect the group or family. Those with a collectivisticorientation may promise what they can’t deliver in order toreduce tensions between their in-group and outsiders.Individualists condemn this practice as deceptive andtherefore unethical.Layoffs. In individualist cultures, downsizing is seen as abusiness decision. In collectivist cultures, layoffs are seen asimmoral, threatening the harmony of the firm.Intellectual property rights. Whereas individuals own therights to their creative ideas in individualistic societies, theyare expected to share their knowledge in collectivistic nations.Copyright laws are a Western invention based on the beliefthat individuals should be rewarded for their efforts.Gender equality. Resistance to gender equality is strongest incollectivistic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Japan.Women are seen as an out-group in these societies. Manymen fear that granting women more status—better jobs,leadership positions—would threaten group stability.Individualistic nations are more likely to have laws thatpromote equal opportunity, although in many of thesecountries, such as the United States, women hold fewerleadership positions than men and continue to earn less.Bribery. Payoffs tend to be more common in collectivisticnations and may be a way to meet obligations to thecommunity. In some cases, there are laws against thepractice, 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 peopleat the expense of others.Both individualism and collectivism create ethical blind spots.Being self- or group focused can make us particularly susceptibleto certain types of ethical abuses. Individualism is linked to highcrime rates, narcissism, self-serving and self-promotion, violence,materialism, suicide, and drug abuse. Collectivism is tied tosuppression of individual thought, blind obedience, harshtreatment of outside groups, human rights violations, and wifebeating and killing.25
Project GLOBEProject GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational BehaviorEffectiveness) is an international effort involving 170 researcherswho have gathered data from more than 17,000 managers in 62countries. The researchers hope to better equip global managersby identifying the relationship between cultural values andeffective leadership behaviors. Like Hofstede, the GLOBEresearchers identify power distance, uncertainty avoidance,gender differentiation (masculinity and femininity), andindividualism versus collectivism as important cultural dimensions.However, they extend Hofstede’s list by including the following.26In-Group CollectivismThis dimension describes the degree to which societal memberstake pride in their small groups, families, and organizations. In-group collectivism differs from Hofstede’s collectivism dimension,which describes maintaining harmony and cooperation throughoutsociety as a whole. Being a member of a family, a close group, oran employing organization is very important to members of in-group collectivist societies (Iran, India, China), and they have highexpectations of other group members. People living in countriesthat score low on this dimension, such as Denmark, Sweden, andNew Zealand, don’t have similar expectations of friends andfamily.AssertivenessAssertiveness is the extent to which a culture encouragesindividuals to be tough, confrontational, and competitive asopposed to modest and tender. Spain and the United States ratehigh on this dimension; Sweden and New Zealand rate low. Thosein highly assertive societies have a take-charge attitude and valuecompetition. They are not particularly sympathetic to the weak andless fortunate. Members of less assertive cultures place morevalue on empathy, loyalty, and solidarity.
Future OrientationThis is the extent to which a society fosters and reinforces suchfuture-oriented activities as planning and investing (Singapore,Switzerland, the Netherlands) rather than immediate gratification(Russia, Argentina, Poland).Performance OrientationThis is the degree to which a society encourages and rewardsgroup members for improving performance and demonstratingexcellence. In places such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and theUnited States, training and development are valued, and peopletake initiative. Citizens prefer the direct communication style andfeel a sense of urgency. In countries such as Russia, Italy, andArgentina, people put loyalty and belonging ahead ofperformance. They are uncomfortable with feedback andcompetition and place more weight on someone’s family andbackground than on performance.Humane OrientationHumane orientation is the extent to which a culture encouragesand honors people for being altruistic, caring, kind, fair, andgenerous. Support for the weak and vulnerable is particularly highin countries such as Malaysia and Ireland. People are usuallyfriendly and tolerant and may develop patronage and paternalisticrelationships with their leaders. Governments are more focusedon the overall good of society than on protecting property andprofits. In contrast, power and material possessions motivatepeople in the former West Germany, Spain, and France. Self-enhancement takes precedence. Individuals are to solve their ownproblems; children are expected to be independent.It is clear that differences on these values dimensions can causesome serious ethical conflicts. Those scoring high on in-groupcollectivism see no problem with hiring friends and familymembers even when more qualified candidates are available, afact that will trouble those who believe that members of their in-
groups should not expect preferential treatment. People orientedtoward the future will save and invest. They will condemn thosewho live in the moment and spend all they earn. Competition,direct communication, power, and personal advancement areapplauded in assertive, performance-oriented, less-humanegroups. These elements are undesirable to people who put morevalue on harmony, cooperation, family, and concern for others.Those living in humane societies emphasize concern for societyover property rights and profits. They are less likely to protectintellectual property like music and software. In contrast, thoseliving in assertive, performance-oriented cultures are tempted toengage in unethical activities in order to succeed. The businessesthey create are more likely to be focused on shareholders, profits,and results instead of on stakeholders and social responsibility.27Although there is plenty of evidence of ethical diversity in theGLOBE study, there are also signs of common ethical ground. As Inoted in Chapter 8, the GLOBE researchers discovered that manyof the characteristics associated with transformational leadership—motive arouser, foresight, encouraging, dynamic, motivational,trustworthy, positive, confidence builder, communicative—areadmired across cultures to varying degrees.28 Another group ofresearchers analyzed the GLOBE data to determine whetherthere are aspects of ethical leadership that are important foreffective leadership across cultures. Four attributes emerged,although the extent to which each is endorsed and how each isimplemented differs across cultures. Character and integrity(consistency, virtue) were rated as important. So were altruism,collective motivation (putting the interests of the group ahead ofpersonal interests), and encouraging and empowering (helpingfollowers feel competent).29 Taken together, these dimensionsdescribe positive, people-oriented leadership that respects therights and dignity of others. The fact that observers from manydifferent cultural backgrounds agree on the attributes of ethicalleadership suggests that there are common ethical standardsshared by all cultures. We’ll take a closer look at those standardslater in the chapter. (Turn to the Focus on Follower Ethics box forevidence that there are common components of ethicalfollowership.)
Focus on Followership Ethics Ethical Upward Influence AcrossCulturesInfluencing the boss is critical to success in every organization nomatter where it operates in the world, but University of Oklahomaprofessor David Ralston wondered how culture impacts the ethicsand effectiveness of subordinate influence tactics. To answer thatquestion, Professor Ralston and colleagues from other countriesasked respondents to rate the acceptability of a variety of upwardinfluence strategies in a series of studies. The investigatorsdiscovered similarities across cultures. Respondents from allsocieties surveyed rated organizationally beneficial influenceattempts (volunteering, working overtime) as more ethical than self-indulgent behaviors (blaming others, taking credit for others’ work).Destructive behaviors (spying, offering sexual favors) wereconsidered least ethical. “Soft” tactics—demonstrating competence,presenting a positive image—were preferred over “hard” tactics likecoercion and withholding information. (See Chapter 7 for an in-depthlook at compliance-gaining strategies.)The investigators also discovered cultural differences in upwardinfluence preferences. For example,– American and Dutch managers rate soft strategies as themost important way to exert positive influence and reject hardstrategies. German and Indian managers also favor softstrategies, though their preferences are not as strong.– Managers from Hong Kong and Mexico are more acceptingof hard tactics. They don’t think that soft strategies are aseffective as Americans and the Dutch do.– Canadian-Anglo managers are more likely to favororganizationally sanctioned behavior than Americans andCanadians of French background.– Self-serving behaviors are seen as more acceptable inAsian societies, such as Pakistan, that have traditional survivalvalues and a low level of economic development.– Younger Thai and U.S. managers and professionals aremore likely to use destructive influence tactics than their oldercolleagues.The findings of Ralston and his fellow researchers suggest that,when it comes to influencing leaders, there is both culturalconvergence and divergence. In general, soft tactics that benefit theorganization are most ethical and effective regardless of the culturalsetting. But, at the same time, expatriate followers need to adapttheir tactics to the situation. U.S. managers using soft tactics inMexico risk being seen as be seen as passive, for instance. Mexican
managers using strong tactics in the United States risk beingperceived as too aggressive. Canadian leaders may responddifferently to influence tactics depending on whether they are ofBritish or French background.SourcesEgri, C. P., Ralston, D. A., Murray, C. S., & Nicolson, J. D. (2000).Managers in the NAFTA countries: A cross-cultural comparison ofattitudes toward upward influence strategies. Journal of InternationalManagement, 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 atwork in Asia: An 11-society assessment. Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement, 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). Ethicalpreferences for influencing superiors: A 41-society study. Journal ofInternational 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 HongKong 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 ofupward 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 sixcultures from Europe, Asia and America. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 32, 728–735.
Moral Foundations TheoryNew York University moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt believesthat to understand ethical diversity, we first need to understandthe psychological systems or foundations of morality. Thesemental foundations, which are part of our genetic makeup, enablehumans to live together successfully in groups. Cultures shapehow these systems are used, emphasizing one or more valuesover the others. Haidt compares these moral intuitions to tastebuds. Nearly everyone is born with the same set of tastereceptors. But each culture develops its own cuisine, whichemphasizes different tastes.Haidt identifies five foundations for our moral intuitions:301. Care/Harm. All species are sensitive to suffering in their ownoffspring, but humans are also sensitive to suffering beyondthe family and can feel sympathy for outsiders. Becausegroups are attuned to cruelty and harm, they generallyapprove of those who prevent or alleviate suffering and makevirtues out of kindness and compassion. However, the otherfour moral foundations temper the amount of compassiondisplayed by individuals in different cultures.2. Fairness/Cheating. This foundation allows humans to benefitfrom cooperation without getting exploited by others.Reciprocity—paying back others—is essential for theformation of alliances between individuals who are not relatedto each other. Cheaters who take advantage of othersgenerate anger and contempt and are less likely to be chosenas partners in the future. All cultures have virtues related tojustice and fairness. Yet, while some societies value individualrights and equality, a great many more groups do not.3. Loyalty/Betrayal. Trusting fellow in-group members anddistrusting those who belong to other groups has beenessential for human survival. As a result, most cultures createvirtues out of patriotism, loyalty, and heroism, and somesocieties (Japan, for instance) put a high value on in-groupcohesion. Even when the society as a whole doesn’t
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 aswell as human groups. While primates rely on brute strengthto assert their dominance, people use such factors asprestige and deference. In many cultures, followers feelrespect, awe, and admiration for leaders and expect goodleaders to act like wise parents. Those who reject authorityare punished.5. Purity/Degradation. Only humans appear to feel disgust,which helps to protect the body against the transmission ofdisease through contact with corpses, feces, vomit, and otherpossible contaminants. Purity has a social dimension as well.For instance, disgust can be felt for outsiders, those withdeformities, or for those of lower social class, such as theuntouchables in India. Members of most cultural groupsdisapprove of those individuals who are contaminated by lust,gluttony, greed, and uncontrolled anger.Care and fairness are individualizing foundations because theyfocus on the protection of individuals and their rights. Loyalty,authority, and purity are binding foundations because they focuson protecting the group or community by promoting groupsolidarity, self-sacrifice, and respect for hierarchy. The UnitedStates and many other Western nations favor individualizingvalues, largely focusing on reducing harm and promotingautonomy. Residents of South Asia, East Asia, and SoutheastAsia are more concerned with the binding values of loyalty andsanctity than members of Western societies. Muslim culturesplace a high priority on purity, which is reflected in religiousblasphemy laws, the segregation of men and women, andseparation from infidels. (To determine which values are mostimportant to you, complete the Moral Foundations Questionnairein Self-Assessment 11.2.)Moral foundations can also explain the differences betweenliberals and conservatives in the United States. Contrastsbetween these political philosophies further illustrate how moralfoundations shape ethical attitudes. Individualizing values aremore important to liberals, who rate the morality of an action
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 thebest predictor of liberal and conservative positions on abortion, forexample. American liberals, who value autonomy, want topreserve the woman’s right to choose while conservatives want topreserve the sanctity of the fetus. Many conservatives opposeillegal immigration based on the conviction that the newcomersare dangerous (purity) and will subvert America (authority), whileliberals are pro-immigration based on compassion for the poor(harm) who may be mistreated (fairness). Conservativesdemonstrate 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 tomitigate climate change.31Haidt and his colleagues urge us to keep all five moral systems inmind when dealing with diverse groups. We need to realize thatalthough purity and authority may not be important to us, they areimportant to a great proportion of the world’s population. We mustacknowledge and address these concerns. Unless we are dealingwith a highly liberal Western audience, our ethical appeals will bemost effective if they speak to loyalty, authority, and purity inaddition to care and fairness. Recognizing that strangers havedifferent moral foundations is also an important first step to mutualunderstanding. The realization that others hold different centralmoral values reduces feelings of hostility in ethical conflicts. Suchhostility is dangerous because it can tempt us to deny others theirrights. Instead, we can work with those of different cultures toidentify the shared values that make us all human.32
Facing the ChallengesUnderstanding the relationship between cultural values andethical decision making by itself is not enough to meet the ethicalchallenges posed by globalization and cultural differences. Wealso 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-culturalsettings.
Overcoming Attitudinal ObstaclesPrejudice, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism are importantattitudinal obstacles to ethical behavior across cultures. Prejudiceis the prejudgment of out-group members based on priorexperiences and beliefs. (The Leadership Ethics at the Movies onthe website provides one example of prejudice in action.)Prejudice is universal, but the degree of prejudice varies fromperson to person, ranging from slight bias to extreme prejudicesuch as that displayed by racist skinheads. Negativeprejudgments can be dangerous because they producediscriminatory behavior. For instance, police in many urban areasof the United States believe that African Americans are more likelythan members of other groups to commit crimes. As aconsequence, officers are more likely to stop and question blackcitizens, particularly young men, and to use force if they show theslightest sign of resistance. This has resulted in the deaths ofunarmed 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 membersaccording to their perceived similarities while overlooking theirindividual differences. For example, one persistent stereotype isthat Asian Americans have strong technical skills but littlemanagerial aptitude. As a result, some organizations are eager tohire Asian Americans as engineers but are reluctant to put them inmanagerial roles. Because of perceptual biases, stereotypes areparticularly devastating to marginalized groups. The naturaltendency is to blame our failures on outside factors and toattribute our success to internal factors. The opposite is true whenwe evaluate the behavior of low-status groups. When we fallshort, we blame other people, bad luck, bad weather, and otherexternal 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 theirlaziness, low intelligence, or poor character that is to blame. Inother words, they are incompetent. When they succeed, we give
the credit to the help they get from others rather than to theirindividual skills and effort.33Ethnocentrism is the tendency to see the world from our culturalgroup’s point of view. From this vantage point, our customs andvalues become the standard by which the rest of the world isjudged. Our cultural ways seem natural; those of other groups fallshort. A certain degree of ethnocentrism is probably inevitable.34Ethnocentrism can help a group band together and survive in theface of outside threats. However, ethnocentrism is a significantbarrier to cross-cultural communication and problem solving. Highlevels of ethnocentrism can lead to the following problems:Inaccurate attributions about the behavior of those who differfrom us (we interpret their behavior from our point of view, nottheirs)Expressions of disparagement or animosity (ethnic slurs,belittling nicknames)Reduced contact with outsidersIndifference and insensitivity to the perspectives of membersof marginalized groupsPressure on other groups to conform to our cultural standardsJustification for war and violence as a means of expressingcultural dominanceExamples of ethnocentrism abound. For many years, the Bureauof Indian Affairs made assimilation its official policy, forcing NativeAmericans to send their children to reservation schools, wherethey were punished for speaking their tribal languages. In otherinstances, well-meaning people assume that their values andpractices are the only right ones. Many early missionaries equatedChristianity with Western lifestyles and required converts to dress,live, think, and worship like Europeans or North Americans. InAfghanistan, the Taliban uses harsh punishments to impose itsinterpretation of the Koran.Overcoming the barriers described here begins with addressingour attitudes. We can reduce our levels of negative prejudice,stereotyping, and ethnocentrism by committing ourselves tomindfulness and dignity and integrity.
In most routine encounters, we tend to operate on autopilot andperform our roles mechanically, without much reflection. Whenwe’re engaged in mindless interaction, we’re not likely tochallenge the ethnocentric assumption that ours is the only way tosolve problems. Mindfulness is the opposite of mindlessness.When we’re mindful, we pay close attention to our attitudes andbehaviors. Three psychological processes take place.35The first is openness to new categories. Being mindful makes usmore sensitive to differences. Instead of lumping people intobroad categories based on age, race, gender, or role, we makefiner distinctions within these classifications. We discover that notall student government officers, Japanese exchange students,retirees, and engineers are alike.The second psychological process involves openness to newinformation. Mindless communication closes us off to new data,and we fail to note the kinds of cultural differences describedearlier. We assume that others hold the same ethical values. Inmindful communication, we pick up new information as we closelymonitor our behavior along with the behavior of others.The third psychological process is recognizing the existence ofmore than one perspective. Mindlessness results in tunnel visionthat ignores potential solutions. Mindfulness, on the other hand,opens our eyes to other possibilities. For example, there can bemore than one way to make and implement ethical choices.Dignity and integrity also ought to characterize all of ourinteractions with people of other cultures. We maintain our owndignity and integrity by confronting others who engage inprejudicial comments or actions; we maintain the dignity of othersby respecting their views. Respect doesn’t mean that we have toagree with another’s moral stance. But when we disagree, weneed to respond in a civil, sensitive manner.By committing ourselves as leaders to mindful communication, thedignity of others, and personal integrity, we can reduceethnocentrism and prejudice in the group as a whole. Usingmorally inclusive language and disputing prejudiced statements,
for instance, improves ethical climate because followers will beless likely to attack other groups in our presence. However, if wedon’t speak out when followers disparage members of out-groups,the practice will continue. We’ll share some of the responsibility forcreating a hostile atmosphere.
Finding Common Moral GroundConfronted with a wide range of ethical values and standards, anumber of philosophers, business leaders, anthropologists, andothers opt for ethical relativism. In ethical relativism, there are nouniversal moral codes or standards. Each group or society isunique. Therefore, members of one culture can’t pass moraljudgment on members of another group.I’ll admit that, at first glance, ethical relativism is appealing. Itavoids the problem of ethnocentrism while simplifying thedecision-making process. We can concentrate on fitting in with theprevailing culture and never have to pass judgment. On closerexamination, however, the difficulties of ethical relativism becomeall too apparent.36 Without shared standards, there’s little hopethat the peoples of the world can work together to address globalproblems. There may be no basis on which to condemn the evil ofnotorious leaders who are popular in their own countries.Furthermore, the standard of cultural relativism obligates us tofollow (or at least not to protest against) abhorrent local practicessuch as the killing of brides by their in-laws in the rural villages ofPakistan. (Case Study 11.2 describes another widely condemnedcustom.) Without universal rights and wrongs, we have no basison which to contest such practices.Evidence of ethical common ground comes from universalstandards that have enabled members of the world community topunish crimes against humanity and to create internationalregulatory bodies. Responsible multinational corporations such asThe Body Shop, Levi Strauss, and Peets Coffee adhere to widelyheld moral principles as they conduct business in a variety ofcultural settings. In this section of the chapter, I’ll describe fourdifferent approaches to universal ethics: common morality,cosmopolitanism, the global ethic, and the Caux principles. As youread each description, look for commonalities. Then decide foryourself which approach or combination of approaches bestcaptures the foundational values of humankind. (See “For FurtherExploration, Challenge,” and Self-Assessment Exercise 11.7.)
Common MoralityFormer Dartmouth philosophy professor Bernard Gert believedthat we can identify the moral elements common to all people.37These components arise out of the human experience, particularlythe universal recognition that people are vulnerable and can beharmed by others. This common morality forms a system thatrational people intuitively support because it both protects themand the people they care about. Immoral actions have negativeconsequences, causing suffering in the form of pain, loss offreedom and pleasure, disability, and death. Moral rules aredesigned to lessen these harms.Citizens refer to universal principles when defending their choices.They frequently break these guidelines but, when they do, theymust provide justification for their actions. However, sharing acommon morality doesn’t eliminate disagreement about ethicalissues. “Although all rational people will agree on the answers tomost moral questions,” said Gert, “they need not agree on theanswers to all of them.”38 Disagreements center, first of all, onwhom is protected by the moral code. Some ethicists believe thatanimals deserve the same moral protections as people, forinstance. Second, decision makers also disagree about how torank the relative worth of harms and benefits. For example,legislators differ over whether the benefit of increased nationalsecurity is worth the loss of privacy and freedom of movement thatresults from stricter security measures. Third, estimates of theharmful and beneficial consequences of a violation vary betweendecision makers. Take the case of lying to a friend to protect heror his feelings. Some would argue that the costs of this deceptionare far outweighed by the benefit to the friend. Others would saythat lying in this instance hurts the friend by providing inaccuratefeedback and reflects poor character on the part of the liar. Finally,there can be conflict over whether or not an action, such ashonoring a patient’s request to be taken off of life support, isimmoral and needs justification.Gert argued that the following 10 rules account for all types ofactions that are either forbidden or required. As noted above,every intentional violation of one of these rules demands that the
violator provide a reason for his or action. Common justificationsinclude the need to kill in war, to lie to protect the organization, toimprison criminals to protect society, to inflict pain to punishimmoral behavior, and to break the law to serve a higher cause.The first five rules described below outlaw basic harms and thelast five prohibit actions that could cause these harms.Rule 1: “Do not kill.” This guideline prevents the most seriousof 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 ispossible to disable someone physically (amputations,blinding), mentally (fostering addictions, creating phobias),and volitionally (restricting movement).Rule 4: “Do not deprive of freedom.” This rule extendsbeyond physical imprisonment. It also includes jobdiscrimination, which denies employment opportunities tocertain groups, and stealing, which limits the options ofvictims. In addition, the dictum addresses the “freedom frombeing acted upon.” Individuals have the right to avoidunwanted sexual touching and invasions of privacy, forinstance.Rule 5: “Do not deprive of pleasure.” Pleasure takes a varietyof forms, such as sleep, sexual satisfaction, and beauty.Depriving others of their rest, sexual enjoyment (throughfemale circumcision, for example), or beauty (by destroyingartworks 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 neededinformation, spreading false rumors, and fostering faultyassumptions.Rule 7: “Keep your promises.” This rule covers both formalpromises like labor contracts as well as informal promisesmade to other individuals. Often, there are legalconsequences for violating formal promises, such as when acompany breaks the terms of a contract with a vendor.Rule 8: “Do not cheat.” Cheating involves acting unfairly in away that gives the cheater an advantage. Common examplesof cheating include plagiarizing on academic papers, bribing a
foreign official to get a building contract, tinkering with ascale, and cheating on auto emissions tests.Rule 9: “Obey the law.” With some exceptions (i.e.,segregation statutes), laws generally keep society functioningsmoothly. They stop violations of the first five rules, whichprevent harm.Rule 10. “Do your duty.” This rule covers those who playparticular roles in society—doctors, lawyers, financialadvisors, professors. They must carry out the dutiesassociated with their positions (treating the sick, representingclients, providing objective financial advice, presenting coursecontent) or face condemnation. Rule 10 also applies to dutiesthat arise from particular situations. We expect individuals tohelp others in need if they are in close proximity and can doso.CosmopolitanismCosmopolitans 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. Thisapproach acts as an “ethics of strangers” in a world where weincreasingly interact with those outside our cultural group.39Cosmopolitanism has a long history in Western philosophy,stretching back to the ancient Greco-Roman Stoic philosophers,such as Diogenes, Cicero, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius, whosaw the world as one united city made up of individuals who wererelated to one another. Immanuel Kant proposed the creation ofan international legal authority to regulate relations betweennations. He encouraged hospitality toward foreigners. Modernmoral cosmopolitanism is based on three elements. The first isindividualism. According to ethicist Thomas Pogge, “The ultimateunits 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. Weshould be equally concerned about every human being, no matterwho they are and where they live. The third component isgenerality, the belief that everyone in the world should make
persons their primary concern, extending their obligations to thoseoutside their immediate group.Driven by these three convictions, cosmopolitans take ahumanistic or altruistic approach to globalization, believing thatevery human being has dignity and value, regardless of theirlocation, status, or background. They have a strong sense ofglobal justice and work to ensure human rights. Their duty to care(see Chapter 5) extends to the “distant needy”—the lessprivileged who are often found in the world’s developing nations.Cosmopolitans act on that concern by assisting others around theworld. They argue that business leaders have a moral duty to actas “agents of world benefit.” They encourage corporate leaders tojoin government leaders in promoting human rights, alleviatingpoverty and hunger; and fighting HIV/AIDS, malaria and otherdiseases.41
A Global EthicAs we’ve seen, religion accounts for significant cultural differencesand ethical conflicts. Nevertheless, members of different faithsalso hold common values, according to the World Parliament ofReligions. Led by Swiss theologian Hans Kung, 6,500representatives from a wide range of religious traditions met andreached agreement on a global ethic.42 Delegates agreed onthree universal principles. First, every person must be treatedhumanely regardless of language, skin color, mental ability,political beliefs, or national or social origin. Every person andgroup, no matter how powerful, must respect the dignity of others.Second, “what you wish done to yourself, do to others” (or theGolden Rule). Third, seek peace and justice. These foundationalprinciples, in turn, lead to the following ethical directives orimperatives:Commitment to a culture of nonviolence and respect for alllifeCommitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economicorder (do not steal, deal fairly and honestly with others)Commitment to a culture of tolerance and truthfulnessCommitment to a culture of equal rights and partnershipbetween men and women (avoid immorality, respect and lovemembers of both genders)United Nations Declaration of Human RightsFollowing World War II, a conflict fought in large part to protecthuman freedoms, the United Nations adopted the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights. According to this document, humanrights are granted to individuals based solely on their status aspersons or, to put it another way, “We are all entitled to humanrights simply on the basis that we are human beings.”43 Theserights protect the inherent dignity of every person regardless ofrace, ethnic background, place of residence, age, income,physical ability, or social status. Some of the key rights spelled outin the Universal Declaration include the following:44
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slaveryand 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 movementand residence.Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,conscience, and religion.Article 25. Everyone has the right to a standard of livingadequate 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 toencourage multinational corporations to honor human rights, laborrights, and the environment while at the same time fightingcorruption. The Compact has more than 16,000 business andnonbusiness members from more than 130 countries. Businessparticipants undergo an annual certification process to measurehow well they are adhering to 10 universal principles (e.g.,avoiding human rights abuse, eliminating child labor, workingagainst extortion and bribery). They work with nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs) and other groups to tackle societal andenvironmental problems.45The Caux PrinciplesThe Caux Round Table is made up of business executives fromthe United States, Japan, and Europe who meet periodically inCaux, Switzerland. Round Table members hope to set a worldstandard by which to judge business behavior. Their principles arebased on twin ethical ideals. The first is the Japanese concept ofkyosei, which refers to living and working together for the commongood. The second is the Western notion of human dignity, thesacredness and value of each person as an end rather than as ameans to someone else’s end.46
Principle 1. The responsibilities of corporations: Beyondshareholders toward stakeholders. Corporations have aresponsibility to improve the lives of everyone they come incontact with, starting with employees, shareholders, andsuppliers 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. Companiesin foreign countries should not only create jobs and wealthbut also foster better social conditions—education, welfare,and human rights. Corporations have an obligation to enrichthe world community through innovation, the wise use ofresources, and fair competition.Principle 3. Corporate behavior: Beyond the letter of lawtoward a spirit of trust. Businesses ought to promote honesty,transparency, integrity, and keeping promises. Thesebehaviors make it easier to conduct international businessand to support a global economy.Principle 4. Respect for rules: Beyond trade friction towardcooperation. Leaders of international firms must respect bothinternational and local laws in order to reduce trade wars andto promote the free flow of goods and services.Principle 5. Support for multilateral trade: Beyond isolationtoward world community. Firms should support internationaltrading systems and agreements and eliminate domesticmeasures that undermine free trade.Principle 6. Respect for the environment: Beyond protectiontoward enhancement. A corporation ought to protect and, ifpossible, improve the physical environment throughsustainable development and cutting back on the wastefuluse of natural resources.Principle 7. Avoidance of illicit operations: Beyond profittoward peace. Global business leaders must ensure that theirorganizations aren’t involved in such forbidden activities asbribery, money laundering, support of terrorism, drugtrafficking, and organized crime.After spelling out general principles, the Caux accord applies themto important stakeholder groups. Leaders following thesestandards hope to (a) treat customers and employees with dignity,
(b) honor the trust of investors, (c) create relationships withsuppliers based on mutual trust, (d) engage in just behavior withcompetitors, and (e) work for reform and human rights in hostcommunities. The Caux Round Table has also developedprinciples to guide NGOs and governments. Serving the publicgood is critical for these organizations. They need to operatetransparently, practice open governance and be accountable.47
Making Ethical Choices in Culturally DiverseSettingsThe universal principles described above play an important rolewhen we are faced with making ethical decisions involving morethan one culture. According to business ethicists ThomasDonaldson and Thomas Dunfee, we need to hold fast to globalprinciples while we take local values into account.48 Theirintegrative social contracts theory (ISCT) provides one set ofguidelines for balancing respect for ethical diversity withadherence to universal ethical standards.ISCT is based on the idea of social contracts—agreements thatspell out the duties of institutions, communities, and societies. Thetheory is integrative because it incorporates two kinds ofcontracts: macrosocial and microsocial. Macrosocial contracts arebroader and lay the foundation for how people interact with oneanother. Examples of ideal contracts include the requirement thatthe government protect its citizens and the belief that employersshould respect the rights of workers. Microsocial contracts governthe relationships between the members of specific groups—localtowns, regions, nations, companies, professions. These contractsare revealed by the norms of the group. For example, those whoparticipate in auctions must adhere to the norms of the auctioncommunity, which include revealing whether participants have themeans to back up their bids and not interfering with others whoare making bids. Community contracts are considered authenticor binding if members of the group have a voice in the creation ofthe norms, if members can exit the group if they disagree withprevailing norms, and if the norms are widely recognized andpracticed by group members. Under these standards, prohibitionsagainst free speech in countries ruled by repressive regimeswould not be authentic because citizens had no say in creatingthese rules and can’t leave the community if they want to do so.Local communities have a great deal of latitude or moral freespace to create their own rules, and these norms should berespected whenever possible. An Indonesian manager
participating in an Australian real estate auction should obeyAustralian auction norms, for instance, and nations have the rightto publish the tax returns of their citizens (see Chapter 5).However, universal principles such as those described in theprevious section (what Donaldson and Dunfee call hypernorms)take priority when global principles clash with communitystandards. Exploitation of workers through excessive hours, lowpay, imprisonment, and sexual abuse might be the norm in somedeveloping countries. But such practices should be rejectedbecause they violate hypernorms that urge us to respect thedignity 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. (Dothey allow voice and exit by members?)3. Identify authentic norms (those that are widely known andshared).4. Determine whether the norms are legitimate (do not conflictwith hypernorms).5. Resolve any conflicts between legitimate norms. (If both setsof norms do not conflict with universal standards, go with theoption that is dominant—the one accepted by the largercommunity.)University of Louisiana professors J. Brooke Hamilton, StephenKnouse, and Vanessa Hill (HKH) offer another set of guidelines formaking choices in ethically diverse contexts. They provide sixquestions specifically designed to help managers at multinationalenterprises (MNEs) make moral choices when corporate valuesconflict with business practices in the host country.49 Thequestions described below, which make up the HKH model, aredesigned to serve as a discussion/decision guide, not as a rigidset of steps. Managers don’t have to come to a definite answer toone question before moving to another. They may return to earlierquestions later and answer them differently.1. What is the Questionable Practice (QP) in this situation?
In the initial stage of the HKH decision-making format,managers determine that the norms of the MNE clashwith the norms of the local culture. At this point, thedisparity is labeled as questionable because it mayinvolve cultural differences rather than ethical issues.The key is to come to a clear understanding of the natureof 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 EuropeanUnion prohibitions against bribery) or the host country, itshould be discontinued.3. Is the QP simply a cultural difference, or is it also a potentialethics problem?A QP reflects a cultural difference if it “does not causeharm and appears to be that culture’s legitimate way ofachieving some worthwhile business or social outcome.”50 It rises to the level of a potential ethical issue if itcreates harm or violates a universal global principle liketreating people with respect and practicing the GoldenRule.4. Does the QP violate the firm’s core values or code of conduct,an industry-wide or international code to which the firmsubscribes, or a firmly established hypernorm?How managers answer this question will be determinedby whether they believe that their companies are drivensolely by the desire to comply with the law or if theybelieve their firms are committed to ethical integrityinstead (see Chapter 10). Compliance-driven firms aremore likely to conform to local rules because they areprimarily interested in following the law; survival is thecore value. Integrity-driven firms have a higher standard.Managers at these firms judge local practices based onwhether they conform to important corporate values(customer service, treating employees fairly) and suchinternational guidelines as the Caux Principles and theGlobal Compact.5. Does the firm have leverage (something of value to offer) inthe host country that allows the firm to follow its own practicesrather than the QP?
Only managers at integrity-driven companies will ask thisquestion, as managers at compliance-oriented firms willgo along with local practices. If the firm can offersignificant benefits like jobs, cash, training, and newtechnology, it can better resist the pressure to engage inunethical activity and can negotiate a way to adapt tolocal customs without violating its core values. Forinstance, a large Western oil firm that values equaltreatment of both genders may be able to leverage itspower in a traditionalist Middle Eastern country topromote women to positions of organizational authority.6. Will market practices in the host country improve if the firmfollows its own practices rather than the QP in the hostcountry marketplace?A company without leverage will have to conform tocustoms of the home country or exit the market.However, if the firm has such leverage, it has anobligation to try to improve conditions in the countries inwhich it operates. Modeling respect for individuals,honest business practices, and concern for theenvironment can encourage local firms and other MNEsto do the same and result in better living and workingconditions and a healthier economy.Communication expert Stella Ting-Toomey argues that we need toanalyze multiple levels—interpersonal, community, organizational,societal—when faced with cross-cultural ethical dilemmas. Thisrequires adopting a metaethics lens, a way of thinking focused onsystematically gathering data and “taking the total person, thetotal situation, and the total cultural system into account.”51 Usinga metaethics lens means developing creative solutions rather thanlimiting our decision to one of two options. This process deepensour understanding of both our own value system and the culturalperspective of the other party. Ting-Toomey offers the questions inBox 11.1 as guidelines for developing solutions in multiculturalsettings. You can practice your ability to make cross-culturalethical choices by applying the steps of the ISCT and HKHmodels and the metaethics guidelines to the diversity scenarios inCase Study 11.3.
Box 11.1 Metaethics Guidelines1. Who or which group perpetuates this practice within this cultureand with what reasons?2. Who or which group resists this practice and with whatreasons? Who is benefiting? Who is suffering—voluntarily orinvoluntarily?3. Does the practice cause unjustifiable suffering to an individualor a selected group of individuals at the pleasure of anothergroup?4. What is my role and what is my “voice” in this ethical dilemma?5. Should I condemn/reject this practice publicly and withdrawfrom the cultural scene?6. Should I go along and find a solution that reconciles culturaldifferences?7. Can I visualize alterative solutions or creative outcomes thatcan serve to honor cultural traditions and at the same time getrid 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 viagrassroots movement efforts?10. What systematic changes in the culture are needed for thecreative 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 ApplicationsAcknowledging the dark side of globalization reduces thelikelihood of ethical abuse on the world stage. As a leader in aglobal environment, you must take additional care to avoidcasting shadows of power, privilege, mismanaged information,inconsistency, misplaced and broken loyalties, andirresponsibility.Cultural differences make ethical decisions more difficult.Nevertheless, resist the temptation to revert to your old ways ofthinking or to blindly follow local customs. Try instead to expandyour capacity to act ethically in multicultural situations.Understanding the relationship between cultural differences andethical values can help you predict how members of anothergroup will respond to moral questions.
Four popular cultural value classification systems are (1) theWorld Values Survey (survival vs. self-expression, traditional vs.secular-rational); (2) Hofstede’s programmed values (powerdistance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versusfemininity, uncertainty avoidance); (3) the GLOBE culturaldimensions, which include Hofstede’s categories along with in-group collectivism, assertiveness, future orientation,performance orientation, and humane orientation; and (4) moralfoundations theory (care/harm, fairness/cheating,loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, purity/degradation). Bealert to the ethical blind spots created by your cultural values.Prejudice, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism are barriers todiversity and lead to moral abuses. You can avoid castingshadows if you commit yourself to mindfulness and humandignity 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 toprotect both ourselves and those we care about.Cosmopolitanism acts as an ethics of strangers thatencourages us to see ourselves as citizens of the world. Aglobal ethic is based on treating people humanely, following theGolden Rule, and seeking peace and justice. The UnitedNations Declaration of Human Rights establishes that all peopleregardless of location are granted certain rights by virtue ofbeing human. The Caux principles emphasize working togetherfor the common good and human dignity.To make ethical decisions in cross-cultural settings, take bothlocal values and global principles into account. Followcommunity norms except when they conflict with universalmoral standards. As a business leader, make the most of yourcompany’s leverage in another country to improve localconditions. Adopt a metaethics lens which takes a multilayerapproach to developing creative solutions.For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment1. Take Self-Assessment 11.1. How individualistic or collectivisticare you and why? How does your orientation shape yourbehavior and ethical decision making?2. Complete Self-Assessment 11.2. How do your core valuesinfluence your perspective on ethical issues? (Supplyexamples.) How you can use this information to reach a
common understanding with others of different political orcultural backgrounds? Write up your reflections.3. Form groups and debate the following proposition:Globalization has done more harm than good. As analternative, discuss ways to reduce the costs of globalization.4. Pair off and brainstorm a list of the advantages anddisadvantages of ethical diversity. What conclusions do youdraw from your list?5. Using the Internet, compare press coverage of an internationalethical issue from a variety of countries. How does thecoverage differ and why? Write up your findings.6. Rate yourself on one of the cultural classification systemsdescribed in this chapter. Create a value profile of yourcommunity, organization, or university. How well do you fit in?7. Write a response to the following: Is there a common moralitythat peoples of all nations can share? Which of the globalapproaches described in the chapter best reflects these sharedstandards and values? If you were to create your owndeclaration of global ethics, what would you put on it?8. In a group, apply one of the formats for making a cross-culturalethical decision to a scenario in Case Study 11.3. Record yourresponses to each step of the format, as well as your finaldecision, on a board, post up sheet, or on a PowerPoint slide.Report out to the rest of class. As an alternative, apply one ofthe universal standards to reach a decision.Student Study SiteVisit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGEjournal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.
Case Study 11.1Africa: The Second Chinese Continent?China is Africa’s new patron. By 2025, the Chinese will have invested atrillion 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 thenation’s capital to the Indian ocean, for example, as well as a majorhighway across Algeria and a new bridge in Angola. It has plans toconvert a small Tanzanian coastal town into a mega-port and economiczone. Chinese investors are underwriting the development of Egypt’s newcapital.Both sides benefit from China’s partnership with Africa. Poor countries(which find it hard to borrow from Western sources) get an economicboost from highways, rail lines, dams and other projects that hire localworkers 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 technologytransfer and improving the skills and managerial experience of Africans.China benefits by securing access to natural resources (metals, oils) andagricultural commodities. China’s investment creates business forChinese companies who manage the construction projects as well asemployment opportunities for Chinese workers. African nations alsosupport 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 onthe continent. Some accuse China of being modern-day colonialists.According to Forbes columnist Panos Mourdoukoutas,The reason Chinese corporations are in Africa is simple; toexploit the people and take their resources. It’s the same thingEuropean colonists did during mercantile times, except worse.The Chinese corporations are trying to turn Africa into anotherChinese continent. They are squeezing Africa for everything it isworth.1Others worry that poor African nations will be unable to pay back Chineseloans, many of which were secretly negotiated with corrupt governments.If they are unable to repay, countries may be forced to make concessions.
Sri Lanka, for example, granted China a 99-year lease to one of its portsafter it couldn’t meet its debt obligations.Fears of Chinese “neo-colonialism” are fanned by racism anddiscrimination. Kenyans have been particularly vocal about being treatedas second-class citizens in their own country. According to one Kenyanoverseeing an office park housing several Chinese companies, “They arethe ones with the capital, but as much as we want their money, we don’twant them to treat us like we are not human in our own country.”2 Kenyanauthorities closed a Chinese restaurant after it banned blacks after 5 p.m.A manager at a Chinese motorcycle company was deported after callingKenyans, including president Uhuru Kenyatta, “monkeys.” “I don’t likehere, like monkey people,” he said on a video posted on Twitter. “I don’tlike talk with them, it smells bad, and poor and foolish, and black.”3(Company officials condemned his comments and forced him toapologize.) Chinese expatriates keep largely to themselves, livingseparately from their African hosts and traveling together to work sites.Press reports cite examples of blacks-only office bathrooms in Chinesecompany headquarters in Kenya and of Kenyans being the targets ofdemeaning treatment. In one case, a Chinese supervisor slapped herKenyan colleague. In another, a Chinese manager ordered Kenyanworkers to unplug a urinal full of cigarette butts even though only Chineseemployees smoked indoors. The most visible Chinese funded project, theNairobi to Mombasa railroad, has been a lightning rod for complaints.Kenyans point out that only Chinese drivers get to operate the trains andhold most of the skilled positions. Kenyan railroad employees get paidless than their Chinese counterparts and have also been the targets ofcomments 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 trackof colonialism of other countries or allow the re-emergence of colonialismin Africa.”4 China’s Kenyan ambassador declared, “There is no debt trapwith Africa.”5 As for charges of racism, an embassy official claimed thatChinese nationals are encouraged to make “positive contributions” toChina–Kenya relations.
Discussion Probes1. What global shadows are Chinese leaders casting (or are in dangerof casting) in Africa?2. Who benefits most from China’s investment in Africa? Or is this anequal partnership?3. Do you think China is acting like a new colonial power, turning Africainto a second Chinese continent?4. What steps can the Chinese take to reduce discrimination and biasagainst Africans?5. What steps can the Africans take to prevent being treated assecond-class citizens by the Chinese?
Notes1. 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 callingKenya’s president a “monkey.” Agence France-Presse.4. Wu, Y., & Bai, Z. (2017, March 21). Plunder or mutual gain? On theever-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 Kenyasparks debt-trap fears. NPR.
SourcesBurgman, P. R., Jr. (2015, January 29). China: Embracing Africa, but notAfricans. The Diplomat.Okoth, J. (2018, October 12). Kenya: China, Kenya relations and thequestion 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.
Case Study 11.2Female Circumcision Comes to AmericaFew cultural traditions generate as much revulsion as female genitalmutilation (FGM). Also referred to as female cutting or femalecircumcision, FGM can range from minor cutting and scraping of thefemale genitals to their removal. The practice is most common in Africa,the Middle East, and south Asia. An estimated 200 million women haveundergone FGM, with the number expected to increase significantly in thenext few years due to population growth. Critics call the procedure abarbaric, horrible crime against girls. FGM often causes emotional andphysical trauma in its young victims while reducing the sexual pleasurewomen experience over the course of their lifetimes. More invasiveprocedures can cause complications during pregnancy and birth. Anumber of women who underwent the procedure as young girls aredescribing 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, thenhow are you going to expose it and bring awareness?”1 The UnitedNations and World Health Organization describe FGM as a violation ofhuman rights that produces no health benefits.While much of the world condemns FGM, other segments vehementlydefend it. Defenders claim that female circumcision is an integral part oftheir religious and cultural tradition, highlighting its importance inmaintaining sexual purity. They compare the procedure to malecircumcision and believe that it improves feminine hygiene. Smaller cuts,supporters assert, don’t harm the long-term health of girls and youngwomen. Attempts to ban the practice can provoke a strong response fromadvocates. For example, members of a British FGM community speakingout against the procedure in a documentary received death threats onsocial media.A Michigan court case alerted Americans to the fact that femalecircumcision is not just practiced overseas but also takes place in theUnited States. Prosecutors charged eight members of the Dawoodi Bohrasect in Michigan with violating a 1996 federal statute banning FGM. TheDawoodi Bohras are a Muslim group, numbering 1.2 million, based inwestern India. Their version of FGM, called “khatna,” involves cutting orscraping of the genital area as an act of religious purity designed toprevent sexual promiscuity. In the Michigan case, two mothers fromMinnesota brought their 7-year-old daughters to a clinic in Livonia,Michigan, where a physician performed the procedure. In court, lawyersfor the Bohras argued that khatna was a protected religious practice and
that it was not mutilation but only a “ritual nick.” They also challenged theconstitutionality of the federal law, which is based on Congressionalauthority to regulate interstate commerce. For their part, prosecutorsargued that Congress had the authority to ban FGM and to enforceinternational treaties that outlaw female circumcision.The judge in the Michigan case sided with the Bohras. He decried FGMas “despicable” but ruled that Congress did not have the power toregulate FGM based on its jurisdiction over interstate commerce. Instead,he declared that FGM is a “local criminal activity” that should be regulatedby the states.FGM opponents were shocked by the ruling. They note that, in theMichigan case, mothers traveled from one of the 27 states that ban thepractice to one of the 23 that haven’t. Unless the federal governmentpasses a new law that passes court tests or all states ban FGM, womenwill continue to take their daughters and granddaughters across statelines to undergo circumcision. Opponents also worry that the decisionmight encourage further mutilation worldwide, particularly since the UnitedStates 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 dothis? The U.S. is looked to as a leader, so this could definitelyhave repercussions globally.2Some Bohra leaders urge their congregations to obey local laws.However, after three Australian Bohras were convicted of cutting, thegroup’s highest leader gave a speech declaring that followers shouldcontinue their customs despite Western opposition. Bohras living in theWest are likely to circumcise girls until he says otherwise. A Canadianchild protection lawyer who left the sect described the pressure to practicekhatna this way: “It’s so ingrained in culture. They unquestionably do it tobe part of the community. If you openly declare you won’t do it, thebacklash is considerable and many just won’t do business with you.”3 AndBohras aren’t the only immigrant group to practice female circumcision.Public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Preventionbelieve that over a half million women and girls were at risk for theprocedure in the United States in 2012. They expected this number to riseas immigrants from FGM practicing countries come to the United States.
Discussion Probes1. Why do you think the practice of FGM is so hard to eliminate?2. Can you think of other harmful cultural practices that persistbecause of tradition?3. Do laws banning female circumcision violate religious freedom?4. What, if any, other human rights are more important than religiousfreedom?5. How do you decide when a different cultural practice isunacceptable? On what do you base your decision?6. Does your state have a law against FGM? What would it take topass such legislation?
Notes1. Belluck, P. (2017, June 10). Michigan case adds U.S. dimension todebate on genital mutilation. The New York Times.2. Belluck, P. (2018, November 22). Judge says federal ban on femalegenital mutilation is unconstitutional. The New York Times, p. A20.3. Baweja, H. (2016, February 29). India’s dark secret: Female genitalmutilation. Hindustan Times.
SourcesAssociated Press. (2018, November 23). Shock after ban on genitalmutilation ruled unconstitutional. New York Post.Baldas, T. (2018, November 20). Judge dismisses female genitalmutilation charges in historic case. Detroit Free Press.Ceuvas, M. (2017, April 24). Michigan doctors charged in first federalgenital mutilation case in US. CNN.Davis, A. (2013, November 14). “I hope you die painfully”: Vile abuseaimed 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 HealthReports, 131, 1–8.Johari, A. (2017, May 19). Why do Dawoodi Bohras practice khatna, orfemale genital cutting? Sahiyo.Meizler, E. (2018, November 21). Federal judge rules U.S. ban on femalegenital mutilation is unconstitutional. Time.Muneeza, N. (2016, August 3). Dawoodi Bohra Muslim sect in Mumbaiallows female circumcision. IndiaWest.Rautray, S. (2018, July 18). Ban female circumcision, centre tells ApexCourt. The Economic Times (India).
Case Study 11.3Ethical Diversity Scenarios
Scenario A: Containing the EpidemicYou are an international infectious disease expert called in to head a teambattling a deadly flu outbreak in a developing country. The disease,named Bat Flu because it originated in fruit bats before being transmittedto humans, produces a high fever and leads to respiratory failure. Deathrates range from 25% to 50%. There is currently no cure though you andyour 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 bestcontained by isolating victims from their friends and family andquarantining areas where they live. At this point, the outbreak is largelylimited to a cluster of rural villages and one of the poor neighborhoods inthe capital city. You recognize that quarantining these areas will mean thatthe poorest citizens in this, an impoverished region of the world, will beunable to get to their jobs, purchase or sell food at the local market, visitrelatives, and so on. Banning all public gatherings is an additionalprecaution that can halt the spread of the disease. However, forbiddingfunerals would violate local cultural traditions that call for elaborate publicburial ceremonies to ensure that the dead will be united with theirancestors.In order to contain the Bat Flu outbreak, will you urge the nationalgovernment to isolate victims, impose quarantines, and ban publicgatherings?
Scenario B: Trouble at the InternationalBranch CampusYou are the president of a well-known public university in the UnitedStates. Several years ago, you established a branch campus in a wealthyMiddle Eastern country with significant financial support from that nation’sroyal family. Young people in this country are anxious to earn a Western-style education (the world’s “gold standard”), which has provided yourschool with an additional revenue stream. Your domestic students get atrue global experience by living and studying abroad and the arrangementraises the profile of the college. However, opening this campus wascontroversial. Critics and some supporters of the project were troubled bythe ethics of associating your institution, which values academic freedomand free speech, with a repressive regime that imprisons and torturesdissidents and enforces Islamic law. (You had concerns as well.)Opponents also objected to the treatment of contract laborersconstructing and maintaining the campus buildings. Many come from Asiaand often work and live under brutal conditions. Sometimes they pay highrecruitment fees to get their jobs, don’t receive their wages, and arebeaten and deported when they complain. To deal with these ethicalconcerns, you received assurance from the nation’s rulers that the branchcampus would operate in a “free zone” where strict censorship ruleswould be suspended and academic freedom protected. The monarchyalso agreed to your demand that working conditions meet youruniversity’s labor standards.Recent events have put the status of these agreements in doubt. Thejournalism and Middle Eastern studies departments voted to discontinuetheir programs at the branch campus after faculty were denied entry visasbecause they criticized the monarchy or were Shia Moslems. (This nationis overwhelmingly Sunni Moslem.) A report found that, although there wasprogress on labor rights, one third of those who built or currently operatethe campus had their passports confiscated and did not receivereimbursement for their recruitment fees. Student activists on campus andhuman rights groups are protesting these labor violations.What action will you take in light of these recent developments?SourcesKaminer, A., & O’Driscoll, S. (2014, May 18). Workers at NYU’s AbuDhabi site faced harsh conditions. The New York Times.Schlanger, Z. (2015, January 19). New York University: A case study inwhat not to do. NYTimes.com
Reichman, H. (2017, November 5). NYU department ends ties with NYUAbu Dhabi. Academe Blog; Forced labor at NYU Abu Dhabi. Retrievedfrom https://www.forcedlaboratnyuad.org/Hayhurst, K. (2018, August 25). Risk of forced labor at Abu Dhabiremains, contradicting NYU. Washington Square News.
Scenario C: Petty Theft PolicyYou are a consultant hired by a large North American company to help itdevise a new policy for handling criminal violations in its foreignoperations. In the past, the firm reported crimes to local police, believing itwas best to let local officials handle theft and other violations rather thanto impose a system of justice from the home office. However, the firm isrethinking its procedures after a recent case of petty theft in Asia. Thecountry’s North American managing director told police that shesuspected an employee was stealing small amounts of company propertyof minimal value. Local law enforcement officers arrested the employeeand took him to the police station where he was interrogated using localprocedures. The worker confessed. The police then took the employeeoutside and shot him dead. The country manager was devastated by thisturn of events.What changes would you suggest in how the company handles criminalviolations in other cultures? Who should be involved in developing andimplementing the new policy?Source: Adapted from Adler. N., & Gundersen, A. (2008). Internationaldimensions of organizational behavior (5th ed.) Mason, OH:Thomson/Southwest, p. 150. Used by permission.
Scenario D: Reducing the WorkloadYou manage overseas manufacturing for a European technology firm.Your company wants to increase its share of the smartphone market. Todo so, your phone will need to be significantly cheaper than iPhones andother current devices. Reducing manufacturing costs is key to keeping thecost of your phone low. There have been press reports of workers beingdriven to suicide at plants operated by subcontractors in Viet Nam and thePhilippines that assemble your product. You investigate and find that payand working conditions, while certainly well below European standards,are comparable to other manufacturing facilities in these areas. The majorproblem is overwork, as employees labor 12 hour days for weeks on endto meet their quotas. Profit margins for your subcontractors are alreadyrazor thin. Requiring them to reduce working hours and production quotasmight put some of them out of business, leaving current workersunemployed and forcing your firm into more costly contracts with othersuppliers. Your company could absorb some of the additional costs ofreduced workloads by shrinking its profit margins or by raising the price ofits phones. In the meantime, public pressure is building on your companyto reduce work requirements at these facilities.How will you respond to demands that your company reduce the workloadin its overseas assembly plants?
Scenario E: The Exiled PresidentYou are a diplomat in a small Central American country. For years, yourhome government has pushed for the development of stable democraciesin Central America, hoping to end the military coups that once werecommon in the region. The latest democratically elected president in yourhost state came to office with a commitment to the poor. Within weeks ofassuming the presidency, he threatened to nationalize the local holdingsof several of your home nation’s multinational corporations. Hecondemned your government, and those of several other Westerncountries, for engaging in “capitalist imperialism.” The president’s leftistpolicies angered local business interests, and they soon drove him intoexile with the help of the army. Military officers installed a new presidentwho promised to be friendlier toward your nation. However, the newpresident has yet to set a timeline for holding elections. In the meantime,the exiled president, who still enjoys widespread support among the poorand working classes, wants to return to office. He has asked for help fromthe international community.Would you recommend that your government support the deposedpresident’s efforts to return to office? If so, what steps should it take?SELF-ASSESSMENT 11.1 Individualism/Collectivism ScaleInstructions: This questionnaire will help you assess yourindividualistic and collectivistic tendencies. Respond by indicating thedegree to which the values reflected in each phrase are important toyou: 1 = opposed to my values, 2 = not important to me, 3 =somewhat important to me, 4 = important to me, or 5 = veryimportant to me.______ 1. Obtaining pleasure or sensuous gratification______ 2. Preserving the welfare of others______ 3. Being successful by demonstrating my individualcompetency______ 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 Iidentify______ 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
______ 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 othersScoring: To find your individualism score, add your responses to theodd-numbered items. To find your collectivism score, add yourresponses to the even-numbered items. Both scores will range from10 to 50. The higher your scores, the more individualistic and/orcollectivistic you are.Source: Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging differences: Effectiveintergroup communication (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Used with permission.SELF-ASSESSMENT 11.2 Moral Foundations Questionnaire
Part I Moral RelevanceWhen you decide whether something is right or wrong, to what extentare the following considerations relevant to your thinking? Pleaserate each statement using this scale: 0 = not at all relevant, 1 = notvery relevant, 2 = slightly relevant, 3 = somewhat relevant, 4 = veryrelevant, 5 = extremely relevant.1. Whether or not someone suffered emotionally2. Whether or not someone cared for someone weak orvulnerable3. Whether or not some people were treated differently fromothers4. Whether or not someone acted unfairly5. Whether or not someone’s action showed love for his or hercountry6. Whether or not someone did something to betray his or hergroup7. Whether or not someone showed a lack of respect for authority8. Whether or not someone conformed to the traditions of society9. Whether or not someone violated standards of purity anddecency10. Whether or not someone did something disgusting
Part II Moral JudgmentsPlease read the following sentences and indicate your agreement ordisagreement. 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 crucialvirtue.12. One of the worst things a person could do is hurt adefenseless animal.13. When the government makes laws, the number oneprinciple 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 whenthey 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 noone is harmed.20. I would call some acts wrong on the grounds that they areunnatural.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 Personalityand Social Psychology, 101, 366–385. Used with permission.
Notes1. Frey, W. H. (2018, March 14). The US will become “minoritywhite” in 2015, Census projects. Brookings; New projections pointto a majority minority nation in 2044. Brookings; Nittle, N. K.(2018, March 12). Which states have the highest majority minoritypopulations? 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: Religiousperspectives on the global economy (pp. 154–172). Maryknoll,NY: Orbis.3. Gloy, B., & Widmar, D. (2018, April 9). Tariffs impact price andsupply & demand, ag economists say. Successful Farming.4. Kristof, N. D. (2010, June 27). Death by gadget. The New YorkTimes, p. WK11; Wyatt, E. (2012, March 20). Behind the bloodmoney. The New York Times, p. B1.5. Myers, J. (2016, October 19). How do the world’s biggestcompanies compare to the biggest economies? World EconomicForum.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 trilliondollars. Global Research; Savola, A. (2017, December 14). Globalinequality is on the rise—but at vastly different rates across theworld. The Conversation.7.Understanding poverty. (2018, September 24). The World Bank.8. Lombardo, C. (2017, April 3). How many people die frommalnutrition each year? Vision Launch; Five countries with lowestlife expectancy in the world. (2018, April). The Borgen Project.
9. Bremmer; Muzaffar.10. Weise, E. (2017, November 1). Russian fake accountsshowed posts to 126 million Facebook users. USA Today.11.Don’t push it: Why the formula milk industry must clean up itsact. (2018). Save the Children Fund.12. Karim, A. (2000, June 23). Globalization, ethics, and AIDSvaccines. Science, 21–29.13. Sickles, J. (2014, September 8). Ebola evacuation to USgreater 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 theworkplace (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 stopsfee payment of child labourers sent to school. The ExpressTribune (Pakistan).17. Greenhouse, S. (2013, November 23). U.S. retailers decline toaid factory victims in Bangladesh. The New York Times, p. B1.18. Rogers, E. M., & Steinfatt, T. M. (1999). Interculturalcommunication. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, p. 79.19. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, culturalchange, and the persistence of traditional values. AmericanSociological Review, 65, 19–51; Inglehart, R., & Oyseman, D.(2004). Individualism, autonomy self-expression: The humandevelopment syndrome. In H. Vincken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester(Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in acomparative perspective (pp. 74–96). Leiden, the Netherlands:Brill; Inglehart, R. (2018). Cultural evolution: People’s motivationsare changing, and reshaping the world. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press; World Values Survey. Retrieved fromwww.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs20. Inglehart (2018), p. 1.21. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage; Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures andorganizations: 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 theimpact 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 profilesof 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 BusinessEthics, 110, 45–59; Clements, C. E., Neill, J. D., & Stovall, O. S.(2009). The impact of cultural differences on the convergence ofinternational accounting codes of ethics. Journal of BusinessEthics, 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 ethicalattitudes. Journal of Business Research, 61, 254–264; Husted, B.W. (1999). Wealth, culture and corruption. Journal of InternationalBusiness 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 BusinessEthics, 12, 753–760; Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. (2008). The effectof culture on consumers’ willingness to punish irresponsiblecorporate behaviour: Applying Hofstede’s typology to thepunishment aspect of corporate social responsibility. BusinessEthics: A European Review, 17, 210–226.24. Carroll, S. J., & Gannon, M. J. (1997). Ethical dimensions ofmanagement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Husted, B. W., & Allen,
D. B. (2008). Toward a model of cross-cultural business ethics:The impact of individualism and collectivism on the ethicaldecision-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 levelversus individual-level predictions of ethical behavior: A 48-societystudy of collectivism and individualism. Journal of BusinessEthics, 122, 283–306.26. Bertsch, A. M. (2012). Validating GLOBE’s societal valuesscales: A test in the U.S.A. International Journal of Business andSocial Science, 3, 10–23; Budde-Sung, A. (2013). The invisiblemeets the intangible: Culture’s impact on intellectual propertyprotection. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 345-359; Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (Eds.). (2007). Culture andleadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studiesof 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 62societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Javidan, M., & House, R. J.(2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons fromProject 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 globalbusiness (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 andcross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Areattributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universallyendorsed? 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 ofethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 345–359.
30. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koelva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S.P., & Ditto, P. H. (2002). Moral Foundations Theory: The pragmaticvalidity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, 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 thetwenty-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 notrecognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116; Federico, C. M.,Weber, C. R., Ergun, D., & Hunt, C. (2013). Mapping theconnections between politics and morality: The multiplesociopolitical orientations involved in moral intuition. PoliticalPsychology, 34, 589–610; Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2013). Howwords do the work of politics: Moral foundations theory and thedebate 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 makelifestyle 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 theadvantages of moral pluralism over moral monism. In K. Gray & J.Graham (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 211–222). NewYork, 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 ofResearch 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 universalstereotypes be immoral? In K. J. Grant & J. Graham (Eds.), Atlasof moral psychology (pp. 201–208). New York: Guilford Press.
34. Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging differences: Effectiveintergroup communication (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1997). Communicating withstrangers: 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 ofstrangers. 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: Cosmopolitanduties in a world of local loyalties. Social Alternatives, 34(1), 14–18; Maak, T. (2009). The cosmopolitical corporation. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 84, 361–372; Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2009).Business leaders as citizens of the world: Advancing humanismon 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. Ethics103(1), 48–75, p. 48.
41. Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2009). Responsible leaders asagents of world benefit: Learnings from “Project Ulysses.” Journalof Business Ethics, 85, 59–71; Maak, T. (2007). Responsibleleadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of socialcapital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329–343.42. Toward a global ethic: An international declaration of theParliament of the World’s Religions. (n.d.). Retrieved fromParliamentOfReligions.org; Kung, H., & Schmidt, H. (1998). Aglobal ethic and global responsibilities: Two declarations. Munich,Germany: SCM Press.43. James, S. A. (2007). Universal human rights: Origins anddevelopment. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publications, p. 2.44. United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of HumanRights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/45. UN Global Compact. Retrieved fromhttps://www.unglobalcompact.org46. Principles for business. Caux Round Table for MoralCapitalism. 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 ofcorporate social responsibility. New York, NY: Springer.47. Caux Round Table. (2006). Principles for non-governmentalorganizations; Principles for governments. Caux Roundtable forMoral Capitalism. Retrieved from https://www.cauxroundtable.org/48. Donaldson, T. (2009). Compass and dead reckoning: Thedynamic implications of ISCT. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 659–664; Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unifiedconception 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 approachto business ethics. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
49. Hamilton, J. B., Knouse, S. B., & Hill, V. (2009). Google inChina: 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). Multinationalenterprise decision principles for dealing with cross cultural ethicalconflicts. 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.
12 Ethical Crisis Leadership
Learning Objectives> Review the characteristics of crises.> Summarize the leader’s responsibilities in each of the three stagesof a crisis.> Explain why responsibility is the foundation of ethical crisisleadership.> Define transparency.> List the unique features of heroic leadership.> Defend the importance of engaging both the heart and the headwhen dealing with crisis.> Describe the role of resilience in recovering from a crisis.> Outline the key components of ethical leadership in extremecontexts.Crises are moments of moral imperative.—CRISIS MANAGEMENT EXPERTS TIMOTHYSELLNOW AND MATTHEW SEEGEREvery crisis demands a hero.—SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGIST ZENO FRANCO
What’s AheadThis chapter examines ethical leadership in crisis situations.Crises are major unexpected events that pose significant threatsto groups and organizations. They pass through three stages:precrisis, crisis event, and postcrisis. Ethical leaders have a seriesof tasks to carry out during each phase. Seven ethical principlesand strategies are essential to fulfilling these moral duties:assume broad responsibility, practice transparency, demonstratecare and concern, take decisive (heroic) action, engage the headas well as the heart, improvise from a strong moral foundation,and build resilience. The chapter concludes with a look at theethical demands of extreme leadership.Managing a crisis is the ultimate test of ethical leadership.Bankruptcies, hurricanes, wildfires, tornados, landslides, politicalscandals, industrial accidents, mass shootings, food-borneillnesses, 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, andlives may have been lost. Entire organizations, groups, societies,and economic and political systems might be at risk. As we’veseen throughout this text, leaders often fail to meet the ethicalchallenges posed by crises. At Nike, HBOS, McKinsey Company,and the Environmental Protection Agency, leaders sparked crisesthrough their unethical behavior. At Hollywood, Michigan State,and USA Gymnastics, leaders made crises worse by failing tohold to widely held moral standards and values in response tosexual abuse. On the other hand, we have also seen how otherleaders, like Malala Yousafzai, Rachel Carson, the Thai caverescuers, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, DietrichBonhoeffer, and the Parkland teens coped effectively with crisisevents. Their values became clearer; their moral commitmentsbecame greater.This chapter introduces the ethical challenges posed byleadership in crisis, building on the foundation laid in earlier
chapters. To ethically manage crisis events, you will need to drawupon concepts we have discussed previously—values, moralreasoning, normative leadership theories, ethical decision-makingformats, ethical communication skills, influence tools, and ethicalperspectives, to name a few. However, you will also need tounderstand the characteristics of crisis as well as the elements ofethical crisis management. The first section of this chapterprovides an overview of the nature and stages of crises. Itidentifies important leadership tasks that must be carried out ineach crisis phase. The second section identifies principles andstrategies that equip leaders to ethically carry out theseresponsibilities. The third section highlights the challenges facingethical leaders in high-risk settings.
Crisis: An OverviewA crisis is any major unanticipated event that poses a significantthreat. Such events are rare (making them difficult to prepare for);they generate a good deal of uncertainty (their causes and effectsare unclear) and are hard to resolve (there is no set formula fordetermining how to act). Further, decisions about how to deal witha particular crisis must be made rapidly, and those outside theimmediate group—customers, clients, suppliers, and neighbors—are also affected.1The stress and anxiety generated by crises make themparticularly hard to manage in an ethical manner. Stress interfereswith cognitive abilities. Individuals tend to narrow their focus tojust a few perspectives and alternatives. They often perceive theworld less accurately and ignore important information. At theorganizational level, stress prompts groups to delegate decision-making authority to a small team of top officials, limiting access todiverse viewpoints. Time limits also prevent talking to a variety ofstakeholders. All of these factors subvert ethical reasoning andcreative problem solving while increasing the likelihood that theneeds of some stakeholders will be overlooked.2Investigators divide crises into different types. These types canhelp leaders better prepare for, and respond to, crisis events.Groups and organizations will be more vulnerable to some typesof crises than others. Manufacturers have to be highly concernedabout product safety; coastal communities have to be ready forocean storms. When disaster strikes, the nature of the crisis willalso help to determine the course of action. Responding to thedisruption of a work stoppage requires one set of strategies, whileresponding to a computer security breach demands another.Crisis management experts Matthew Seeger, Timothy Sellnow,and Robert Ulmer identify ten types of crises:31. Public perception: negative stories about the organization’sproducts, personnel, or services; negative rumors, blogs,
social media posts, and websites2. Natural disasters: tornadoes, hurricanes, mudslides, wildfires,blizzards, earthquakes, volcano eruptions3. Product or service: product recalls, food-borne illnesses,concern about products and services generated by the media4. Terrorist attacks: bombings, hijackings, abductions,poisonings5. Economic: cash shortages, bankruptcies, hostile takeovers,accounting scandals6. Human resource: workplace violence, strikes, labor unrest,discrimination, sexual harassment, school and workplaceshootings, theft, fraud7. Industrial: mine collapses, nuclear accidents, fires, explosions8. Oil and chemical spills: tanker and railway spills, pipeline andwell leaks9. Transportation: train derailments, plane crashes, truckaccidents, multivehicle pileups10. Outside environment: collapse of financial systems, rising fuelprices, deregulation, nationalization of private companies,mortgage crisisIan Mitroff, crisis consultant and former director of the Center forCrisis Management at the University of Southern California, offersan alternative typology based on the intentions of those involvedin the crisis event.4 He notes that there has been a sharp rise inwhat he labels abnormal accidents—deliberate acts that areintentionally designed to disrupt or destroy systems. He contrastsabnormal accidents with normal accidents, those unintentionalevents that cause systems to break down. Mass shootings,kidnappings, and cyberattacks on large corporations and themilitary would be examples of abnormal accidents. Chemicalexplosions, cruise ship fires, train derailments, plane crashes, andmining disasters are normal accidents that reflect problems withroutine operating procedures. Abnormal accidents are harder toprepare for, but modern organizations have no choice but to planfor them. For instance, since many terrorist acts are aimed atprivate businesses, not the government, Mitroff argues thatbusinesses have to do their part to respond to terrorist threats. Healso points out that even routine crises are becoming harder todeal with in an increasingly complex, interconnected society. Case
in point: When drones grounded flights at London’s Gatwickairport, 140,000 British passengers were delayed as well as tensof thousands of holiday travelers around the world.5
The Three Stages of a CrisisWhatever the type, every crisis passes through three stages:precrisis, crisis event, and postcrisis.6 In each stage, leaders havea moral obligation to carry out particular tasks or functions. I’lldescribe these tasks and offer some steps for carrying them out.Stage 1. PrecrisisPrecrisis is the period of normalcy between crisis events. Duringthis, the longest phase, the group or organization typicallybelieves that it understands the risks it faces and can handle anycontingency that arises. The temptation to become overconfidentgrows as the time between crises increases. Funding for backupdata storage sites, disaster drills, training, and other types of crisispreparation may be cut, which increases the likelihood of anothercrisis.Complacency isn’t the only barrier to crisis prevention. Humanbiases (decision-making and judgment errors), institutional failures(organizational breakdowns in processing information), andspecial interest groups (resistance from groups looking out for theinterests of their own members) can derail crisis preparedness aswell.7 Human biases include, for example, refusing to believe aproblem exists and refusing to address a mounting problem forfear of causing immediate harm. Institutions fail when they don’tcollect relevant data, integrate that information into theorganization as a whole, or act on what they know. Specialinterest groups impose burdens (higher taxes, water pollution,high drug prices) in order to benefit themselves and opposereform efforts.Terry Pauchant and Ian Mitroff argue that, in addition to the factorsoutlined above, misguided ethical assumptions or myths canundermine crisis management. They identify and debunk fiveunethical beliefs about crisis management:8
Myth 1: “Crises are inevitable.” Some, but not all, crises areinevitable. But even if some crises (storms and earthquakes)can’t be prevented, leaders have an ethical responsibility todo everything they can to prepare for them.Myth 2: “We lack the basic knowledge to prevent orunderstand crises.” Researchers don’t know everything aboutcrisis management. However, they have identified a numberof steps leaders can take to prevent crises and to managethem when they occur. When leaders fail to act, the problemis 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, demonstrateflexibility, and think creatively, for example.A variation of this third myth is the belief that anorganization is too large to experience a major crisis. Abusiness clinging to this misconception is really makingan unethical statement. In essence, it is saying,“Whenever an organization is so big and powerful that itssize will protect it from a major disaster or crisis, then ithas no responsibility toward its employees and thesurrounding environment and is justified in expressing noconcern toward the environment.”9 These samecorporations may use formulas to estimate the likelihoodand cost of possible disasters. If the formula shows thatthe risk is low or that the costs of prevention outweighthe costs of disaster, they decide they shouldn’t take anyaction at all, which is unethical. Such was the case withthe Love Canal environmental crisis of the late 1970s.10Hooker Chemical determined that the costs of cleaningup Love Canal (where it had dumped 21,000 tons ofhazardous waste) outweighed the value of localresidents. The company sold the property to the town ofNiagara Falls instead of removing the toxic chemicals.Residents who built on the site soon developed blooddisorders, kidney and respiratory problems, and otherserious health issues before they were evacuated.People were sickened and died because, as one residentpointed out, “they decided that we weren’t worthy ofdoing anything.”11
Myth 4: “Crisis management is inherently detrimental toprogress.” Risk can never be totally eliminated. Yet somecrisis-prone organizations and leaders shouldn’t be allowed toengage in dangerous activities without some oversight.Following the financial crisis that began in 2008, for instance,many observers argued that greater restrictions should beplaced 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, asthey do in other kinds of ethical decision making (see Chapter6). Leaders need to see ethics as a conversation, connectingwith stakeholders before, during, and after the crisis. Theyalso need to acknowledge the pain and suffering generatedby the crisis, which may have been caused by their decisionsand actions.Ethical leaders in the precrisis stage help their groups detectpossible trouble and develop strategies for managing crisesshould they strike. Crisis expert Stephen Fink uses the Greekword prodromes (which means “running before”) to describe thewarning signs that precede a crisis. Ignoring or downplaying thesesigns (and those who bring the warnings) generally results indisaster.12 A near nuclear meltdown occurred after Tokyo ElectricPower Company (TEPCO) ignored warnings that a tsunami wouldoverrun the seawalls at its Fukushima nuclear power plant. ACongressional report found that a massive data breach at Equifax,one of the largest in U.S. history, was “entirely preventable.” Thecompany failed to fix systems when vulnerabilities werediscovered or to update its computer technology. The FBI wasmonitoring the communication of the Uzbek terrorist who used apickup truck to kill eight people and injure others on a Manhattanbike path.13Crisis management experts offer a variety of strategies forrecognizing danger signs. To pick up on prodromes, organizationsmust continually scan the environment, looking outward andinward.14 In external scanning, organizational leaders survey thebroadcast media, websites, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, tradejournals, and other sources to identify potential dangers. Internalscanning means identifying danger signs coming from those who
have an ongoing relationship with the organization, likecustomers, suppliers, and donors. Surges in product returns andcomplaints, as well as public criticism and protests, can signalsomething is amiss.In addition to environmental scanning, organizations can golooking for trouble.15 Looking for trouble means actively seekingweaknesses that could prove harmful or fatal to the organization.One commonly used troubleshooting tactic is to brainstorm a listof possible crises. There are host of possible crises that couldstrike your college or university, for instance, ranging from floodsto campus shootings to student protests to faculty strikes. (Youcan create your own list of these dangers by completing ForFurther Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment 12.5.) Toget started, you can ask “What if?” and fill in the blank. Forinstance, “What if a large number of students suffered foodpoisoning after eating at the cafeteria?” “What if a fire broke out ina dormitory?” “What if harmful chemicals were found in theuniversity’s water supply?” You can determine your crisisreadiness and that of your work organization by completing Self-Assessment 12.1.Not all danger signs are immediately visible. Some emerge fromlong-term political, social, and ethical trends. These changessometimes take the form of issues that can threaten anorganization. For instance, changing societal attitudes towardanimals forced the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circusto retire its elephants, which led to the end of its traveling shows.SeaWorld stopped its orca programs after the death of a trainerand public protests against how it treated captive killer whales.Growing recognition of the dangers of concussions threatensmany youth football programs and poses a danger to college andprofessional football.Left unattended, issues can lead to full-blown crises, as in thecase of mad cow disease. British officials failed to acknowledgegrowing evidence that the fatal Creutzfeldt-Jakob (CJD) braindisease could pass from cows to humans who ate contaminatedbeef.16 They also underestimated the panic, based on concernabout food safety, that resulted when the public found out. The
European Union banned beef exports from Britain and 2 millioncattle had to be slaughtered to prevent the spread of the disease.An estimated 100 people died from CJD. In other instances, notrecognizing the significance of trends can multiply the damagecaused by a crisis. An ice storm in North and South Carolinacaused widespread power outages that lasted for days. During theoutages, hundreds of carbon monoxide poisoning cases werereported despite repeated warnings about taking gas and charcoalgrills indoors for cooking and heating. Many of these cases wereamong Latino immigrants who were part of the rapidly growingSpanish-speaking labor force moving into the area. Local utilitiesdidn’t recognize the implications of this demographic shift. As aresult, the English-only warnings they broadcast failed to reachmany of their customers.17Effectively addressing long-term trends requires issuesmanagement.18 Issues management begins with identifyingemerging issues through the environmental scanning describedearlier. Next, determine the significance of each issue and itspotential impact, evaluating it on its probability and magnitude.Some issues are not likely to affect your group or organizationand, if they do, their effects will be small. Finally, developstrategies for the high-priority issues—those with the highestprobability and magnitude. Be proactive whenever possible, takingsteps to shape the issue before it becomes a threat or crisis.Proactive steps can turn threats into opportunities, as in the caseof bans on single use plastic straws. A number of U.S. cities andstates now outlaw plastic straws as plastic pollution becomes amore important issue. (The EU has plans to institute its own strawban.) While this trend threatens plastic straw manufacturers, itopens up new markets for companies offering alternatives madeof hay, bamboo, metal and other materials.Once weaknesses and potential dangers have been identified,develop a crisis management plan (CMP) to cope with each typeof emergency. The CMP should include such details as a list ofkey members of the public and organizations and how to notifythem, members of the crisis management team, contactinformation for media outlets, strategies for communicating viasocial media, and background information on the organization.19
Crisis preparation pays off. Alaska adopted stringent seismicbuilding codes after a massive 1964 earthquake. Theseregulations prevented major damage and any loss of life whenanother earthquake struck near Anchorage in 2018. Tragically, fireofficials and residents of Paradise California, were not adequatelyprepared for the massive wildfire that swept through the town,burning it to the ground and killing 48.20 Crisis-ready organizationsare less likely to experience unexpected threats, suffersignificantly less damage if such events do strike, and recovermuch more quickly.21Proper crisis preparation can also keep us from abandoning ourmoral principles. University of Oregon philosopher Naomi Zacknotes that, in ordinary times, widely shared moral principlesinclude (1) human life is intrinsically valuable and (2) everyone’slife has equal value.22 Driven by these convictions, we try topreserve and save the lives of everyone we can. No one life isconsidered more worthy than another. Thus, emergency roomdoctors treat both the wealthy and the poor. Physicians makeevery effort to extend life, even of the elderly and the very ill.However, when disaster strikes, responders often don’t haveenough resources to meet the needs of all victims. They thenhave to decide who lives and who dies. In medical emergencies,this process is called triage. Health workers in these situationsonly provide treatment to those most likely to benefit fromtreatment or to survive. The lives of all victims are no longerintrinsically worthy or equally valuable. Instead, emergencypersonnel take a utilitarian approach (see Chapter 5), saving asmany as possible while excluding others, such as the elderly andthose with chronic medical conditions.Emergency personnel do not have to make triage decisions whencareful preparation has taken place in advance. Instead, they canrely on the same moral values that guide their decisions duringnormal times. To adequately prepare for a flu epidemic, forinstance, leaders would need to ensure that there are sufficientsupplies of vaccine as well as enough hospital beds andventilators to keep patients alive who contract the disease. Suchpreparation can be costly. However, according to Zack, crisispreparation is not a luxury to be cut when budgets are tight—it is
our ethical duty. “We are morally obligated to plan for disaster,”Zack asserts, “because it affects human life and well-being.”23Stage 2: Crisis EventThe second stage commences with a “trigger event,” like anexplosion, a shooting, or bankruptcy, and the recognition that acrisis has occurred. It ends when the crisis is resolved. Realizationthat a crisis has erupted sparks strong emotions, includingsurprise, anger, fear, and disbelief. Confusion reigns as groupmembers try to understand what is happening and worry aboutwhat will happen to the group and to themselves. At the sametime, significant harm is done to people, property, and the largerenvironment, and the incident garners significant press coverage.Ethical leaders play a critical role during this stage. They firstrecognize that a crisis has occurred and persuade others that thegroup is in grave danger. This is not always an easy task. Whentsunamis struck Thailand’s beaches in 2004, some 30,000Swedes were vacationing in the area. A low-ranking official onduty in the Swedish Foreign Ministry recognized the danger toSwedish citizens and alerted her bosses. They, however, did notfind the situation alarming. When she persisted in her efforts towarn them, she was reprimanded and called hysterical.24(Following the crisis, she was commended for her courage inspeaking up.) Health officials underestimated the extent of theEbola epidemic in 2014, prematurely declaring it over before itwent 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, publicrelations professionals, operational managers, institutionaltechnology managers and others, and focus on damage control.25Immediate threats to individuals, property, and the environmenttake priority. Leaders may need to redeploy staff and suchresources as equipment, phone lines, and office space whilecooperating with emergency personnel, government officials,neighborhood associations, the media, and other outside groups.
One person—typically the CEO—should take primaryresponsibility as spokesperson in the case of an emergency. Thisprevents conflicting messages and the spread of misinformation.Contradictory and inaccurate messages were a major problemfollowing the mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight370 over the Indian Ocean. Malaysian government and airlineofficials sometimes contradicted each other, as did civilian andmilitary officials. The information they released was oftenincomplete and inaccurate.26 Those directly affected by the crisishave particularly important information needs and should take toppriority. They not only need to know what happened but also needto learn how to protect themselves. Potential victims of a fluepidemic need to be vaccinated, for example. City residents in thepath of a tornado need to be warned to take shelter. Consumersneed to learn of contaminated food products.Ethical leaders also get to the scene of the crisis as soon aspossible. They recognize the importance of “being there” forfollowers. Driven by a sense of duty and compassion, they travelto the disaster location to meet with survivors. U.S. presidentsfrequently go to the scene of traumatic events. President BillClinton provided comfort to grieving residents following theOklahoma City bombing, for example, and President BarackObama flew to southern Oregon to show his solidarity withsurvivors of a community college shooting. Followers expectleaders to be physically present during the crisis. They condemnleaders who stay home during the emergency. Vladimir Putin washarshly criticized for staying at his vacation dacha instead oftraveling to the Barents Sea after the sinking of the nuclearsubmarine Kurst. Japanese prime minister Yoshiro Mori facedsimilar rebuke when he continued to play golf after a Japanesefishing boat was sunk by a U.S. sub.27Stage 3: PostcrisisInvestigation and analysis take place during the third and finalstage. Group members try to determine what went wrong, whowas to blame, how to prevent a recurrence of the problem, and soon. This is also a period of recovery during which ethical leaderstry to salvage the legitimacy of the group or organization, help
group members learn from the crisis experience, and promotehealing. The image of an organization generally suffers during acrisis as outsiders blame it for failing to prevent the disaster,causing harm, and not moving quickly enough to help victims. Asa consequence, an effective leader must convince the public thatthe organization has a legitimate reason to exist and can betrusted. The best way to rebuild an organization’s image dependsa great deal on the particular crisis and the past history of thegroup. If the organization is not at fault and has a good reputation,simple denial (“We are not at fault”) may be sufficient. However, ifthe organization is to blame (particularly if it has a troubledhistory), it should admit responsibility, offer compensation tovictims, and take corrective action by improving safetyprocedures, recalling products, and so forth. Not only is this themoral course of action, but attempts to deny truthful accusationstypically backfire, further damaging the group’s reputation.28The second leadership task in the postcrisis stage is to encouragethe group to learn from the experience lest it be repeated again.Organizational crisis learning takes three forms.29 Retrospectivesense making looks for causation, determining what membersoverlooked and identifying faulty assumptions and rationalizationsthat contributed to the disaster. Such processing broadens thegroup’s base of knowledge and gives it more options forresponding in the future. Reconsidering structure refers to makingmajor changes in leadership, mission, organizational structure,and policies as a result of the disruption caused by the crisisevent. Disaster commissions are sometimes formed to capturelearning from crises and to suggest reforms. For example,following Hurricane Harvey, which dumped 35 inches of rain onthe Houston area, Texas governor Greg Abbott appointed acommission that outlined strategies for better preparing the statefor future hurricanes and other natural disasters.30Vicarious learning draws from the experiences of other groupsand organizations, both good and bad. Some organizationsillustrate what not to do, while others serve as exemplary rolemodels. Government response to Hurricane Katrina has emergedas a classic example of crisis mismanagement. Local and stateofficials were slow to order a mandatory evacuation and stranded
poorer residents who didn’t have cars. The Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (led by an unqualified manager) waited toolong to implement emergency plans, and the president didn’t getinvolved until days had passed. A House congressional committeeinvestigating the disaster concluded that the government’sresponse to Katrina was a “litany of mistakes, misjudgments,lapses, and absurdities.”31Vicarious learning has led to significant changes in how lawenforcement officials respond to active school shooters. Prior tothe Columbine High School attack in 1999, standard procedurewas to seal off the perimeter, containing suspects and victims inthe building. While this strategy is effective with criminals who arewilling to negotiate and to release prisoners, it doesn’t work withsuicidal attackers out to inflict as many casualties as they can. AtColumbine, police cordoned off the school and waited to enter thebuilding. In the meantime, the two shooters continued to kill fellowstudents and faculty even as live television showed groups ofpolice standing outside apparently doing nothing. Now the firstofficers on the scene immediately enter the building to engage theactive shooter while the next officers cordon off the area andassist victims.32 Tragically, not all industries and organizationslearn from the experiences of others, as Case Study 12.1illustrates.The third leadership task in the postcrisis stage is to promotehealing, which helps members move beyond the crisis. Healingbegins with explaining what happened. A cause needs to beidentified and corrective action taken. Corrective steps mightinclude, for instance, strengthening levees after a hurricane andtightening computer security measures after data have beenstolen. Forgetting—replacing feelings of stress, anxiety, and losswith positive emotions like optimism and confidence—is easierwhen such preventive measures have been put in place. Ethicalleaders also shape the memories of what happened by honoringcrisis heroes and by marking important anniversaries.Fostering a sense of renewal that sets aside blame and looksahead is part of the healing process. The discourse of renewal isspontaneous, not carefully planned, and comes directly out of the
character and reputation of the leader.33 Renewal focuses on thefuture rather than on the past. The discourse of renewal alsohighlights the opportunities created by the crisis. City officials inCedar Rapids, Iowa, for example, had a downtown redevelopmentplan in place four months after a devastating flood. Five yearsafter the flood, the town sported a new convention center andhotel, a restored historic theater, and an outdoor amphitheaterbuilt on top of a levee.34 (Box 12.1 offers a framework forevaluating the performance of crisis leaders.)Box 12.1 Crisis Leadership ScorecardDutch researchers Arjen Boin, Sanneke Kuipers, and WernerOverdijk argue that we should judge the performance of crisisleaders, not on initial impressions or on media coverage, but on theanswer to the following question: “Did those charged with crisismanagement responsibilities do everything they could to facilitate aneffective response to the crisis at hand?” To help answer thisquestion, they break crisis management into a set of executive tasks.These tasks can serve as a checklist for evaluating the performanceof public and organizational crisis leaders.Task #1: Early RecognitionIdentification of a crisis is the first step in crisis management.Foresight can be fostered through experience, which increasesrecognition of deviations from the norm, and constant organizationalvigilance.What to look for: Did leaders create conditions that facilitate earlyrecognition?Task #2: Sense MakingComing to a collective understanding of the threat and itsconsequences is critical for making wise choices in stressful,uncertain conditions. Effective sense making includes having amethod for processing information, communicating information to theright people and getting their feedback, creating a shared picture ofevents, identifying what information is still needed, and analyzingpossible outcomes and their impact.What to look for: Did leaders create, facilitate, and rehearse asensemaking method?
Task #3: Making Critical DecisionsEffective crisis leaders focus on strategic decisions during the crisis,not on day to day operations. Good decisions are the product ofsound procedure, they reinforce organizational and societal values,and they conform to rules and regulations.What to look for: Did leaders carefully deliberate which decisionsthey should make, and did they make the decision after some form ofdue process?Task #4: Orchestrating Vertical and Horizontal CoordinationCrises force “intense” cooperation among organizations that mayhave never collaborated before. Successful leaders know when to letgroups and organizations develop their own strategies forcollaboration and when to intervene and remove barriers tocooperation.What to look for: Did crisis leaders monitor and assess forms ofvertical and horizontal cooperation? Did they facilitate cooperationand intervene where cooperation was lacking or dysfunctional?Task #5: Coupling and DecouplingCrisis leaders must isolate or decouple the problem while allowingthe rest of the system to function, by, for example, shutting downflooded power plants while keeping the rest of the grid operating orswitching to backup computer systems during a cyberattack.What to look for: Did crisis leaders actively monitor the state ofcritical (life-sustaining) systems and the connections between them?Did they access expertise with regard to these critical systems?Task #6: Meaning MakingIn a crisis, followers look to leaders to interpret the situation and theirplans for restoring order. They also look for messages of hope andoptimism. Ethical leaders present a convincing “frame” for the crisis.(Turn to Chapter 7 for more information on frames.) An ethical frameor story is tied to core values and explains how crisis managementactions reinforce those values.What to look for: Did crisis leaders offer a clear interpretation of thecrisis and explain how they intended to lead their community(organization) out of it?Task #7: Communication
Failed communication can put the safety of citizens in danger.Effective communication explains the nature of the and its impactwhile outlining what is being done to address the emergency. Ethicalleaders also provide “actionable advice,” telling residents what theyshould do in light of unfolding events.What to look for: Did crisis leaders actively cooperate with theircommunications professionals to ensure they had timely and correctinformation for dissemination to the public?Task #8: Rendering AccountabilityEffective crisis managers take responsibility for explaining whathappened during the crisis and outlining what worked well and whatwent wrong.What to look for: Did leaders try to present a transparent andconstructive account of their (in)actions before and during the crisis?Task #9: LearningImprovisation, discovery, and experimentation are critical during acrisis. Leaders also demonstrate learning after the crisis event bycorrecting the causes of the crisis and implementing new solutions.Effective crisis managers also signal that they are willing to learnfrom failure.What to look for: Did leaders allow for reflection on the effects ofchosen courses of action, did they encourage and tolerate negativefeedback, and did they record crisis management proceedings tofacilitate learning by outsiders?Task #10: Enhancing ResilienceHigh-performing crisis leaders foster the ability bounce back fromcrises by focusing on preparation (drills, scenarios, risk analysis).These activities increase awareness of vulnerabilities and buildsconfidence in the ability to cope with threats. (I’ll have more to sayabout resilience later in the chapter.)What to look for: Did leaders actively involve themselves in crisispreparations?Source: Boin, A., Kuipers, S., & Overdijk, W. (2013). Leadership intimes of crisis: A framework for assessment. International Review ofPublic Administration, 18, 79–91.
Components of Ethical CrisisManagementAs we saw in the previous section, ethical leaders have importanttasks to carry out in each stage of crisis development. Theoristsand researchers have identified seven principles and/or strategiesthat equip them to fulfill these duties. Moral leaders (1) assumebroad responsibility, (2) practice transparency, (3) take decisive(heroic) action, (4) demonstrate care and concern, (5) use theirheads as well as their hearts, (6) improvise from a strong moralfoundation, and (7) build resilience.
Assume Broad ResponsibilityResponsibility is the foundation of ethical crisis leadership.35Preventing, managing, and recovering from crises all depend onthe willingness of leaders and followers to accept their moralresponsibilities. Society grants individuals and organizationssignificant freedom to make and carry out decisions. Suchfreedom means that people and groups are accountable for theiractions. They have an ethical duty to prevent crises because suchevents do significant harm. The first step in preventing crises is tobehave as a moral person. Since a great many crises—fraud,accounting scandals, embezzlement, sexual harassment—are thedirect result of the immoral actions of leaders, eliminating thesebehaviors greatly reduces the group’s exposure to scandal. Moralleaders also create healthy ethical organizational climates thathave a low risk of moral failure and crisis (see Chapter 10).In addition to engaging in and fostering ethical behavior, theresponsible crisis leader fights against complacency, humanbiases, institutional weaknesses, special interest groups, andother obstacles to crisis prevention. He or she commits the moneyand resources needed to identify, prevent, and manage troublespots. This includes assigning groups to brainstorm potentialweaknesses, investing in computer security, holding disaster drills,and creating CMPs. Leaders aren’t the only ones who areresponsible for crisis prevention, however. This duty extends toeveryone who has a role, no matter how small, in anticipatingsuch events. According to crisis prevention expert Robert Allinson,“Anyone who is in any way connected with a potential or actualdisaster is responsible for its occurrence.”36If a crisis does erupt, leaders are obligated to mitigate the harmthey and/or their followers cause to others through, for instance,deceptive advertising, fraud, or industrial accidents. A rapidresponse is key to fulfilling this ethical duty. Exxon continues to beused as an example of poor crisis management in large partbecause of its slow response to the grounding of the ExxonValdez, 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
accident until 10 days after the spill, initial containment effortswere ineffective, and the firm denied at first that it had anyresponsibility for what happened.37 More recently, executives atFacebook waited 3 years before responding to reports that thedata firm Cambridge Analytica was secretly harvesting the data ofits users for political purposes. Panera Bread waited severalmonths before addressing a data breach involving 37 millioncustomers.38When the immediate danger is past, leaders have an obligation toensure that a similar crisis doesn’t happen again and to assurethe public of that fact. Their ethical duties include carrying out thepostcrisis 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 ethicalobligations. In a crisis, the breadth of a leader’s responsibilitygreatly expands. New stakeholder groups are formed, includingthose who had no previous interest in the organization but arecurrently threatened as well as members of the general publicwho learn about the crisis event. Leaders may also need to go toextraordinary lengths (depth) to meet the needs of victims. Takethe case of Cantor Fitzgerald, for example. When the terroristplanes hit the World Trade Center in 2001, all of its employeesworking in the North Tower were killed. CEO Howard Lutnick andhis colleagues continue to care for the financial, physical, andemotional needs of surviving family members years later.
Practice TransparencyLike responsibility, transparency is another requirement placed ongroups and organizations operating freely in a democratic society.We want governments to reveal the ways they spend our taxdollars, for instance, and require audited financial statements andannual reports from publicly held corporations. Citizens have aright to informed choice. Neighbors ought to learn about thepresence of hazardous chemicals at a nearby plant; federal lawmandates that colleges provide data on crimes committed on oraround their campuses. Failure to disclose information spawnsabuses of power and privilege and makes it impossible forindividuals to act as informed members of the community.39Transparency is key to exercising personal freedom andestablishing healthy relationships between individuals, betweenpeople and organizations, and between organizations.40Transparency begins with openness. When faced with thechallenge of mismanaged information, the transparent leader tellsthe truth and avoids hiding or distorting information. A transparentgroup is open about its policies, compensation packages, safetymeasures, values, spending, positions on political issues, and soon. Leaders regularly share this information through websites,presentations, publications, press releases, and other means.Openness, in turn, is marked by candor and integrity. Ethicalleaders are willing to share bad as well as good news, such aswhen earnings are down and construction plans have to beshelved. Johnson & Johnson’s response to the Tylenol poisoninghas become a textbook case of crisis management in partbecause of the firm’s honesty. During the product tampering crisis,corporate officials initially denied that there was any potassiumcyanide used in the manufacture of Tylenol.41 Later, when leadersdiscovered that minute amounts of the chemical were used duringtesting at some facilities, it immediately released this informationto the public. Such candor helped the company recover quicklyfrom this abnormal accident.
Transparency also involves symmetry.42 Symmetry refers tomaintaining balanced relationships with outside groups based ontwo-way communication. Instead of imposing their will on others,organizations engaged in symmetrical relationships seek tounderstand and respond to the concerns of stakeholders. Theyregularly interact with and gather information from customers,vendors, neighbors, activist groups, and others. Even moreimportant, they act on this data, changing their plans as needed.For example, if neighbors strenuously object to the construction ofa new product distribution facility, executives may find anotherlocation or modify the design of the building to meet the concernsof those living nearby. A study of excellent public relationsprograms found that the best public relations efforts—those thatincrease organizational effectiveness and benefit society—arebased on symmetrical relationships with stakeholder groups.43Crisis preparedness and trust are two positive by-products oftransparency. Openness makes it less likely that leaders willengage 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. Partnershipsfoster two-way communication that will reveal if customers arehaving problems with products or services, if activist groups areoffended by the organization’s environmental practices, and soforth.Stakeholders and the general public are more prone to trustorganizations they perceive as open and give them the benefit ofthe doubt in crisis situations. As a consequence, these groupssuffer less damage to their image and regain their legitimacy morerapidly. For example, Pepsi recovered quickly after reports ofsyringes and other items in their cans. Pepsi not only had areputation as a good corporate citizen prior to the tampering scarebut officials also invited the media into their bottling plants. Therethey saw that it would be impossible to insert an object into a canduring the high-speed canning process. The FBI later arrestedtwenty people for planting objects in their drinks and othersrecanted their stories.
Maintaining transparency is particularly difficult when a crisis istriggered. First, there are privacy concerns. Victims’ families mayneed to be notified before information can be released to thepress. Second, admitting fault can put the organization at adisadvantage in case of a lawsuit. Third, there may be proprietaryinformation about, say, manufacturing processes and recipes,which should not be released to competitors. (Even the leadingproponents of corporate transparency agree that businesses havea right to privacy, to security, and to control of certain types ofinformation.)44 Fourth, uncertainty makes it difficult for anorganization 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 theyhave been treated unfairly. Sixth, making a commitment to asingle course of action too soon may limit the group’s ability todeal with the crisis.45Some observers suggest that leaders in a crisis situation usestrategic ambiguity as an alternative to transparency. In strategicambiguity, communicators are deliberately vague, which allowsthem to appeal to multiple audiences.46 For example, the promiseto “respond forcefully” to a crisis is an abstract statement, whichcan be interpreted many different ways by stakeholders. It alsoleaves the door open for the group to choose a variety of possiblestrategies for managing the crisis event. If challenged, the leadercan claim that she or he never made a specific commitment toparticular stakeholder groups. Then, too, ambiguous messagesare appropriate in early stages of a crisis, when information isscarce and conditions are rapidly changing.47More often than not, however, strategic ambiguity is unethical,used to shift the blame and to confuse stakeholders whileproviding them with biased and/or incomplete information. Thisappears to be the case with Jack in the Box.48 Children inWashington state were sickened with E. coli poisoning after eatinghamburgers at the firm’s restaurants. Throughout the crisis, Jackin the Box president Robert Nugent made use of ambiguouscommunication. He emphasized that there was a “potential” linkbetween the illnesses and company food. He pointed to otherpossible contributors—including a food supplier—to the outbreak
and claimed that the firm intended to follow state and federalregulations. (Later, it was revealed that Jack in the Box had failedto adopt Washington’s stricter cooking times, which likely wouldhave prevented the outbreak.) The restaurant chain’s responsewas unethical because it (a) favored the needs of internalstakeholders (employees, managers, shareholders) over those ofexternal stakeholders (consumers, regulators) and (b) providedoutsiders with incomplete and inaccurate information.While the amount and type of information to be shared will varywith each crisis, the goal should always be to be as open aspossible. Cooperate with the media and government officials,respond quickly to inquiries, provide detailed backgroundinformation on the crisis, be honest about what happened, releaseinformation as soon as it is available, and be more concernedabout meeting the needs of victims than about protectingorganizational assets (see the discussion of care and concern inthe next section). Avoid stonewalling, which is uncooperativecommunication designed to hinder or redirect the flow ofinformation. BP chairman Tony Hayward used stonewalling whentestifying before Congress after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.He repeatedly responded to questions by declaring “Theinvestigations are ongoing.” “I can’t answer that question becauseI’m not a cement engineer.” “I wasn’t involved in any of thatdecision making.”49Rhetorician Keith Hearit illustrates how an organization canpractice transparency when communicating to stakeholders duringa crisis. Hearit believes that, in order to be ethical, the group’sexplanation of events and response to public criticism must havethe right manner and content.50 Manner refers to the form of thecommunication, which needs to (1) be truthful (disclose relevantinformation that matches up with the reality of what happened), (2)be sincere (express true regret, reflect the seriousness of theevent and its impact, demonstrate commitment to takingcorrective action and reconciling with stakeholders), (3) be timely(immediately after the event, in time to help victims deal with thedamage), (4) be voluntary (not coerced but driven by moralconsiderations, seek reconciliation, humble), (5) address all
stakeholders (speak to all who were wronged, not just a fewgroups), and (6) be in the proper context (available to all victims).The content of the message is just as important as the form ittakes. The ethical story of eventsclearly acknowledges wrongdoing;accepts full responsibility for what happened;expresses regret for the offense, the harm done, and failureto carry out responsibilities;identifies with the injured parties (both with their suffering andwith 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; andoffers appropriate compensation.
Take Decisive (Heroic) ActionHeroism researcher Zeno Franco believes that crisis events callfor heroic leadership.51 Heroes are people who act for the good ofother people at significant risk to themselves. They have noexpectation that they will be rewarded for their efforts. Heroiccrisis leaders are those who take decisive action when mostpeople either can’t or won’t respond when disaster strikes. (CaseStudy 12.2 introduces a leader who was able to act decisivelywhen others could not.) These leaders realize that their actionswill likely generate criticism and controversy. Blame for failure willrest on them. Nevertheless, heroic leaders move forward, drivenby the conviction that doing something is generally better thandoing nothing, even if the chances of success are slim.Franco identifies the following as strategies commonly used byheroic leaders:1. The Stand-Off. Heroic leaders may deliberately provokeconflict 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 withMichigan government authorities in order to draw attentionlead in the city’s water supply. (Turn to Case study 4.1 formore information on the Flint water crisis.) She and herresearch team reported high levels of lead in the city’schildren. She refused to retract her findings even when stateauthorities attacked her as an “unfortunate researcher” whowas “causing near hysteria.”2. The Gamble. Crisis leaders often face no win situations. Theymust be the deciding vote when deciding between “two evils.”That was the case with explorer Ernst Shackleton during his1914 arctic expedition. He decided the only hope of rescuefor his stranded crew was sailing 835 miles to a whalingcamp. Doing so meant leaving most of his men behind on anuninhabited island as he set out with five men in a small doryon one of the roughest oceans in the world. His gamble paidoff. Not a single man was lost. Acting in the face of a no-winsituation is called the “Stockdale Paradox” after U.S. navy
officer James Stockdale who was repeatedly tortured by hisNorth Vietnamese captors. He survived 8 years ofimprisonment by combining optimism and realism. Accordingto Stockdale, “You must retain faith that you will prevail in theend, regardless of the difficulties. And at the same time, youmust confront the most brutal facts of your current reality,whatever they might be.”3. Systematic Use of Luck. Using luck means prolonging thecrisis event in hopes that the situation will change due toevents outside the leaders’ control. In 2010, rescuersextended their search for 33 Chilean miners trapped morethan 2,000 feet underground. Chilean president SebastianPinera remained committed to the rescue effort even as thedays passed and the chances of anyone surviving had shrunkto less than 2%. The miners were located after 17 days ofdrilling and brought to the surface 69 days after their ordealbegan.4. The Gambit. A gambit involves trading off one resource togain something else, as in sacrificing a pawn in chess to setup the capture of an opponent’s knight or queen. A militarycommander may sacrifice territory (and even troops) in orderto buy time to regroup. A corporate CEO may file forbankruptcy in order to give the company protection fromcreditors as it reorganizes.5. Order of Magnitude. Leaders using this tactic try to “getahead of” the crisis by ramping up the magnitude of theresponse. They reassign resources to overwhelm the threat.Fire commanders shift crews from other wild fires to shutdown a blaze that poses the most threat to homes, forinstance, and insurance firms dispatch teams of adjustors tohurricane ravaged communities to handle claims.Franco and his colleague Philip Zimbardo believe that we aremore likely to act heroically if we stimulate our heroicimagination.52 Heroic imagination is the capacity to imagine riskysituations and how we might respond. Such advance preparationmakes it more likely that we will act heroically if the need arises.There are five steps to fostering heroic imagination. First, carefullyevaluate situations in order to recognize if there is an emergencyrequiring action. Second, don’t fear interpersonal conflict but stand
by personal principles. Third, think long term, imagining futurescenarios and remembering past values that can offer currentguidance. Fourth, resist the temptation to rationalize inaction orevil deeds. Fifth, try to look past the current costs of actingheroically—rejection by friends and family, threats, attacks onsocial media—to a time when others eventually offer their support.
Demonstrate Care and ConcernDemonstrating concern has practical as well as ethical benefits.Nothing draws more public condemnation than a group thatrefuses to take responsibility for harming others, as in the case ofthe Exxon Valdez, or appears callous. MGM Resorts sparkedpublic outrage when it sued the victims of the 2017 Las Vegasmass shooting, the largest in U.S. history. The killer fired down atconcert goers from his hotel room at the Mandalay Bay. By suingconcert goers, the MGM hoped to protect itself from liability forallowing the shooter to bring high powered rifles and thousands ofrounds of ammunition into the building.53When harm occurs, people hold organizations and their leadersresponsible even if they didn’t mean to hurt others, which is calledthe intention effect. 54 Apparently, the mere existence of harmtriggers the impression that the individual or group involved wasdeliberately out to damage others. Observers also expectcorporations to anticipate potential harm—the foresight effect.This effect is illustrated by the stiff punishments administered tocorporate defendants in civil court cases. Jurors believe thatcorporations have greater responsibility for harm because theyshould have greater ability to foresee the consequences of theiractions. Jurors also expect a higher level of care from companiesbased on their greater power, the sense that they have moreobligations because they have more resources, and the fact thatcorporate misdeeds have greater consequences than do those ofindividuals operating on their own.Members of the public also judge companies on the way that theyrespond to natural disasters.55 Citizens determine the firm’s levelof benevolent concern by the size and effectiveness of itsresponse. When companies make significant contributions thatmeet the needs of victims, stakeholders rate them more favorablyand consider them to be more ethical. Like the Good Samaritan ofthe Bible who provided bandages, food, clothing, and shelter forthe robbery victim laying alongside the road (described in Chapter5), business Samaritans must not only stop to help but alsoprovide practical assistance.
While it is in the interest of leaders and organizations to act in acompassionate manner for image and financial reasons as well asto meet the expectations of observers, it is even more importantthat they do so for ethical reasons. Altruism is particularly relevantto crisis situations. Love of neighbor urges us to meet the needsof those threatened by crisis, no matter who they are. Victimsdeserve our help because of their status as human beings.Showing concern during a crisis goes well beyond addressing thephysical and financial needs of victims. Those harmed by a crisishave significant emotional and spiritual needs, too.56 They may beoverwhelmed with feelings of loss and grief as well as guilt forsurviving when others did not. Their sense of security, meaning,and purpose is threatened. Post-traumatic stress disorder, whereindividuals periodically relive the terror, is common. Of course,victims aren’t the only ones to experience many of thesereactions. The triggering event, as noted earlier, generatessurprise, anger, fear, and disbelief for crisis managers, othergroup members, and outside observers as well. For instance,mass shootings are traumatic events not only for local residentsbut also for the country as a whole.The emotional and spiritual demands of crises mean that ethicalleaders need to address the whole person during the crisis andpostcrisis stages. They stay in constant communication with groupmembers, calming their fears. They help followers regain theirfocus and emphasize the importance of community. They arrangefor emotional and spiritual counseling and recognize that thewhole organization may need to pass through a grieving process.Ethical leaders also recognize that if the group is to heal, theymust foster hope while honoring the past.The ethic of care has been specifically applied to crisismanagement. The care ethic fosters crisis preparation becausethose concerned about others are more likely to take theircomplaints seriously and are therefore more alert to possiblesigns of trouble. Once they have identified prodromes, they aremore likely to give voice to their concerns instead of exiting theorganization.57
Concern for others can also prompt a group or an organization togo well beyond what the law or fairness requires when respondingto a crisis. Consider the case of the San Ysidro, California,McDonald’s shooting, for example.58 On July 18, 1984, a lonegunman out to “hunt humans” shot 40 people at the restaurant (21died). McDonald’s was not at fault and was, in fact, a victim of theattack. But rather than declaring its innocence or decrying theunfairness of headlines blaming it for the carnage, McDonald’sfollowed the “Horwitz Rule.” Executive vice president and GeneralCounsel Don Horwitz told management: “I don’t want you peopleto worry or care about the legal implications of what you mightsay. We are going to do what’s right for the survivors and familiesof the victims, and we’ll worry about lawsuits later.” (It could havebeen argued that providing help was evidence that McDonald’swas in some way responsible for what happened.) The companythen suspended its national advertising campaign out of respectfor victims and their families, sent personnel to help with funeralarrangements, paid hospital bills, and flew in relatives to be withtheir families. Corporate executives sought the counsel of animportant local religious leader, attended funerals, demolished therestaurant, and then donated the land to the city.The steps taken by McDonald’s in this instance weren’t “fair” anddevalued the rights of the firm. After all, the restaurant chainwasn’t to blame, and yet its leaders spent millions suspendingadvertising, creating a fund for families of victims, demolishing therestaurant, donating the land, and so on. Driven by care,corporate officials kept their focus on responsibility to victims andthe importance of acknowledging their pain. They listened to thecommunity and worked hard at maintaining connections with localpolitical, community, and religious groups.
Engage the Head as Well as the HeartRational thought, problem solving, and other cognitive skills andstrategies are important complements to care and compassion inethical crisis management. Moral leaders respond with their headsas well as their hearts.59 In particular, they are highly mindful andengage in strategic and ethical rational thinking.Ethical crisis leaders develop their capacity to take note ofwarning signs; they become “first-class noticers.”60 First classnoticers pay close attention to the world around them. They aregood at detecting flaws and deception, are open to data thatcontradicts what they currently believe, and can think multiplesteps ahead to determine when and how to make necessarychanges. Ethical leaders take personal responsibility for notanticipating crises. Instead of blaming outside forces (“It wasn’tmy job.” “I couldn’t have possibly have anticipated whatoccurred.”), they learn from what happened. They consider whatthey could do differently in the future. In particular, they note whatdoesn’t make sense. For example, does it make sense to rebuildhomes and businesses in flood plains or next to fire zones? Theydetermine if there is an overlooked alternative (movingneighborhoods out of flood or fire danger, restoring wetlands) thatcould prevent disaster.In addition to paying heedful attention themselves, ethical crisismanagers create mindful cultures. University of Michigan businessprofessors Karl Weick and Kathleen Sutcliffe argue that collectivemindfulness 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 unexpectedevents. Attention to minor problems sets HROs apart from theirless reliable counterparts. Unlike crisis-prone organizations thatignore minor deviations until they magnify into a crisis, HROsrespond forcefully to the weakest signal that something is wrong.Weick and Sutcliffe use the deck of an aircraft carrier to illustratethe characteristics of mindful cultures that prevent harmful crises
from occurring. One naval crewmember described an aircraftcarrier this way:Imagine that it’s a busy day, and you shrink SanFrancisco Airport to only one short runway and one rampand one gate. Make planes take off and land at the sametime, at half the present time interval, rock the runwayfrom side to side, and require that everyone who leavesin the morning returns that same day. Make sure theequipment is so close to the edge of the envelope thatit’s fragile. Then turn off the radar to avoid detection,impose strict controls on radios, fuel the aircraft in placewith their engines running, put an enemy in the air, andscatter live bombs and rockets around. Now, wet thewhole thing down with salt water and oil, and man it with20-year-olds, half of whom have never seen an airplaneclose up. Oh, and by the way, try not to kill anyone.62Despite the dangers, very few carrier accidents occur becausenavy leaders encourage five mindful practices. First, carrier crewsare preoccupied with failure. Every landing is graded, and smallproblems like a plane in the wrong position are treated as signsthat there may be larger issues like poor communication ortraining. Second, those who work on carriers are reluctant tosimplify. Each plane is inspected multiple times, and pilots anddeck crew communicate responsibilities through hand and voicesignals and different-colored uniforms. Third, carrier crews sustaincontinuous sensitivity to operations. Everyone on board is focusedon launching and landing aircraft. Officers observe all activitiesand communicate with each other constantly. Fourth, people oncarriers share a commitment to resilience. Their knowledgeequips them to come up with creative solutions when unexpectedevents like equipment failures or severe weather occur. Fifth,carrier personnel demonstrate deference to expertise. Lower-ranking individuals can overrule their superiors if they have moreexpertise in, for example, landing damaged planes.
Leaders responding to crises also need to employ ethicalrationality. Ethical rationality ties together research on businessethics, strategy, and crisis management. Rationality is defined as“a firm’s ability to make decisions based on comprehensiveinformation and analysis.”63 Rational firms and leaders (which aregenerally more successful) do a thorough job of scanning theenvironment and analyzing the information they gather. They arealso able to quickly generate lots of alternative solutions andideas.64 At the same time, ethics is at the core of their corporatestrategy.65 Such organizations keep the needs of stakeholders inmind and are concerned about building a good society. Theymake routine choices based on moral principles like utilitarianismand the categorical imperative.Ethical rationality serves firms well in crisis management. Theyare less likely to experience crisis events because they continuallyscan the environment and analyze the data they collect. Leadersare not prone to act selfishly (e.g., lie, ignore stakeholder groups,hurt the environment) because they recognize that allstakeholders have intrinsic value and they are committed to thegreater good. When a crisis is triggered, they have moreinformation on hand and can rapidly generate and evaluatealternative courses of action under time pressures. Such firmshave a clearer understanding of their stakeholder groups and howthey might be affected by crisis events. Further, ethically rationalcompanies (and nonprofits) are more likely to make sound moralchoices during a crisis because leaders are in the practice ofincorporating ethical principles into routine decision making.
Improvise From a Strong Moral FoundationDartmouth professor Paul Argenti interviewed corporateexecutives whose firms successfully weathered the World TradeCenter terrorist attacks. One of the lessons of 9/11, according toArgenti, is that, during a disaster, managers must make quickdecisions without guidance.66 They are more likely to make wisechoices if they are prepared. Preparation includes not only trainingand planning but also instilling corporate values. Employees ofseveral undamaged Starbucks stores near Ground Zero kept theirlocations open even as the rest of the company’s outlets in theUnited States were closed for the day. They provided free coffeeand pastries to hospital staff and rescue workers. Several peoplewere saved when Starbucks workers pulled them inside, rescuingthem from collapsing buildings. Leaders and followers at thesestores were acting in accordance with one of the eight principlesof the Starbucks mission statement, which is “Contribute positivelyto our communities and our environment.” Employees at The NewYork Times and Oppenheimer Funds also drew from theirorganizations’ core ideology to continue to serve readers andclients.The ability to ethically improvise is critical in a crisis because noamount of planning and practice can totally equip individuals forthe specific challenges they will face during the crisis event.Unethical decisions, such as refusing to take action orresponsibility, can cause significant harm and undermine thefuture of the group or organization. In addition, the crisis forceschange in priorities. Concern for profit must be set aside in favorof damage control and helping victims. The stakeholders who arenormally most important (e.g., corporate stockholders andowners) take a backseat to those most directly affected by events.Successful improvisation requires that employees be empoweredto act on their own initiative. They must not only know the moralcourse of action but also be able to act on their choices. DuringHurricane Katrina, top Walmart executives told front linemanagers “do everything you can to save people using yourjudgment about what is best.”67 They only asked that these local
leaders keep the command center and fellow managers informed.As a result, New Orleans locations opened up pharmacies toprovide access to medications and were first to get emergencyequipment in their stores to fire and police. They also shippedwater into town two days ahead of the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.
Build ResilienceResilience refers to the collective ability to bounce back from acrisis. While some scholars believe this means returning to thestatus quo, others argue that resilient groups come out of thecrisis stronger than ever before. Those who take a more proactiveapproach to collective resilience treat it as a capacity that groupscan develop.68 To expand this capacity, leaders first developresilience in themselves. Key attributes of self-resilience includethe following:69rebounding/reintegration: ability to move on in a positivedirection after adversity (Complete Self-Assessment 11.2 todetermine your ability to rebound from adversity.)high expectancy/self-determination: a sense of purpose;conviction that barriers can be overcome; not feelingoverwhelmed by hopelessness or extreme challengespositive relationships/social support: healthy connections thatprovide communication and assistancesense of humor: ability to make light of adversity and the self,which encourages coping and moderates intense emotionalreactionsself-esteem/self-efficacy: high self-worth; confidence in theability respond to challenging circumstancesResilient leaders then foster resilience in followers. Thetransformational leadership behaviors described in Chapter 8 areparticularly effective at building subordinate resilience.70 Idealizedinfluence encourages followers to focus on shared values andpurpose instead of falling victim to their fears. Inspirationalmotivation communicates a vision and optimism about the future,which energizes group members. Intellectual stimulationencourages followers to engage in problem solving, criticalthinking, and generating alternative perspectives, all of which arecritical to responding to emergencies. Individualized considerationbuilds followers’ sense of self-efficacy, which equips them torespond more effectively in a crisis and makes them feel valued.Subordinates who feel valued by their leaders invest more infinding solutions to the threat. (Turn to the Focus on Follower
ethics box for more information on how followers can developmoral resilience in the face of ethical adversity.)In addition to fostering resilience in themselves and theirconstituents, ethical leaders promote resilient cultures. Resilientorganizational cultures are marked by the following:711. Psychological safety. To feel safe, people must be free to askquestions, experiment, and admit mistakes without fear ofbeing seen as ignorant or incompetent. They need to offercritical feedback to others and seek honest feedback. Whenmembers feel safe, they take interpersonal risks, which iscritical in emergency situations.2. Deep social capital. Deep social capital is built over time onrespectful, face-to-face interactions based on honesty andtrust. Social capital fosters the sharing of information andresources in a crisis and builds collaboration. Theseinteractions also set the stage for long-term partnerships afterthe immediate danger has passed.3. Diffused power and accountability. Resilient organizationsdisperse influence and accountability instead of beingmanaged top down. Each part of the organization is designedto learn and change. Every member has discretion to makedecisions along with the responsibility to reach organizationalgoals. These elements help organizations respond quickly tochanging crisis conditions.4. Access to broad resource networks. Resilient firms developrelationships with suppliers, neighboring businesses, andother groups that they can draw upon when faced with atraumatic event.Communities, like organizations, can develop their resilience. Tothat end, the nonprofit Rockefeller Foundation hopes to equipcommunities to better prepare and recover from crises byproviding 100 cities with funding to hire chief resilience officers(CROs).72 CROs are charged with developing resiliencestrategies, improving internal communication betweengovernment agencies, coordinating stakeholders, and focusingthe attention of the public and the government on resilienceissues. Each CRO (the first was hired in New Orleans) focuses on
the specific challenge facing her or his city. In earthquake-proneChristchurch, New Zealand, for example, the CRO has identifiedareas called green zones that are safe to build in. In New YorkCity, 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 firemitigation. Grant recipients are provided with technical andlogistical support, helped with funding strategies, and network withother resilience officers.Focus on Follower Ethics Building Moral Resilience Through MoralDistressFollowers face moral distress/moral stress whenever they can’t act inaccordance with their personal values. They know the right thing todo but their lower power and status prevents them from acting ontheir moral convictions. Moral distress, like other stressors, can harmphysical and emotional well-being. One study found that employeemoral stress led to higher fatigue, lower job satisfaction, and greaterlikelihood of turnover. In fact, moral distress was more damaging toemployees than role conflict, feelings of powerlessness, being in adead-end job, family conflicts, angry and unfriendly customers, andpoor supervisor support.Nurses are particularly vulnerable to moral stress. They work indemanding, morally intense environments where the health (andeven the lives) of patients are at stake. They have lower standingthan physicians and are often subject to the rules and regulations oflarge health care organizations. Examples of nurses experiencingmoral distress include wanting to act as patient advocates but beingstretched too thin due to understaffing, having to administerintravenous drugs to patients who have refused to take them orally,conducting unneeded tests ordered by doctors, and invading theprivacy of mental health patients who don’t want medical staff toenter their homes.Nursing ethicists and educators suggest that moral distress can be apathway to moral resilience. They encourage nurses to recognizethat they are not powerless victims but that they can act to better liveout their ethical beliefs. Moral distress is a sign of moral sensitivity,not of moral failure. Taking ethics training and coursework can buildnurses’ confidence to deal with distressing situations; adopting apositive mindset can build their self-awareness and foster greater
sensitivity to patients’ needs. Writing and reflecting on instances ofmoral stress promotes recovery from these events.Talking about ethical issues is another way for nursing staff toaddress moral distress and develop resilience. In addition tointeracting with fellow nurses, they should participate in discussionsand debriefing sessions with doctors and serve as members ofinterdisciplinary ethics committees. Nursing ethicists also note that ahospital’s ethical culture plays a role in fostering moral resilience. Astrong organizational ethical climate reduces the frequency of moraldistress and empowers nurses to better live out their moral values.The same strategies that build moral resilience in nurses should helpother followers do the same. As subordinates, we need to recognizethat moral distress is not a sign of weakness but of ethical strength.We are not victims but can take steps to build our moral resiliencethrough education, ethical dialogue, and seeking out organizationsthat make ethical considerations a priority.SourcesBell DeTienne, K., Agle, B. R., Phillips, J. C., & Ingerson, M.-C.(2012). The impact of moral stress compared to other stressors onemployee fatigue, job satisfaction, and turnover: An empiricalinvestigation. 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 preventingmoral distress and moral residue. MEDSURG Nursing, 25, 121–124.
The Ethical Demands of ExtremeLeadershipWhile crisis strikes every type of organization, there are somegroups that continually operate in crisis environments. Firstresponders, mountain climbers, combat units, Special Weaponsand Tactics (SWAT) teams, astronauts, skydivers, search andrescue teams, and others voluntarily place themselves indangerous settings. A significant number of people work in theseextreme contexts. There are an estimated 89 million people in themilitary worldwide, four million police officers in the largest 10nations, and 298,000 firefighters in the United States and Canadaalone.73 Leaders in these contexts put both their physical andmental health at risk to serve their organizations, communities andclients.Extreme settings call for extreme leadership.74 To care for theneeds of their followers, extreme leaders must possess highlevels of competence and character. Competence involves notonly knowledge of the domain (i.e., combat, firefighting, mountainclimbing) but also the ability to make quick ethical choices inconstantly changing, ambiguous circumstances. Extreme leadersdemonstrate resilience in the face of adversity, modeling copingstrategies for group members. Physical stamina helps themovercome obstacles and equips them to make better ethicaldecisions.Character is also critical in life-and-death situations. Extremesettings call for ethos, which is extreme character or characterbeyond normal expectations.75 Ethos drives extreme leaders torisk injury and death with little hope of reward and to sacrifice onbehalf of others. These leaders run to, not from, danger. That wasthe case in the seconds following the Boston Marathon bombings.As panicked runners and spectators fled to safety beyond thefinish line, emergency personnel and volunteers ran towards thesite of the blast, putting them at risk if there were additionalexplosions. Critical components of ethos include
Courage: Extreme leaders choose to put themselves indanger and take on more than their fair share of risks. Saidone SWAT team leader, “If you put the plan together andyou’re not comfortable being up there with a foot through thedoor, then what the hell is up?”76 They also possesses moralcourage, making sure that the team conducts itself in anethical manner (by not killing unarmed civilians in combat, forexample) and questioning orders that put the unit at needlessrisk.Optimism: Both optimism and fear are contagious. Successfulleaders offer hope that keeps the group going. Ineffectiveleaders allow their groups to wallow in despair, which sapsthe will to survive.Integrity/Authenticity: Followers in high-risk situations wantconsistent leaders who are transparent about the challengesfacing the group. They also demand authenticity (see Chapter8). When lives are on the line, followers quickly recognize andreject inauthentic leaders who don’t live up to their values.(Case Study 12.3 describes an extreme setting whereauthenticity is particularly important.)Loyalty: Extreme leaders are intensely loyal to their followers,constantly looking out for their welfare. They may denythemselves rations so that subordinates may eat, forexample. At other times, they share in the discomfort offollowers. During the war in Afghanistan, the commander ofthe U.S. 25th Infantry Division military unit demonstrated hiswillingness to share the discomfort of his troops when he leftheadquarters on Christmas day and flew to a remote militarybase. When he arrived, he sent two junior officers back toheadquarters to enjoy the holiday. He stayed, spending theday 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 carefor them. This concern extends to making sure that the needsof followers’ families are also met.Humility: Many extreme leaders—guides, soldiers, policeofficers—live modestly and don’t earn that much more thantheir followers. They are motivated by their commitment to thegroup’s mission, not wealth.
Because of the dangers inherent in extreme settings, extremeleaders need to be prepared to deal with death. Ethical leadersrecognize that the death of an individual is a “social event,” onethat strikes the group as a whole.77 They use funerals, momentsof silence, memorial services and other rituals as “shockabsorbers” 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 ofthemselves.) Moral leaders know that denying or downplayingdeath keeps group members from processing the loss, which canundermine group cohesion and morale while contributing toposttraumatic stress. They treat the fallen, no matter how lowlytheir status or rank, with respect. This signals to survivors thateveryone is important, even in death. According to extremeleadership expert Col. Thomas Kolditz,People watch leaders in the presence of the dead verycarefully, because the dead are the most vulnerablemembers of any organization: They can’t defendthemselves, and they project the innocence of the humansoul. They no longer have the ability to contribute, sothere is no transactional purpose associated with theirtreatment. You reach every member of your organizationby the way you treat your dead.78Humility and compassion come to the fore when dealing withdeath. Moral leaders recognize that when someone is killed orseriously injured, they need to make themselves “small” so thefocus can stay on the victim. Ethical response to death alsoprovides an opportunity for renewal. Coming face to face withdeath prompts us to look beyond the self to connect with others.Survivors create new social bonds; the group becomes morecohesive.To date, there is no universal code of ethics for leaders in all typesof 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
creating risk for others when there is no other option (the principleof necessity). Soldiers and law enforcement personnel should onlyuse as much force as needed to accomplish the mission whilepreserving the rights of those affected by the mission (theprinciple of proportionality). They shouldn’t intentionally harmthose who don’t pose a threat (the principle of immunity).79Though we may never set out to become crisis professionals, wecan learn from their example. When crisis strikes, competenceand character make the difference between organizationalsurvival and failure. As leaders, we need to demonstrate ourexpertise, make rapid moral choices, model resilience, andpossess physical stamina. Our character—courage, loyalty,authenticity, compassion, humility—takes on added significance inemergency situations. Acknowledge death when it occurs in ourorganizations, treating the fallen with utmost respect and lookingto strengthen connections with survivors. Concern for the moralworth of others should guide our choices.Implications and ApplicationsA crisis, which is any major unanticipated event that poses asignificant threat, will be the ultimate test of your ability toprovide ethical leadership.Crises can be divided into 10 types: public perception, naturaldisasters, product or service, terrorist attacks, economic,human resources, industrial, oil and chemical spills,transportation, and outside environment.Deliberate attempts to disrupt or destroy systems (abnormalaccidents) are on the rise, and you must help your group ororganization 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. Usethis time to identify potential trouble spots, to examine long-term trends that might threaten the group, and to prepare crisismanagement plans (CMPs).The crisis event starts with a trigger event and the recognitionthat a crisis has occurred. This stage ends when the immediatecrisis is resolved. During this phase, your task is to identify thecrisis, activate CMPs and teams, appoint a spokesperson, andtry to limit the damage. Get to the scene of the disaster as soonas possible; be physically present for victims.
Postcrisis is a period of investigation and recovery. Moralleaders try to determine what went wrong and institutecorrective measures. They also help the group (1) salvage itsreputation, (2) engage in crisis learning, (3) begin the healingprocess by honoring victims and looking to future opportunities,and (4) foster resilience (the ability to bounce back from futurecrises).Responsibility is the foundation for ethical crisis leadership. Asa leader, you have a duty to try to prevent the harm caused bya crisis, to mitigate the damage caused by your group, toaddress the needs of all affected stakeholder groups, to takesteps to prevent a similar event from happening again, to helpthe organization learn from the experience, and to fosterrenewal.In an emergency, make transparency your goal. As much aspossible, be open with stakeholders and strive to maintainsymmetrical relationships with these groups based on two-waycommunication.Crisis events call for heroic leadership. Heroes take decisiveaction when most people can’t or won’t. They act for the goodof others at significant risk to themselves with no hope ofreward. Prepare for heroic action by stimulating your heroicimagination, which is the capacity to imagine risky situations,and how you might respond.Altruism (care) should be the driving ethical principle duringcrisis events. Address the emotional and spiritual concerns ofthose affected, not just their financial and physical needs. Gobeyond what the law and justice require.As a leader, you will need to engage the head as well as theheart when responding to crises. Create a mindful culture thatclosely monitors and corrects even minor problems anddeviations. Base decisions on information and analysis as wellas on moral values in order to better anticipate and managecrisis events.No amount of preparation can prepare you and the rest of yourgroup for every contingency, so you will need to ethicallyimprovise. Successful improvisation draws on the core missionand values of your group or organization.Develop your ability to recover from setbacks. Then build thecollective resilience of your group through transformationalleadership behaviors and by fostering a culture marked bypsychological safety, diffused power and accountability, deepsocial capital, and access to broad resource networks.Extreme leaders continually operate in high-threat situations. Tosucceed, they demonstrate competence and extraordinarycharacter. They honor the dead while putting a high value on
human life. You can draw from their example when facingcrises.For Further Exploration, Challenge, and Self-Assessment1. React to one the following statements from the opening of thechapter: “Crises are moments of moral imperative.” or “Everycrisis requires a hero.” Record your reflections and share themwith a partner or in a group.2. Use Self-Assessment 12.1 to determine your crisis readinesslevel and that of your organization. If possible, distribute theassessment 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 recoverfrom setbacks?4. Should all cities have CROs? What tasks should be included inthe job description for this position? What skills would it take tofill this position? Write up your conclusions.5. In a group, brainstorm a list of possible crises that could strikeyour college or university or work organization. Then select oneof these events and outline a crisis management strategy fordealing with this situation. If time permits, assume the role oforganizational 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 posea threat to your organization. Develop strategies to proactivelyaddress each of the issues raised by these trends.7. In a research paper, evaluate the crisis response of anorganization or city using the ethical standards and strategiesdescribed in this chapter as well as the crisis leadershipscorecard in Box 12.1. Describe the event and provide ananalysis. Include suggestions that would help the organizationdo a better job of ethical crisis management in the future.8. Create a case study that demonstrates how an organizationwas able to ethically improvise during a crisis event. Or, as analternative, create a case study that demonstrates how anorganization was able to learn from a crisis event.9. In a group, come up with a list of guidelines for determiningwhat to reveal and what to keep secret in a crisis.10. Have you ever been a leader in a life-or-death situation? Whatethical challenges did you face and how did you meet thesedemands? Share your experiences with the rest of the class.
Student Study SiteVisit the student study site athttps://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGEjournal articles for further research and information on key chaptertopics.
Case Study 12.1Failure to Learn From Crisis: Duck Boats as“Death Traps”Duck boat tours are a popular tourist attraction in Miami, New York, SanDiego, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., London, San Juan, and othercities in the United States and abroad. Duck boats are amphibiousvehicles designed to travel on land and water. They were developedduring World War II to move troops and supplies from ship to shore duringthe Normandy invasion and other landings. After the war, they wereconverted to recreational use. The typical duck tour boat, painted in brightcolors, is roughly shaped like a shoe with a canvas canopy. Some touroperators promote a festive atmosphere by providing passengers withkazoos to make quacking sounds or by piping in music.The bright colors and festive spirit of the typical duck boat tour hides theugly reality that these vehicles can be “death traps” for those who ridethem. On land, they have blind spots that make them more vulnerable toaccidents. Five died when a Seattle duck boat filled with students collidedwith a bus and a pedestrian was killed by a duck boat in Boston. Onwater, they are even more dangerous. They travel slowly and sit low inthe water, which makes them easy to swamp in rough seas. Canopiescan trap passengers (even those in life jackets) inside the vessel in theevent the boat submerges.The sinking of a Ride the Ducks boat on Missouri’s Table Rock Lake in2018 was a stark reminder of duck boat danger. Seventeen passengersand one crew member drowned when the vehicle capsized and sank in80 feet of water during a sudden thunderstorm. Nine of the victims weremembers 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 bobbingand then disappearing in the waves. Seventy-mile-an-hour winds maderescue 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 needthem.”1 (When found, none of the victims had life jackets on.) Thevessel’s captain decided to go out on the lake even though he hadreceived a report from the local weather service that a strong storm wasapproaching. He has been charged with 17 counts of negligence (onecount for each victim), misconduct, and inattention to duty by a ship’sofficer. He could serve 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each
count if convicted. The president of the company that owns the duckboats 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 abarge on the Delaware River. In 1999, 13 people perished when a poorlymaintained boat sank in calm water shortly after leaving shore near HotSprings, Arkansas. Following that accident, the National TransportationSafety Board (NTSB) made a series of recommendations to improvepassenger safety. These included removing the canopies to improve thelikelihood of underwater escape and adding additional buoyancy so thatthe vehicles could stay afloat even if they take on water. The NTSBissued an urgent warning to duck boat operators: “Without delay, alteryour amphibious passenger vessels to provide reserve buoyance . . .through passive means, such as watertight compartmentalization, so thatthey will remain afloat and upright in the event of flooding, even whencarrying a full complement of passengers and crew.”2 However, in the 20years between the Arkansas and Missouri accidents, few if any of therecommendations were implemented. (The NTSB has no authority toforce tour operators to comply.) Lax safety enforcement is likely due to thefact that oversight is split between a number of agencies, including theCoast Guard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, andlocal and state governments where the boats operate.A number of critics are calling for closer regulation of the duck boatindustry. Boston, for example, is considering legislation requiring sensorsand cameras on every duck boat, and the tour operator now requires twotour guides on each vehicle. Some, including an attorney whorepresented victims in two previous fatal duck boat accidents, want to banthe boats altogether. Jim Hall, chair of the NTSB at the time of the HotSprings tragedy, agrees that the boats are inherently dangerous: “I don’tthink those vehicles were designed for the recreational use they’re beingused for. They’re not safe.”3
Discussion Probes1. Have you ever been on a duck boat tour? Did you have anyconcerns about your safety? Would you go another tour knowing thedangers?2. How is the Table Rock sinking the result of failing to learn from theearlier Arkansas accident? What other factors apparentlycontributed to the tragedy?3. Who, if anyone, should be held accountable for the Table Rockdeaths besides the captain?4. What agency or agencies should be responsible for ensuring thesafety 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 makethem safer? Would this include requiring all passengers to wear lifejackets when the boats are on the water?
Notes1. Chuck, E. (2018, July 20). For nearly 20 years, duck boat safetyrecommendations have gone largely ignored. NBC News.2. Eligon, J., Williams, T., Smith, M., & Zraick, K. (2018, July 20). Missouriduck boat accident kills 17, including 9 from same family. The New YorkTimes.3. Chuck.
Sources“Deathtraps”: Fatal Branson duck boat accident shines light on pastincidents. CBS News.Flint, K. (2017, March 21). Boston duck tours return under new rulesfollowing fatal collision. NBC Boston.Hayes, C. (2018, July 21). Would wearing life jackets have made thedeadly Branson duck boat accident even worse? USA Today.Park, M., & Levenson, E. (2018, July 23). Coast Guard raises capsizedboat to the surface of Table Rock Lake. CNN.Romo, V. (2018, November 8). Duck boat captain indicted in Missouri lakeaccident that killed 17. NPR.Szmania, C. (2018, July 27). This one design flaw led to a deadlyMissouri duck boat accident. Yahoo!News.
Case Study 12.2One Chef, a Fist Full of Credit Cards, andthe World’s Largest RestaurantThe 2017 hurricane season was the most expensive on record, causingover $200 billion in damage in the United States. Three major stormscaused most of the devastation. Hurricanes Harvey and Irma blastedTexas and Florida and Hurricane Maria wiped out homes and crops aswell as most of the infrastructure of Puerto Rico. The disaster response inTexas and Florida was faster and more effective than in the aftermath ofHurricane Katrina. That was not the case in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricanofficials complained that emergency supplies and personnel weredelayed. Once food, water, fuel, and medicine arrived, they often sat atshipping terminals because there weren’t enough trucks and drivers todeliver them. Roads to remote towns were cut off. Six weeks after Maria,80% of the population was without electricity and one quarter lackedaccess to clean drinking water. The United Nations criticized U.S. leadersfor “absence of adequate emergency response” which resulted in an“alarming situation” for residents.1Washington, D.C., celebrity chef Jose Andres, founder of the WorldCentral Kitchen nonprofit, landed in Puerto Rico in the midst of the chaos.After realizing that conditions were worse than expected, Andres went towork doing what he knows best—cooking. He recruited local chefs whohad 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 personneland those stuck in long gas lines. Within a week, the group was serving25,000 meals a day, including sandwiches and fresh fruit. Morevolunteers, nonprofits, and food companies joined the effort and thecentral kitchen moved to the island’s largest arena. Food trucks weredispatched to isolated neighborhoods and U.S. Immigration and CustomsEnforcement cars patrolling the island were loaded up with fooddeliveries. At first, Andres financed operations using his credit cards andcash he carried in his Orvis fishing vest. Later, the $400,000 a day costwas 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 papermap of feeding stations to coordinate their efforts.Chef Andres clashed with FEMA and other government agencies. Hebristled at FEMA’s claims that his group lacked the experience to mount a
massive feeding effort. He criticized relief authorities for providingpremade military food rations or MREs, which are expensive, instead ofhot food. He was frustrated with having to take time to make bids andnegotiate contracts during the crisis. “Emergency in food means onething,” said Andres. “People are hungry. And when you’re hungry, it’stoday.”2Andres and his World Central Kitchen staff are not the only restaurateursto respond to natural disasters. Chefs served food after the earthquakeand tsunami in Sumatra, a massive tornado in Joplin, Missouri, and fire inNorthern California. Other groups and organizations are following the leadof the chefs by providing targeted disaster response that addressesspecific problems. UPS, for example, deploys logistic emergency teamsto help with warehousing and transportation. IBM helps organizationsquickly restore their IT systems.At one point, World Central Kitchen served 130,000 meals a day in “thelargest restaurant in the world.” When conditions began to improve,Andres cut back on his operation, not wanting to compete with localrestaurants and other businesses. He then left the island for home. Hestayed longer than he intended but felt he couldn’t do otherwise. “At theend, 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 ithappen.”3
Discussion Probes1. Why do you think disaster recovery efforts in Puerto Rico laggedbehind those on the U.S. mainland?2. What resources did Chef Andres have that enabled him to organizehis feeding program?3. Why are warm meals important following a disaster?4. Is there any danger in operating outside normal channels, as ChefAndres did, when responding to disaster?5. Can you think of other examples of individuals, companies, andorganizations that have applied their specific skills and knowledge toparticular disaster recovery problems?6. Which of the components of ethical crisis management do you seein this case?
Notes1. Barron, L. (2017, October 31). U.S. emergency response efforts inPuerto Rico aren’t good enough, U.N. experts say. Time.2. Augenstein, N. (2017, November 27). DC chef Jose Andres feedsmillions in hurricane-stricken Puerto Rico. Retrieved fromhttps://wtop.com/author/neal-augesntein/3. Severson, K. (2017, October 30). Jose Andres fed Puerto Rico, andmay change how aid is given. The New York Times, p. D1.
SourcesAndres, 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 teamhave prepared more hot meals in Puerto Rico than the Red Cross. TheWashington Post.Fausset, R. (2017, September 12). Amid chaos of storms, U.S. shows ithas improved its response [Web log post]. The New York Times.Pomranz, M. (2017, November 13). Jose Andres says his work in PuertoRico is far from done. Food & Wine.Sullivan, B. K. (2017, November 28). The most expensive U.S. hurricaneseason ever: By the numbers. Bloomberg.
Case Study 12.3Extreme Leadership at the Bottom of theWorldAntarctica is the most hostile—coldest, windiest, driest—environment onearth. Temperatures can drop to 129 degrees below and blizzard windspeeds can reach 200 miles per hour. Complete darkness envelops this,the southernmost continent, for months on end. “Antarctica is the lastwilderness on the planet,” notes one expedition leader. “There are nonative humans living on Antarctica, and there’s a good reason for that.”1Under the terms of a 1959 treaty, the United States, Australia, NewZealand, Russia, and Britain operate Antarctic scientific research stationshousing biologists, climatologists, hydrologists, and other scientistssupported by technical, medical, and maintenance staff. Approximately1,000 personnel (called sojourners) spend their winters on the ice aftersummer visitors have departed. The extreme environment poses aconstant threat (frostbite is routine) and deaths occur. Scientists andsupport personnel have perished in accidents, drownings, shipwrecks,fires, and helicopter and plane crashes. Medical evacuations are highlydangerous because darkness and extreme cold keep planes from flying.As a result, station staff are largely on their own when medicalemergencies strike. In one notable medical crisis, Jerri Nielsen, aphysician at the Amundsen–Scott Pole Research Station, was airlifted outfor aggressive breast cancer but not before she first performed a biopsyon herself. (Nonmedical personnel assisted after first practicing for theoperation using needles on a raw chicken.)Antarctic sojourners face social and psychological challenges along withphysical dangers. Those who overwinter are separated from family andfriends for months while being forced to live with strangers in tightquarters. “Winter-over syndrome” describes such symptoms as insomnia,depression, irritability, withdrawal, and slowed physical and cognitivefunction. The polar workplace serves as a prototype for other “capsuleenvironments.” How sojourners cope with life at the South Pole canprovide insights into how humans might function on extended spaceflights and when living on other planets.Polar leadership calls for the right mix of character traits. Researcher IanLovegrove studied 26 British station managers and their followers andfound that successful station managers were able to build trust byaccepting (trusting) station personnel and engaging in open and honestcommunication. Honesty is particularly important when debriefing “near
misses,” errors that could have caused the loss of life. Sojourners wantleaders who are warm and empathetic, but not overly so, since the fieldleader may have to discipline team members. Effective leaders areoptimistic, with a moderate sense of humor. Most importantly, stationmanagers are authentic leaders. They demonstrate integrity, drawingupon their self-awareness and values to promote well-being of theirfollowers. Because station leaders are under constant scrutiny in confinedspaces, followers quickly note any inauthentic behaviors, which destroytrust.Authentic polar leaders play a critical role in creating positive experiencesfor sojourners. Polar veterans report many more positive than negativeevents and a high percentage (25% of Australian winterers, for instance)return again. Those who overcome the hardships of polar stationenvironments have higher levels of mental and physical health, success,and insight after their missions. (The same is true of submariners.) Thegrandeur of the Antarctic appears to stimulate reflection about the beauty,spiritual importance, and might of nature. Many modern sojourners echothe words of Cherry-Garrard, a member of Robert Scott’s 1912 Antarcticexpedition. He described the expedition as “the worst way to have thebest time of your life.”2
Discussion Probes1. What factors make polar research similar to other extreme contexts?Different?2. How do the character traits of successful polar station leaderscompare to those of leaders in other extreme settings?3. Would polar station leaders be as effective if they acted astransformational leaders? Servant leaders? Why or why not?4. What role does resilience play in meeting the challenges of leadingand following at the South Pole?5. Why would Antarctica exploration or research be the “best time” oflife for those who travel there? What impact could such anexperience have on the character of participants?6. What leadership ethics lessons can we draw from extremeleadership in the Antarctic?
Notes1. Ghose, T. (2016, January 26). Explorer’s death highlights danger ofAntarctica. Live Science.2. Roberts, R. (2011, January). Psychology at the end of the world. ThePsychologist, 24, p. 25.
SourcesDoctor 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 doctorin 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 Antarcticstation 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 ofcapsule habitats. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 227–253.Wood, J., Hysong, S. J., Lugg, D. J. & Harm, D. L. (2000). Is it really sobad? A comparison of positive and negative experiences in Antarcticwinter stations. Environment and Behavior, 32, 84–110.SELF-ASSESSMENT 12.1 Crisis and/or Disaster PreparednessScaleThis instrument measures how prepared you think you and yourorganization are for a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, an industrialaccident, or another form of crisis. The higher your score (possiblescores range from 21 to 84), the higher your level of perceivedpreparedness.Instructions: Score each of the following as 1 = strongly disagree, 2 =disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. Reverse scores whereindicated.1. I am very familiar with our building’sevacuation plan.12342. It would be easy for a potentially threateningnonemployee to gain access to my workplace.(Reverse)1234
3. If my organization suffered a serious crisis, Imight lose my job. (Reverse)12344. If my organization suffered a serious crisis, Iwould still get paid until we could reopen.12345. My organization has provided eachemployee with a basic emergency preparednesskit (e.g., flashlight, smoke mask).12346. The security at my workplace is adequate.12347. If a crisis occurred at my organization, I amfamiliar with the plan for how family memberscan get information on the status (e.g., safety) oftheir relatives.12348. In the event of an emergency or a disaster, Iam familiar with my organization’s plan tocontinue operations from another location.12349. All organization members are required torehearse portions of our crisis plan (e.g.,evacuation).123410. If my organization suffered a serious crisis,I would still have my job.123411. If my organization suffered a crisis, I wouldstill be covered by my organization’s employeebenefits (e.g., health insurance).123412. Security at my workplace has beensignificantly increased since September 11,2001.123413. I know where the nearest fire extinguisheris to my desk/workstation.123414. If a crisis and evacuation occurred at myorganization, I am familiar with our plan on howto communicate with my fellow employees fromscattered or emergency locations (e.g., cellphone numbers, websites, e-mail lists).1234
15. Most of our employees are familiar with myorganization’s crisis/disaster plan.123416. As part of our emergency plan, customersand suppliers would be able to contact us forinformation.123417. If my organization suffered a crisis/disaster,I would have the data I need to do my jobbacked up at a remote site.123418. My organization offers to pay to havevolunteer employees trained in basic life supporttechniques (e.g., CPR, first aid).123419. My organization has contingency plans inplace so our customers would be covered if wesuffered a disaster.123420. I know where the nearest emergency exitsare to my desk/workstation.123421. My organization’s emergency plan hasbeen coordinated with local agencies (e.g., thefire department, hospitals).1234Source: Fowler, K. L., Kling, N. D., & Larson, M. D. (2007).Organizational preparedness for coping with a major crisis ordisaster. Business & Society, 46, 100–101.SELF-ASSESSMENT 12.2 The Brief Resilience Scale
InstructionsPlease indicate the extent to which you agree with each of thefollowing statements by using the following scale: 1 = stronglydisagree, 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 yourscores for the six items to come up with a total. Then divide your totalscore by 6 to determine your mean score. The higher your meanscore (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 ofBehavioral Medicine, 15, p. 196. Used by permission.
Notes1. Fearn-Banks, K. (2017). Crisis communications: A casebookapproach (5th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Pearson, C. M., &Judith, A. C. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy ofManagement Review, 23, 59–71.2. Christensen, S. L., & Kohls, J. (2003). Ethical decision makingin 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 andbetter from a crisis. New York, NY: AMACOM.5. For more information on the relationship between complexityand crises, see Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living withhigh-risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.6. Seeger et al.7. Bazerman, M. H., & Watkins, M. D. (2004). Predictablesurprises: The disasters you should have seen coming and how toprevent them. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.8. Pauchant, T. C., & Mitroff, I. I. (1992). Transforming the crisis-prone organization: Preventing individual, organizational, andenvironmental 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.
11. Livesey, S. M. (2003). Organizing and leading the grassroots:An interview with Lois Gibbs, Love Canal HomeownersAssociation activist. Organization, 16, 448–503.12. Fink, S. (2002). Crisis management: Planning for theinevitable. Lincoln, NE: Backinprint.com.13.Equifax data breach was “entirely preventable,” congressionalreport 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 andmanager 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 managingcorporate crises: A step-by-step handbook for surviving majorcatastrophes. 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 crisismanagement: A casebook of best practice (3rd ed.). London,England: Kogan Page.17. Dougall, E. (2008, December 12). Issues management.Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved fromhttp://www.instituteforpr.org18. Heath, R. L. (2002). Issues management: Its past, present andfuture. 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 socialmedia in risk and crisis communication. Journal of Contingenciesand Crisis Management, 19, 110–122.20. Hunter, D. (2018, December 4). 2018 Anchorage earthquake:Preparedness works! Scientific American; Sacks, B. (2018,
November 14). The California town destroyed by the Camp firewasn’t prepared for the worst. And then something even worsecame. BuzzFeedNews.21. Lee, J., Woeste, J. H., & Heath, R. L. (2007). Getting ready forcrises: 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 inbureaucratic crisis management: The Swedish experience withthe 2004 tsunami disaster. In L. Svedin (Ed.), Ethics and crisismanagement (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 fromMalaysia over missing airliner perplex, infuriate.WashingtonPost.com27. 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 crisiscommunication. In D. P. Millar & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding tocrisis: 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 attributiontheory-based approach to crisis management. In D. P. Millar & R.L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach tocrisis communication (pp. 95–115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.29. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing theunexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.30. Wallace, J. (2018, December 13). Report on Hurricane Harveyresponse finds plenty of room for improvement. HoustonChronicle.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 ofpost-crisis discourse. Public Relations Review, 33, 130–134;Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2008). Post-crisiscommunication and renewal: Understanding the potential forpositive 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 floodingbut remains vulnerable. The New York Times.35. Seeger et al.36. Allinson, R. E. (1993). Global disasters: Inquiries intomanagement 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). GMagrees 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 bettergovernance? (pp. 47–57). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press; Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2013). Theorizing crisiscommunication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.40. Lazarus, H., & McManus, T. (2006). Transparency guru: Aninterview with Tom McManus. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 25, 923–936.41. Fearn-Banks.42. Christensen, L. T., & Langer, R. (2009). Public relations andthe strategic use of transparency: Consistency, hypocrisy, andcorporate 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 publicrelations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Grunig, L. A.,Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relationsand effective organizations: A study of communicationmanagement in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.44. Fearn-Banks.45. Lazarus & McManus.46. Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy inorganizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51,227–242; Paul, J., & Strbiak, C. A. (1997). The ethics of strategicambiguity. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 149–159.47. Kline, S. L., Simunich, B., & Weber, H. (2009). The use ofequivocal 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 strategiccommunication. International Journal of Business Communication,52, 122–142.48. Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2000). Consistent questions ofambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the Boxas a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 143–155.
49. Smithson, J., & Venette, S. (2013). Stonewalling as an image-defense strategy: A critical examination of BP’s response to theDeepwater 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: Understandingleadership during extreme events. In S. T. Allison, G. R. Goethals,& R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of heroism and heroicleadership (pp. 185–202). New York, NY: Routledge.52. Franco, Z., & Zimbardo, P. (2006, September 1). The banalityof heroism. Greater Good.53. Oppel, R. A. (2018, July 17). MGM Resorts sues 1,000 victimsof Las Vegas Shooting, seeking to avoid liability. The New YorkTimes.54. Bauman, D. C. (2011). Evaluating ethical approaches to crisisleadership: Insights from unintentional harm research. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 98, 281–295; Knobe, J. (2006). The concept ofintentional 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: Across-cultural study. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6, 113–132.55. Jordan, J., Diermeier, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Thestrategic Samaritan: How effectiveness and proximity affectcorporate 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 crisisprevention. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 341–353; Simola, S.
(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 managingimage 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: TimesBooks/Henry Holt.60. Bazerman, M. H. (2014). The power of noticing: What the bestleaders see. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.61. Weick & Sutcliffe. See also Roberts, K. H. (2006). Somecharacteristics 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 onflight decks. In D. Smith & D. Elliott (Eds.), Key readings in crisismanagement: Systems and structures for prevention and recovery(pp. 343–368). London, England: Routledge.62. Rochlin, G. I., LaPorte, T. R., & Roberts, K. H. (1987). Theself-designing high-reliability organization: Aircraft carrier flightoperations 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 organizationalcrisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 371–383.64. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions inhigh-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: Lessonsfrom 9/11. Harvard Business Review, 103–109.
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 throughstrategic human resource management. Human ResourceManagement 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. Journalof 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 ofproactive personality and optimism. New Zealand Journal ofPsychology, 45, 13–21; Rajah, R., & Arvey, R. D. (2013). Helpinggroup 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. USAToday; Berkowiz, M. (2015). What a chief resilience officer does.100 Resilient Cities, Rockefeller Foundation; Institutionalizingurban resilience: A midterm monitoring and evaluation report of100 resilient cities (2018, December 6). 100 Resilient Cities,Rockefeller Foundation.73. Hannah, S. T., & Parry, K. W. (2014). Leadership in extremecontexts. 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 extremecontexts. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 897–919; 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.), Authenticleadership 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. LeadershipQuarterly, 22, 989–994; Jennings, P. L., & Hannah, S. T. (2011).The moralities of obligation and aspiration: Towards a concept ofexemplary military ethics and leadership. Military Psychology, 23,550–571.76. Kolditz, T. A. (2005, Fall). The in extremis leader. Leader toLeader, 6–18, p. 11.77. Cohen, R. A. (2006). Levinas: Thinking about death—contraHeidegger. International Journal of the Philosophy of Religion, 60,21–39; Kernic, F. (2017). Facing death: The dynamics ofleadership and group behavior in extreme situations when deathstrikes without warning. In M. Holenweger, M. Jager, & F. Kernic(Eds.), Leadership in extreme situations: Advanced sciences andtechnologies for security applications (pp. 21–40). New York, NY:Springer.78. Kolditz, T. A. (2007). In extremis leadership: Leading as if yourlife depended on it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. p. 143.79. Pfaff, C. A., Reich, T., Redman, W., & Hurley, M. (2011). Ethicsin dangerous situations. In P. Sweeney, M. D. Matthews, & P. B.Lester (Eds.), Leadership in dangerous situations: A handbook forthe armed forces, emergency, services, and first responders (pp.121–138). Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
EpilogueIt’s only fair to tell you fellows now that we’re not likely tocome out of this.—CAPTAIN JOSHUA JAMES, SPEAKING TO HISCREW DURING THE HURRICANE OF 1888Captain Joshua James (1826–1902) is the “patron saint” of thesearch and rescue unit of the U.S. Coast Guard. James ledrescue efforts to save sailors who crashed off the shores ofMassachusetts. When word came of a shipwreck, James and hisvolunteer crew would launch a large rowboat into heavy seas.James would keep an eye out for the stricken vessel as his menrowed, steering with a large wooden rudder. During his career, henever lost a crewman or a shipwrecked person who had beenalive when picked up. The captain’s finest hour came during atremendous storm in late November 1888. Over a 24-hour period,James (62 years old at the time) and his men rescued 29 sailorsfrom five ships.Philip Hallie, who writes about James in his book Tales of Goodand Evil, Help and Harm, argues that we can understand James’scourageous leadership only as an extension of his largercommunity. James lived in Hull, a tiny, impoverished town on theMassachusetts coast. Most coastal villages of the time profitedfrom shipwrecks. Beachcombers would scavenge everything fromthe cargo to the sunken ships’ timbers and anchors. Unscrupulouspeople called “mooncussers” would lure boats aground. On dark,moonless nights, they would hang a lantern from a donkey andtrick sea captains into sailing onto the rocks.Unlike their neighbors up and down the coast, the people of Hulltried to stop the carnage. They built shelters for those whowashed ashore, cared for the sick and injured, protested againstshipping companies and insurers who sent inexperiencedcaptains and crews into danger, and had their lifeboat always atthe ready. During the storm of 1888, citizens burned their fences
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 picketfences near the crest of the hill and built a big fire that litup the wreck and helped the lifesavers to avoid theflopping, slashing debris around the boat. The loose andbroken spars of a ruined ship were one of the maindangers lifesavers had to face. But the sailors on thewrecked ship needed the firelight too. It showed themwhat the lifesavers were doing, and what they could doto help them. And it gave them hope: It showed them thatthey were not alone.1The story of Captain James and his fellow villagers is a fitting endto this text. In their actions, they embodied many of the themesintroduced earlier: character; values; good versus evil; moralaction; altruism; cooperation; transformational, authentic,aesthetic, benevolent, ethical and servant leadership; socialresponsibility; ethical crisis leadership; and purpose. The captain,who lost his mother and baby sister in a shipwreck, had onemission in life: saving lives at sea. Following his lead, residentstook on nearly insurmountable challenges at great personal cost.They recognized that helpers often need help. By burning theirfences, these followers—living in extremely modest conditions—cast a light that literally made the difference between life anddeath. But like other groups of leaders and followers, they werefar from perfect. In the winter hurricane season, the villagers didtheir best to save lives. In the summer, pickpockets (helped by acorrupt police force) preyed on those who visited the town’sresorts. The dark side of Hull shouldn’t diminish the astonishingfeats of Captain James and his neighbors, however. Hallie callswhat James did during the storm of 1888 an example of “moralbeauty.”And moral beauty happens when someone carves out a place forcompassion in a largely ruthless universe. It happened in theFrench village of Le Chambon during the war [World War II], and it
happened in and near the American village of Hull during the longlifetime of Joshua James.It happens, and it fails to happen, in almost every event ofpeople’s lives together—in streets, in kitchens, in bedrooms, inworkplaces, in wars. But sometimes it happens in a way thatengrosses the mind and captivates memory. Sometimes ithappens in such a way that the people who make it happen seemto 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 andloud storms of uncaring that surround—and eventually kill—usall.2
Notes1. Hallie, P. (1997). Tales of good and evil, help and harm. NewYork, NY: HarperCollins, p. 146.2. Hallie, p. 173.
ReferencesAasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielson, M. B., &Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of destructive leadershipbehavior. British Journal of Management, 21, 438–452.Abodor, H. (2012). Ethical issues in outsourcing: The case ofcontract medical research and the global pharmaceuticalindustry. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 239–255.Abowitz, K. K. (2007). Moral perception though aesthetics:Engaging imaginations in educational ethics. Journal of TeacherEducation, 58, 287–298.Abrahams, J. (2007). 101 mission statements from topcompanies. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.Abrams, R. (2018, March 8). Second top Nike executive departsamid complaints of workplace behavior. The New York Times, p.B2.Abrams, R., Hsu, T., & Eligon, J. (2018, May 29). Starbucks tallorder: Tackle systemic racism in 4 hours. The New York Times,p. B1.Abrams, R., Hsu, T., & Eligon, J. (2018, May 30). Closing up shopfor an afternoon to address bias. The New York Times, p. B1.Ackerill, J. L. (1981). Aristotle the philosopher. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.
Adam, K. (2018, July 3). Meet the British “A-Team” divers at thecenter of Thailand cave rescue. The Washington Post.Adams, G. B. (2011). The problem of administrative evil in aculture of technical rationality. Public Integrity, 13, 275–285.Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2005). Public-service ethics andadministrative evil: Prospects and problems. In H. G.Frederickson & R. K. Ghere (Eds.), Ethics in publicmanagement (pp. 114–138). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2009). Ethical failings,incompetence, and administrative evil: Lessons from Katrinaand Iraq. In R. W. Cox III (Ed.), Ethics and integrity in publicadministration: Concepts and cases (pp. 40–64). Armonk, NY:M. E. Sharpe.Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2012). The dynamics ofadministrative 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 administrativeevil (4th ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Adams, J. S., Taschian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes of ethicsas signals for ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 29,199–211.Adler, N., & Gundersen, A. (2008). International dimensions oforganizational behavior (5th ed.) Mason, OH:Thompson/Southwest.
Alba, M. (2016, February 7). Hillary Clinton: “What happened inFlint is immoral.” NBC News.Albrecht, T. L., & Bach, B. W. (1997). Communication in complexorganizations: A relational approach. Fort Worth, TX: HarcourtBrace.Alderman, H. (1997). By virtue of a virtue. In D. Statman (Ed.),Virtue ethics (pp. 145–164). Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity 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: CornellUniversity Press.Algoe, S. B. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The “other-praising” emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. TheJournal of Positive Psychology, 4, 105–127.Allinson, R. E. (1993). Global disasters: Inquiries intomanagement ethics. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.Almasy, S. (2018, March 25). March for Our Lives: Top momentsthat made up a movement. CNN.Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., Jr., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Teamsize, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supportedteams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement.Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 203–230.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management,efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. PersonnelPsychology, 53, 625–642.Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minority influence:Evidence for leniency in source evaluation andcounterargumentation. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 72, 949–964.Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional anddysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving aparadox for top management teams. Academy of ManagementJournal, 39, 123–148.Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Harrison,A. W. (1995). Conflict: An important dimension in successfulmanagement teams. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 20–35.Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2003). Understanding social loafing. In A.Sagie, S. Stashevsky, & M. Koslowsky (Eds.), Misbehaviourand 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 inhibitiontendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,1362–1377.Anderson, E. (2017, September 21). Doctor: Change in Flint’swater most likely explanation for Legionnaires’ diseaseoutbreak. Detroit Free Press.
Andreoli, N., & Lefkowitz, J. (2008). Individual and organizationalantecedents of misconduct in organizations. Journal ofBusiness 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 Oxfordhandbook 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 ofstrangers. 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 knowabout corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management,38, 932–968.Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2009). Moral identity in businesssituations: A social-cognitive framework for understanding moralfunctioning. 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 moralidentity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.
Arendt, H. (1964). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on thebanality of evil. New York, NY: Viking.Argenti, P. (2002, December). Crisis communication: Lessonsfrom 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: Apreliminary examination of antecedents and consequences.Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 126–140.Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization ofcorruption in organizations. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 25, 1–52.Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: Aconceptualization and measure. Journal of ManagementInquiry, 9, 134–145.Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.). (2002). A psychologyof human strengths: Fundamental questions about futuredirections for a positive psychology. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.Astor, M. (2018, March 8). Florida gun bill: What’s in it, and whatisn’t. The New York Times.Augenstein, N. (2017, November 27). DC chef Jose Andres feedsmillions in hurricane-stricken Puerto Rico. Retrieved fromhttps://wtop.com/author/neal-augesntein
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadershipdevelopment: 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 processby which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes andbehaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823.Avolio, B. J., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The rise of authenticfollowership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen(Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create greatleaders and organizations (pp. 325–337). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.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 timelessquestions for resolving your toughest problems at work. Boston,MA: Harvard Business Press.Baird, C. A. (2003). Everyday ethics: Making hard choices in acomplex world. Denver, CO: CB Resources.Bailón, R. R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2000). Why do superiorsattend to negative stereotypic information about theirsubordinates? Effects of power legitimacy on social perception.European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 651–671.Baker, A. (2013, December 19). Runner-up: Malala Yousafzai, thefighter. Time.com
Ball, J. (2016, March 31). Universities grapple with donorinfluence. Citizen-Times.Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration ofinhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in theexercise 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 ofmoral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,71, 364–374.Barakat, M. (2018, May 1). Documents show ties betweenuniversity, conservative donors. Associated Press.Barbuto, J. E. (2000). Influence triggers: A framework forunderstanding follower compliance. Leadership Quarterly, 11,365–387.Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development andconstruct clarification of servant leadership. Group &Organization Management, 31, 300–326.Barker, L., Johnson, P., & Watson, K. (1991). The role of listeningin managing interpersonal and group conflict. In D. Borisoff & M.Purdy (Eds.), Listening in everyday life: A personal andprofessional approach (pp. 139–157). Lanham, MD: UniversityPress of America.
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: Insightsfrom 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 inPuerto Rico aren’t good enough, U.N. experts say. Time.Barry, E. (2018, November 2). In Finland, every citizen’s taxableincome is revealed. The New York Times, p. A8.Barry, V. (1978). Personal and social ethics: Moral problems withintegrated theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Barsky, A. (2011). Investigating the effects of moraldisengagement and participation on unethical work behavior.Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 59–75.Bartholomew, C. S., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived leaderintegrity scale: An instrument for assessing employeeperceptions 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.
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 intotransformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. ArmyResearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: Aresponse 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 andtransactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,207–218.Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, andauthentic transformational leadership behavior. LeadershipQuarterly, 10, 181–217.Bates, D. (2017, December 7). The complicity files: Devastatingreport says many top people, including the Clintons, knew aboutWeinstein’s predatory behavior. Irish Daily Mail, pp. 20, 37.Batson, C. D., & Thompson, E. R. (2001). Why don’t moral peopleact morally? Motivational considerations. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 10, 54–57.Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., & Chen, H. (2002). Moralhypocrisy: Addressing some alternatives. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 83, 330–339.
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 crisisleadership: Insights from unintentional harm research. Journalof 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 GeneralPsychology, 5, 323–370.Bazerman, M. H. (1986). Management in managerial decisionmaking. New York, NY: Wiley.Bazerman, M. H. (2014). The power of noticing: What the bestleaders see. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Blind spots: Why wefail 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 preventthem. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Becker, J. A. H., & O’Hair, H. D. (2007). Machiavellians’ motivesin organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of AppliedCommunication Research, 35, 246–267.Becker, S. W., & Eagly, A. H. (2004). The heroism of women andmen. 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. Academyof Management Learning and Education, 6, 9–32.Beech, H. (2018, January 1). For the youngest Rohingyasurvivors, 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 Thaicave had already beaten long odds. The New York Times.Beech, H., Paddock, R. C., & Suhartono, M. (2018, July 12). “Stillcan’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 leavehospital and apologize for all the fuss. The New York Times.Behrens, J., & Ernst, H. (2014). What keeps managers away froma losing course of action? Go/stop decisions in new productdevelopment. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31,361–374.
Bell, M. A. (1974). The effects of substantive and affective conflictin problem-solving groups. Speech Monographs, 41, 19–23.Bell, M. A. (1979). The effects of substantive and affective verbalconflict on the quality of decisions of small problem-solvinggroups. Central States Speech Journal, 3, 75–82.Bell DeTienne, K., Agle, B. R., Phillips, J. C., & Ingerson, M.-C.(2012). The impact of moral stress compared to other stressorson employee fatigue, job satisfaction, and turnover: Anempirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 377–393.Benefiel, M. (2005). Soul at work: Spiritual leadership inorganizations. New York, NY: Seabury Books.Benefiel, M. (2005). The second half of the journey: Spiritualleadership for organizational transformation. LeadershipQuarterly, 16, 723–747.Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2002). Geeks and geezers: Howera, values, and defining moments shape leaders. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.Benoit, W. L. (2004). Image restoration discourse and crisiscommunication. In D. P. Millar & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Respondingto crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 263–280). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principles of morals andlegislation. New York, NY: Hafner.Bergfeld, K., & Bergfeld, M. (2017, November 21). Cartoons andclass struggle. Jacobin.
Berkowiz, M. (2015). What a chief resilience officer does. 100Resilient Cities, Rockefeller Foundation.Berman, M. (2015, June 19). “I forgive you.” Relatives ofCharleston church shooting victims address Dylann Roof. TheWashington Post.Bertsch, A. M. (2012). Validating GLOBE’s societal values scales:A test in the U.S.A. International Journal of Business and SocialScience, 3, 10–23.Bestselling author owes charity $1M. (2012, April 6). The TorontoStar, 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.comBird, F. B. (1996). The muted conscience: Moral silence and thepractice 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 bettergovernance? (pp. 47–57). Oxford, England: Oxford UniversityPress.
Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W.M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, andmoral 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 andcharacter education (pp. 67–100). Notre Dame, IN: Notre DamePress.Block, P. (1996). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest.San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2007). Development andvalidation of the Moral Disengagement in Sport Scale. Journalof Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 608–628.Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2008). The MoralDisengagement in Sport Scale—Short. Journal of SportsSciences, 26, 1507–1517.Bobocel, D. R., & Meyer, J. P. (1994). Escalating commitment to afailing course of action: Separating the roles of choice andjustification. 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: Organisationaldestroyers. New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employeeaffective well-being and counterproductive work behavior.Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 107–121.
Boddy, C. R. (2015). Organisational psychopaths: A ten-yearupdate. Management Decision, 53, 2407–2432.Boddy, C. R., Ladyshewsky, R., & Galvin, P. (2010). Leaderswithout ethics in global business: Corporate psychopaths.Journal of Public Affairs, 10, 121–138.Bogdanich, W., & Forsythe, M. (2018, June 26). How McKinseylost its way in South Africa. The New York Times.Boin, A., t’Hart, P. Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2017). The politics ofcrisis management: Public leadership under pressure (2nd ed.).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Boin, A., Kuipers, S., & Overdijk, W. (2013). Leadership in times ofcrisis: A framework for assessment. International Review ofPublic Administration, 18, 79–91.Boje, D. (2008). Critical theory approaches to spirituality inbusiness. In J. Biberman & L. Tischler (Eds.), Spirituality inbusiness: Theory, practice, and future directions (pp. 160–187).New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Boksem, M. A. S., & De Cremer, D. (2009). The neural basis ofmorality. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives onethical behavior and decision-making (pp. 153–166). Charlotte,NC: Information Age.Boone, J. (2015, December 15). Peshawar school attack: Oneyear on “the country is changed completely.” The Guardian.Borisoff, D., & Victor, D. A. (1998). Conflict management: Acommunication skills approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.
Bosman, J., & Smith, M. (2016, January 19). Gov. Rick Snyder ofMichigan apologizes in Flint water crisis. The New York Times.Bouchckaert, P., & Hancock, S. (2017, March 2). The killingsquads: Inside the Philippines “war on drugs.” Human RightsWatch.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 industrialrelations (pp. 61–87). Champaign, IL: Labor and EmploymentRelations 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: TheAristotelian approach to business ethics. Journal of BusinessEthics, 67, 341–357.Bratton, V. K., & Kacmar, K. M. (2004). Extreme careerism: Thedark 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. NewYork, NY: Portfolio/Penguin.Bright, D. S., Barros, I., & Kumar Marthy, V. R. (2014).Appreciative inquiry and ethical awareness: Encouragingmorally driven organizational goals. In L. E. Sekerka (Ed.),Ethics training in action: An examination of issues, techniques,
and development (pp. 293–310). Charlotte, NC: InformationAge.Brinsfield, D. T. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation ofdimensionality and development of measures. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 34, 671–697.Brissett, D., & Edgley, C. (1990). The dramaturgical perspective.In D. Brissett & C. Edgley (Eds.), Life as theater: Adramaturgical sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 1–46). New York, NY:Aldine de Gruyter.Brock, J. (2018, July 9). McKinsey overhauls South Africa officeafter graft scandal. Reuters.Brooks, D. (2015). The road to character. New York, NY: RandomHouse.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). Informationprocessing 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: Areview and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006b). Socialized charismaticleadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954–962.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethicalleadership: A social learning perspective for constructdevelopment and testing. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 97, 117–134.Brown, M. T. (2005). Corporate integrity: Rethinking organizationalethics and leadership. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford,England: Blackwell.Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in thetendency 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 asmoderators 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. NewYork, 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 SocialPsychology Bulletin, 34, 1663–1676.Bruzzese, A. (2012, August 16). Employees share stories of worstbosses ever [Web log post]. Quick Base.Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2005). Toward a conceptualframework for stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics,
58, 137–148.Budde-Sung, A. (2013). The invisible meets the intangible:Culture’s impact on intellectual property protection. Journal ofBusiness 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 forovercharging South African power utility. Bloomberg.Burkhardt, P., & Bonorchis, R. (2017, September 14). McKinseyand KPMG targeted in South Africa graft scandal. Bloomberg.Burns, A. S. (2018, February 18). Mister Rogers still lives in yourneighborhood. NPR.Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit ofhappiness. New York, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteemand abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Science, 3, 340–355.Business Roundtable. (2012, March 27). 2012 principles ofcorporate governance. Business Roundtable. Retrieved fromhttp://businessroundtable.orgBuss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York, NY:Wiley.
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 investigationof 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 toemployees who were charged for their costumes. Fortune.Calfas, J. (2018, May 30). Was Starbucks’ racial bias trainingeffective? Here’s what these employees thought. Time.Cameron-Moore, S. (2017, November 14). Burmese army clearsitself of raping and murdering Rohingya Muslims after “internalinvestigation.” The Independent.Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G.(2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human ResourceManagement Review, 21, 268–284.Carden, S. D. (2006). Virtue ethics: Dewey and Macintyre.London, England: Continuum.Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1995). Institutionalization oforganizational 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. TheWashington Post.
Carman, T. (2017, October 18). After Maria, José Andrés and histeam have prepared more hot meals in Puerto Rico than theRed Cross. The Washington Post.Caron, C. (2018, August 25). Walt Disney World workers reachdeal 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 ofcorporate 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 ofmanagement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2013). Ethical followership: Anexamination 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 offollowership: 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 inyour backyard. Chicago Tribune.
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 peacefulheart. New York, NY: Bantam.Casebeer, W. D. (2003). Moral cognition and its neuralconstituents. Neuroscience, 4, 841–846.Caudron, S. (1995, September 4). The boss from hell. IndustryWeek, 12–16.Caux Round Table. (2000). Appendix 26: The Caux principles. InO. F. Williams (Ed.), Global codes of conduct: An idea whosetime has come (pp. 384–388). Notre Dame, IN: University ofNotre Dame Press.Caux Round Table. (2006). Principles for non-governmentalorganizations; Principles for governments. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cauxroundtable.orgCavazotte, F., Duarte, C., & Gobbo, A. M. (2010). Authenticleader, safe work: The influence of leadership performance.Brazilian Business Review, 10, 95–119.Cenkci, A. T., & Ozcelik, G. (2015). Leadership styles andsubordinate work engagement: The moderating impact ofleader gender. Global Business and Management Research: AnInternational Journal, 7, 8–20.CEO’s moral compass steers Siemens. (2010, February 15). USAToday, p. 3B.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Occupationalviolence. Retrieved fromhttps://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/violence/training_nurses.htmlChaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower: Standing up to and forour leaders (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Chaleff, I. (2015). Intelligent disobedience: Doing right when whatyou’re told to do is wrong. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2015, September 28). The bestmanagers are boring managers. Harvard Business Review.Chan, A. H., & Cheung, H. Y. (2012). Cultural dimensions, ethicalsensitivity, and corporate governance. Journal of BusinessEthics, 110, 45–59.Chan, A., Hannah, S. T., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Veritableauthentic leadership: Emergence, functioning, and impacts. InW. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authenticleadership theory and practice: Origins, effects anddevelopment (pp. 3–41). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Elsevier.Chan, A. H., & Cheung, H. Y. (2012). Cultural dimensions, ethicalsensitivity, and corporate governance. Journal of BusinessEthics, 110, 45–59.Chang, I. (1997). The rape of Nanking: The forgotten holocaust ofWorld 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.
Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2018, January/February). Thenew CEO activists. Harvard Business Review.Chatterji, R. (2018, February 21). A new survey finds 81 percentof 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: Linkingpaternalistic leadership to performance. Journal ofManagement, 40, 796–819.Cheng, M.-Y., & Wang, L. (2015). The mediating effect of ethicalclimate on the relationship between paternalistic leadership andteam identification: A team-level analysis in the Chinesecontext. 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 ofin-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Chidambaram, L., & Tung, L. L. (2005). Is out of sight, out ofmind? 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 ofself-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.Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact oftransformational and servant leadership on organizationalperformance: A comparative analysis. Journal of BusinessEthics, 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 thestrategic use of transparency: Consistency, hypocrisy, andcorporate 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 intimes 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 getaway with it? The Independent.Chuck, E. (2018, July 20). For nearly 20 years, duck boat safetyrecommendations have gone largely ignored. NBC News.Cialdini, R. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.).Boston, MA: Pearson.
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: Themediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 227–240.Clark, E. (2004). Around the corporate campfire: How greatleaders use stories to inspire success. Sammamish, WA: C&CPublishing.Clements, C. E., Neill, J. D., & Stovall, O. S. (2009). The impact ofcultural differences on the convergence of internationalaccounting 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 cellresearch. The Journal of Politics 75, 659–671.Cohen, D. V. (1993). Creating and maintaining ethical workclimates: Anomie in the workplace and implications formanaging change. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3, 343–358.Cohen, R. (2017, November 26). This is not a morality tale. TheNew York Times, p. SR1.Cohen, R. A. (2006). Levinas: thinking about death—contraHeidegger. International Journal of the Philosophy of Religion,60, 21–39.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice inorganizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.Collins, J. C. (2001). Vision framework. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jimcollins.com/tools/vision-framework.pdfCollins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996, September/October). Buildingyour 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 cansee 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-analyticreview of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 425–445.Comaford, C. (2016, August 27). 75% of workers affected bybullying—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 . . . toprotect salmon. NBC News.
Connelly, S., Helton-Fauth, W., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Amanagerial in-basket study of the impact of trait emotions onethical 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 crisiscommunication: An attribution theory-based approach to crisismanagement. In D. P. Millar & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Respondingto crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 95–115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Cooper, S. (2004). Corporate social performance: A stakeholderapproach. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Cooper, T. L., & Menzel, D. C. (2013). In pursuit of ethicalcompetence. In T. L. Cooper & D. D. Menzel (Eds.), Achievingethical competence for public service leadership (pp. 3–24).Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: Apositive revolution in change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Cosier, R. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Agreement and thinkingalike: Ingredients for poor decision. Academy of ManagementExecutive, 4, 69–74.Countryman, A. (2001, December 7). Leadership key ingredient inethics recipe, experts say. Chicago Tribune, pp. B1, B6.Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people.New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Crace, R. K., & Brown, D. (1992). The Life Values Inventory.Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Available athttp://www.lifevalues.orgCragan, J. F., Kasch, C. R., & Wright, D. W. (2009).Communication in small groups: Theory, process, skills (7thed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Craigie, F. C. (1999). The spirit and work: Observations aboutspirituality and organizational life. Journal of Psychology andChristianity, 18, 43–53.Cramton, P. C., & Dees, J. G. (1993). Promoting honesty innegotiation: An exercise in practical ethics. Business EthicsQuarterly, 3, 359–394.Cramton, P. C., & Dees, J. G. (2004). Promoting honesty innegotiation: 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: Thecontext/comparison-leniency contract model. Journal of SocialIssues, 65, 335–363.Crenshaw, C. (2018, September 14). PR for the “new” technologyCEO. Crenshaw Communications.Creswell, J., & Draper, K. (2018, May 9). Nike exodus ofmanagers 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. TheNew York Times.
Crisis management and communication. (2012, June). IR Insight,Research Report Number 3.Cropanzano, R., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Organizational justice andbehavioral ethics: Promises and prospects. Business EthicsQuarterly, 19, 193–233.Cropanzano, R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2010). Moral leadership: Ashort 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 andthe creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations.Leadership Quarterly, 21, 211–230.Crouteau, J., & Smallwood, K. (n.d.). Ways Mister Rogers waseven more amazing than we knew. Grunge.Cullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P., & Victor, B. (2003). The effects ofethical climates on organizational commitment: A two-studyanalysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 127–141.Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J. W. (1993). The EthicalClimate Questionnaire: An assessment of its development andvalidity. Psychological Reports, 73, 667–674.Cumming-Bruce, N. (2017, September 12). Rohingya crisis calledethnic cleansing. The New York Times, p. A9.Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The Organizational TrustInventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. M. Kramer &T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory andresearch (pp. 302–329). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dale, S. (2012, December 4). Ex-HBOS chief exec Sir JamesCrosby apologizes for bank failure. Fundweb, p. 11.Daleus, P., & Hansen, D. (2011). Inherent ethical challenges inbureaucratic crisis management: The Swedish experience withthe 2004 tsunami disaster. In L. Svedin (Ed.), Ethics and crisismanagement (pp. 21–36). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Darley, J. M. (1996). How organizations socialize individuals intoevildoing. In D. M. Messick & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Codes ofconduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (pp. 12–43).New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Darley, J. M. (2001). The dynamics of authority influence inorganizations and the unintended action consequences. In J. M.Darley, D. M. Messick, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Social influences onethical behavior in organizations (pp. 37–52). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.Da Silva, C. (2018, May 29). Starbucks across U.S. closed forracial 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 ethicsscandals. The New York Times.Davenport, C. (2018, September 10). Why NASA’s rockets nextrockets may say Budweiser on the side. The Washington Post.Davis, A., & Mischel, L. (2014, June 12). CEO pay continues torise as typical workers are paid less. Economic Policy Institute.
Davis, A. L., & Rothstein, H. R. (2006). The effects of theperceived behavioral integrity of managers on employeeattitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 407–419.Davis, J. (2016, September 27). When did Che Guevara becomeCEO? The roots of the new corporate activism. TheConversation.Davis, J. H., & Ruhe, J. A. (2003). Perceptions of countrycorruption: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of BusinessEthics, 43, 275–288.Davis, S. (2015, June). Dissed loyalty. Workforce.com.Day, D. A. (2018, August 6). NASA as a brand. The SpaceReview.“Deathtraps”: Fatal Branson duck boat accident shines light onpast incidents. CBS News.De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequencesof leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocraticleadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 79–93.De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders putthemselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as afunction of feeling entitled. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 35, 553–563.De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role ofleader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 95, 140–155.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Beersma, B. (2001). Minority influence inorganizations: Its origins and implications for learning and groupperformance. In C. K. W. De Dreu & N. K. De Vries (Eds.),Group consensus and minority influence: Implications forinnovation (pp. 258–283). Malden, MA: Blackwell.De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influenceof social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analyticreview and test of two theories. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 78, 889–905.De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent andteam innovation: The importance of participation in decisionmaking. 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 authenticfollowership. 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: 5memorable moments. The New York Times.
De George, R. T. (2006). Business ethics (6th ed.). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysisto review organizational outcomes related to charismaticleadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17,356–371.Delanty, G. (2012). Introduction: The emerging field ofcosmopolitanism studies. In G. Delanty (Ed.), Internationalhandbook 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: Areattributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universallyendorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219–257.Dennis, B., & Eilperin, J. (2018, April 26). Defending his record toCongress, EPA chief Pruitt shifts spending blame to staff. TheWashington Post.Denyer, S. (2014, March 12). Contradictory statements fromMalaysia over missing airliner perplex, infuriate.WashingtonPost.com.Department of Labor. (2016). Labor force statistics from thecurrent population survey. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bls.gov/cpsDesai, S. D., & Kouchaki, M. (2017). Moral symbols: A necklace ofgarlic against unethical requests. Academy of ManagementJournal, 60, 7–28.
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 andcharacter: 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 lifestylechanges to avert climate change in the USA? PLOS ONE, 11.Diessner, R., Iyer, R., Smith, M. M., & Haidt, J. (2013). Whoengages with moral beauty? Journal of Moral Education, 42,139–163.Dipboye, R. L., & Halverson, S. K. (2004). Subtle (and not sosubtle) 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 workgroup performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455.Dobson, J. (1999). The art of management and the aestheticmanager. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Doctor rescued from Antarctica in 1999 dies at 57. (2009, June23). CNN.
Donaldson, T. (1996, September/October). Values in tension:Ethics away from home. Harvard Business Review, 48–57.Donaldson, T. (2009). Compass and dead reckoning: Thedynamic implications of ISCT. Journal of Business Ethics, 88,659–664.Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unifiedconception of business ethics: Integrative social contractstheory. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252–284.Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A socialcontracts approach to business ethics. Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press.Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory ofthe 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 forleadership: 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. Institutefor Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.orgDrummond, H., & Hodgson, J. (2011). Escalation in decision-making: Behavioral economics in business. Burlington, VT:Gower.
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 treatmentof subgroups: Implications for evaluations of the leader and thesuperordinate group. European Journal of Social Psychology,33, 387–401.Duckworth, A. L. (2016). Grit: The power of passion andperseverance. New York, NY: Scribner.Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development andvalidation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). Journal of PersonalityAssessment 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. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 22(1), 7–27.Dunn, J., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Why good employees makeunethical decisions. In E. W. Kidwell & C. L. Martin (Eds.),Managing organizational deviance (pp. 39–60). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.Dunne, J. (2018, June 28). British diving experts join Thai caverescue team as deluge continues. Evening Standard.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001, March). Building theemotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 80–90.Dvir, T., Eden, D., & Bano, J. L. (1995). Self-fulfilling prophecy andgender: Can women be Pygmalion and Galatea? Journal ofApplied 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 ofApplied Psychology, 67, 194–199.EDF Energy bosses branded as “hypocritical” in smart metervehicle tracking row. (2018, January 18). Unite.Edwards, J. C. (2001). Self-fulfilling prophecy and escalatingcommitment: Fuel for the Waco fire. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 37, 343–360.
Egri, C. P., Ralston, D. A., Murray, C. S., & Nicolson, J. D. (2000).Managers in the NAFTA countries: A cross-cultural comparisonof attitudes toward upward influence strategies. Journal ofInternational Management, 6, 149–171.Elperin, J., & Dennis, B. (2018, July 10). Days after Pruittresigned, several top aides are also calling it quits at EPA. TheWashington Post.Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructiveleadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model.Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216.Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Copper, C. L. (2011). Theconcept of bullying and harassment at work: The Europeantradition. 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 betweenCEO ethical leadership and firm performance. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 128, 635–651.Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizationalcommunication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242.Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moraldevelopment. 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.
Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Betrayal of trust inorganizations. Academy of Management Review, 23, 547–566.Elegido, J. M. (2013). Does it make sense to be a loyalemployee? 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 butremains 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 samefamily. The New York Times.ElKordy, M. (2013). Transformational leadership andorganizational culture as predictors of employees’ attitudinaloutcomes. Business Management Dynamics, 3, 15–26.Elm, D. R. (2014). The artist and the ethicist: Character andprocess. In D. Koehn & D. Elm (Eds.), Aesthetics and businessethics (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 psychologyof interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.),
Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). Madison: University ofWisconsin Press.Enright, R. D., & Gassin, E. A. (1992). Forgiveness: Adevelopmental view. Journal of Moral Education, 21, 99–114.Epstein, K., & Amenabar, T. (2018, March 24). The 6 mostmemorable speeches at the March for Our Lives in D. C. TheWashington Post.Equifax data breach was “entirely preventable,” congressionalreport says. (2018, December 11). CBS News.Erben, G. S., & Güneşer, A. B. (2007). The relationship betweenpaternalistic leadership and organizational commitment:Investigating the role of climate regarding ethics. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 82, 955–968.Erickson, A., Shaw, J. B., & Agabe, Z. (2007). An empiricalinvestigation of the antecedents, behaviors, and outcomes ofbad leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(3), 26–43.Ernst, C., & Yip, J. (2009). Boundary-spanning leadership: Tacticsto bridge social identity groups in organizations. In T. L. Pittinsky(Ed.), Crossing the divide: Intergroup leadership in a world ofdifference (pp. 87–99). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review ofgroupthink research. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 73, 116–141.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.Fabio, M. (2017, October 26). The Harvey Weinstein effect: Theend of nondisclosure agreements in sexual assault cases?Forbes.Fairholm, G. W. (1996). Spiritual leadership: Fulfilling whole-selfneeds at work. Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal, 17(5), 11–17.Fairhurst, G. T. (2011). The power of framing: Creating thelanguage of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Fairhurst, G. T. & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managingthe language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Farenthold, D. A, & O’Connell, J. (2018, August 3). At presidentTrump’s hotel in New York, revenue went up this spring—thanksto 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 topaternalistic leadership in China. In A. S. Tsui, Y. Bain, & L.Cheng (Eds.), China’s domestic private firms: Multidisciplinaryperspectives on management and performance (pp. 230–260).Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Farrow, R. (2017, November 6). Harvey Weinstein’s army ofspies. The New Yorker.Farrow, R. (2017, November 21). Harvey Weinstein’s secretsettlements. The New Yorker.
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 casebookapproach (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Festenstein, M. (2008). John Dewey, inquiry ethics, anddemocracy. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Oxford handbook ofAmerican philosophy (pp. 87–109). Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.Feldman, D. C., & Bolino, M. C. (1996). Careers within careers:Reconceptualizing the nature of career anchors and theirconsequences. Human Resource Management Review 6, 80–112.Feldman Bettencourt, M. (2015). Triumph of the heart:Forgiveness in an unforgiving world. New York, NY: HudsonStreet Press.Feldmann, H. (2014, October 9). Ebola—A growing threat? NewEngland Journal of Medicine, 371(15), 1375–1378.Felton, R. (2016, January 16). Flint’s water crisis: What wentwrong. The Guardian.Ferdman, B. M. (2014). The practice of inclusion in diverseorganizations: Toward a systemic and inclusive framework. In B.M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: Thepractice of inclusion (pp. 3–54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Fesmire, S. (2015). Dewey. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fine, R., & Boon, V. (2007). Introduction: Cosmopolitanism:Between past and future. European Journal of Social Theory10, 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 horsedebate, 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 poweron stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. InD. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook ofsocial psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 357–411). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Fiske, S. T. (2018). How can universal stereotypes be immoral? InK. 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 lionsafter relocation fails. US News & World Report.
Fleishman, G. (2018, July 5). How Scott Pruitt blew it: A list ofscandals that led to the EPA chief’s resignation. Fortune.Fleming, L. N. (2016, January 12). Volunteers deliver water in Flintamid lead crisis. The Detroit News.Fleming, S. J. (2016, February 5). Lee: Time to end emergencymanager law. The Detroit News.Flescher, A. M. (2003). Heroes, saints, & ordinary morality.Washington, DC: Georgetown University PressFlescher, A. M., & Worthen, D. L. (2007). The altruistic species:Scientific, philosophical, and religious perspectives of humanbenevolence. Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.Fletcher, G. P. (1993). Loyalty: An essay on the morality ofrelationships. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Flint, K. (2017, March 21). Boston duck tours return under newrules 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 gunadvocates: “We call BS.” (2018, February 17). CNN.Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1996). Violence and hostility at work: Amodel of reactions to perceived injustice. In G. R. VandenBos &E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks anddeveloping solutions (pp. 51–85). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.
Fonger, R. (2015, October 13). Ex-emergency manager says he’snot to blame for Flint River water watch. MLive.com.Forced labor at NYU Abu Dhabi. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttps://www.forcedlaboratnyuad.org/Fortin, M. (2008). Perspectives on organizational justice: Conceptclarification, social context integration, time and links withmorality. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 93–126.Foster, R. J. (1978). Celebration of discipline: The path to spiritualgrowth. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Fowler, K. L., Kling, N. D., & Larson, M. D. (2007). Organizationalpreparedness for coping with a major crisis or disaster.Business & Society, 46, 100–101.Franco, Z. E., Blau, K., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2011). Heroism: Aconceptual analysis and differentiation between heroic actionand altruism. Review of General Psychology 15, 99–113.Franco, Z. E., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2006, September 1). Thebanality of heroism. Greater Good.Franco, Z. E., & Zimbardo P. G. (2016). The psychology ofheroism: Extraordinary champions of humanity in an unforgivingworld. 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, economicdevelopment, and national ethical attitudes. Journal of BusinessResearch, 61, 254–264.
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 progressreport 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). Managingfor stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.French, R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. InD. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). AnnArbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.Frey, B. F. (2000). The impact of moral intensity on decisionmaking in a business context. Journal of Business Ethics, 26,181–195.Frey, W. H. (2018, March 14). The US will become “minoritywhite” in 2045, Census projects. Brookings.Friedman, L., Lipton, E., & Davenport, C. (2018, July 6). ScottPruitt’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 dimensionof decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 125–140.Frohlich, T. C., Sauter, M. B., & Stebbins, S. (2015, June 29). 10worst companies to work for. 24/7 Wall St/Yahoo Finance.
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 compassionatemanagers handle pain and conflict. Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press.Frost, P. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2008). The leader as toxin handler:Organizational hero and casualty. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Businessleadership (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 spiritualleadership. In R. A. Giacalone, C. L. Jurkiewicz, & C. Dunn(Eds.), Positive psychology in business ethics and corporateresponsibility (pp. 47–84). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Fry, L. W. (2008). Spiritual leadership: State-of-the-art and futuredirections for theory, research, and practice. In J. Biberman & L.Tischler (Eds.), Spirituality in business: Theory, practice, andfuture directions (pp. 106–123). New York, NY: PalgraveMacmillan.Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadershipand army transformation: Theory, measurement, andestablishing a baseline. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 835–862.Fulp, C. (2018). Success through diversity: Why the mostinclusive companies will win. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The darktriad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and PersonalityCompass 7, 199–216.Furtner, M. R., Maran, T., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2017). Darkleadership: The role of leaders’ dark triad personality traits. InM. G. Clark & C. W. Gruber (Eds.), Leader developmentdeconstructed (pp. 75–99). New York, NY: Springer.Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). Frompower to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85, 453–466.Gallegos, P. V. (2014). The work of inclusive leadership: Fosteringauthentic relationships, modeling courage and humility. In B. M.Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practiceof inclusion (pp. 177–202). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionarycommunication qualities as mediators of the relationshipbetween narcissism and attributions of leader charisma.Personnel Psychology, 63, 509–537.Ganim, S. (2017, June 14). Michigan officials charged in FlintLegionnaires’ outbreak. CNN.Garcia-Zamor, J. C. (2003). Workplace spirituality andorganizational 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.
Garside, J. (2016, April 3). A world of hidden wealth: Why we areshining a light offshore. The Guardian.Garvin, D. A. (1993, July/August). Building a learningorganization. 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 yourmind when you know what’s right. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.Germano, S. (2018, May 3). Nike CEO apologizes for corporateculture that excluded some staff. The Wall Street Journal.Germain, M.-L. (2018). Narcissism at work: Personality disordersof corporate leaders. Bashingstoke, New Hampshire, England:Palgrave Macmillan.Germano, S., & Lublin, J. S. (2018, March 31). Inside Nike, aboys-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 dangerof Antarctica. Live Science.
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 businessactivities. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 85–97.Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003b). Toward a science ofworkplace spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz(Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizationalperformance (pp. 3–28). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal ofCommunication, 11/12, 141–148.Gibbs, N. (2014, December 22). The choice. Time, 67–68.Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory andwomen’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.Gioia, D. A. (1992). Pinto fires and personal ethics: A scriptanalysis 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’swild horses? The debate rages. Los Angeles Times.
Glover, J. (1999). Humanity: A moral history of the twentiethcentury. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Gloy, B. & Widmar, D. (2018, April 9). Tariffs impact price andsupply & demand, ag economists say. Successful Farming.Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. Journal ofLegal Studies, 29, 1–18.Godwin, L. N. (2015). Examining the impact of moral imaginationon organizational decision making. Business & Society, 54, 254–278.Goldman, S. M. (2008). Temptations in the office: Ethical choicesand legal obligations. Westport, CT: Praeger.Goldman, S. M. (2010, August 5). Loyalty vs. ethics: From theWhite House to the workplace. American ManagementAssociation. Retrieved from http://www.amanet.org/trainingGoldstein, J. (2018, October 15). Chinese bring jobs, and bias,Kenyans find. The New York Times.Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The emotionalreality of teams. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 21(2), 55–65.Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1980). Educational psychology: Arealistic approach. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholderanalysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1, 53–73.
Gorovitz, S. (Ed.). (1971). Utilitarianism: Text and critical essays.Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Gottlieb, J. Z., & Sanzgiri, J. (1996). Towards an ethical dimensionof decision making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics15, 1275–1285.Gottschall, J. (2012). The storytelling animal: How stories make ushuman. New York, NY: Mariner Books.Grady, D. (2001, April 14). Rescue planes are dispatched for sickdoctor in Antarctica. The New York Times.Graen, G. B., & Graen, J. A. (Eds.). (2007). New multinationalnetwork sharing. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1998). Relationship-based approachto 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 $500msettlement with survivors of Larry Nassar abuse. The Guardian.Graham, D. A. (2018, July 5). What finally did in Scott Pruitt? TheAtlantic.Graham, G. (2004). Eight theories of ethics. London, England:Routledge.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P.,& Ditto, P. H. (2002). Moral Foundations Theory: The pragmaticvalidity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, 47, 55–130.Graham, J., Haidt, J., Motyl, M., Meindl, P., Iskiwitch, C., &Mooijman, M. (2018). Moral foundations theory: On theadvantages 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 Personalityand 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 YorkTimes, p. A10.Greenberg, J., & Wiethoff, C. (2001). Organization justice asproaction and reaction: Implications for research andapplication. 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 themoral 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 aidfactory victims in Bangladesh. The New York Times, p. B1.Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY:Paulist Press.
Griffin, R. W., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (Eds.). (2004). The dark sideof organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Grijalva, E., & Harms, P. D. (2014). Narcissism: An integrativesynthesis and dominance complementarity model. Academy ofManagement 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 reviewof 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: Examiningleadership strategies for establishing an organizational climateregarding 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 publicrelations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellentpublic relations and effective organizations: A study ofcommunication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.Grush, L. (2018, September 11). Product placement may helppower NASA’s next big space mission. The Verge.Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging differences: Effectiveintergroup communication (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1997). Communicating withstrangers: 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 andinnovative behavior in R & D contexts: A social identityapproach. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24,479–493.Günsel, A., & Açikgöz, A. (2013). The effects of team flexibilityand emotional intelligence on software developmentperformance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 22, 359–377.Gurmeet Ram Rahim asked his followers to self-immolate andcommit 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 theInternational Criminal Court. The New York Times.Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicativeaction (C. Lehhardt & S. Weber Nicholsen, Trans.). Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A socialintuitionist 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
sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford, England: Oxford UniversityPress.Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people aredivided 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 sixquestions about moral psychology. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong(Ed.), Moral psychology: Vol. 2. The cognitive science ofmorality: 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 notrecognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.Hajdin, M. (2005). Employee loyalty: An examination. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 59, 259–280.Hakim, D., & Ewing, J. (2015, October 2). In the driver’s seat. TheNew York Times, p. B1.Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring servant leadershipacross 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 thevillage of Le Chambon and how goodness happened there.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.Hallie, P. P. (1997). Tales of good and evil, help and harm. NewYork, NY: HarperCollins.Hamilton, J. B., & Knouse, S. B. (2001). Multinational enterprisedecision principles for dealing with cross cultural ethicalconflicts. 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-culturalethical conflicts. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 143–157.Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Moral potency: Building thecapacity for character-based leadership. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 62, 291–310.Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2011). Leader character, ethos, andvirtue: Individual and collective considerations. LeadershipQuarterly, 22, 989–994.Hannah, S. T., Jennings, P. L., Bluhm, D., Chunyan Peng, A., &Schaubroeck, J. M. (2014). Duty orientation: Theoreticaldevelopment and preliminary construct testing. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 123, 220–238.Hannah, S. T., Lester, P. B., & Vogelgesang, G. R. (2005). Moralleadership: Explicating the moral component of authenticleadership. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa(Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effectsand development (pp. 43–81). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Elsevier.
Hannah, S. T., & Parry, K. W. (2014). Leadership in extremecontexts. In M. J. Rumsey (Ed.), Oxford handbook of leadershipand organizations (pp. 613–637). Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L.(2009). A framework for examining leadership in extremecontexts. 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 moralmotivation. Human Development, 48, 232–256.Hargie, O., Dickson, D., & Tourish, D. (2004). Communicationskills for effective management. Houndmills, England: PalgraveMacmillan.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 memberemotional intelligence on psychological safety in work teams.Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 15, 2–10.Harris, S., Smallen, J., & Mitchell, C. (2006, February 18). Katrinareport spreads blame. National Journal, p. 38.Hartmann, T. (2012). Moral disengagement during exposure tomedia violence. In R. Tamborini (Ed.), Media and the moralmind (pp. 241–287). Hoboken, NJ.
Harvey, J. B. (1988). The Abilene paradox and other meditationson management. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Harvey, J. B. (1999). How come every time I get stabbed in theback my fingerprints are on the knife? San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.Harvey, P., Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2006). Promotingauthentic 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 failedbank HBOS intensifies. International Accounting Bulletin.Hatcher, T. (2002). Ethics and HRD: A new approach to leadingresponsible organizations. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Hatzfeld, J. (2005). Machete season: The killers in Rwanda speak(L. Coverdale, Trans.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus andGiroux.Hauser, M. D., Young, L., & Cushman, F. (2008). Reviving Rawls’slinguistic analogy: Operative principles and the causal structureof moral actions. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moralpsychology: Vol. 2. The cognitive science of morality: Intuitionand diversity (pp. 107–144). Cambridge, England: MIT Press.Hayes, C. (2018, July 21). Would wearing life jackets have madethe deadly Branson duck boat accident even worse? USAToday.Hayes, H. T. P. (1990). The dark romance of Dian Fossey. NewYork, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Hayhurst, K. (2018, August 25). Risk of forced labor at Abu Dhabiremains, 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: Corporateresponse to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Heath, R. L. (2002). Issues management: Its past, present andfuture. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4), 209–214.Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxfordhandbook 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 socialactivism: The case of animal rights. Journal of Social Issues,65, 485–498.Higgs, M. (2009). The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership andnarcissism. 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. SocialAlternatives, 34(1), 14–18.Hinken, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development andapplication of new scales to measure the French and Raven
(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; mentalhealth campaigner who founded the Special Olympics. TheIndependent, Obituaries, p. 26.Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.Hofstede, G. (2001). Difference and danger: Cultural profiles ofnations 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 andorganizations: Software of the mind. London, England:McGraw-Hill.Hogg, M. A., Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E. (2012). Intergroupleadership in organizations: Leading across group andorganizational boundaries. Academy of Management Review,37, 232–255.Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence ofleadership and followership. Current Directions in PsychologicalScience, 1, 71–75.Holmes, O. (2017, November 2). Aung San Suu Kyi makes firstvisit to site of anti-Rohingya violence. The Guardian.
Holmes, O. (2017, August 17). Human rights group slamsPhilippines president Duterte’s threat to kill them. The Guardian.Holmgren, J. R. (1998). Self-forgiveness and responsible moralagency. Journal of Value Inquiry, 32, 75–91.Hood, J. N. (2003). The relationship of leadership style and CEOvalues to ethical practices in organizations. Journal of BusinessEthics, 43, 263–273.Hopen, D. (2002). Guiding corporate behavior: A leadershipobligation, 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 ontheir 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: TheGLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Howell, J., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismaticleadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of ManagementExecutive, 6, 43–54.Howland, D. (2018, April 30). Nike promotes 2 women to replaceexecutives departing amid “toxic” environment. HR Drive.
Hsieh, N.-H. (2009). The normative study of businessorganizations: 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 salesby business partners. The New York Times.Huang, L., & Paterson T. A. (2014). Group ethical voice: Influenceof ethical leadership and impact on ethical performance. Journalof 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 andthe viability of ethnically diverse institutions. In S. Otten, K. vander Zee, & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Towards inclusiveorganizations: Determinants of successful diversitymanagement at work (pp. 49-66). London, England: PsychologyPress.Husted, B. W. (1999). Wealth, culture and corruption. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 30, 339–359.Hutchinson, M., Nite, C., & Bouchet, A. (2015). Escalation ofcommitment in United Stated collegiate athletic departments:
An investigation of social and structural determinants ofcommitment. Journal of Sport Management, 29, 57–75.Hylton Rushton, C., Caldwell, M., & Kurtz, M. (2016). Moraldistress: A catalyst in building moral resilience. AmericanJournal of Nursing, 116, 40–49.Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authenticleadership and eudemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–394.Inch, E. S., Warnick, B., & Endres, D. (2006). Critical thinking andcommunication: 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 andmeasure of argumentativeness. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 46, 72–80.Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbalaggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. In B.Burleson (Ed.), Annals of the International CommunicationAssociation: Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 319–351). NewYork, NY: Routledge.Inglehart, R. F. (2018). Cultural evolution: People’s motivationsare changing, and reshaping the world. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.Inglehart, R. F., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, culturalchange, and the persistence of traditional values. American
Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.Inglehart, R. F., & Oyseman, D. (2004). Individualism, autonomyself-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 andevaluation 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 fightover 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 themission. The New York Times.Jacobs, D. C. (2004). A pragmatist approach to integrity inbusiness ethics. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13, 215–223.
James, H. S. (2000). Reinforcing ethical decision-making throughorganizational structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 43–58.James, S. A. (2007). Universal human rights: Origins anddevelopment. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publications.Janis, I. (1971, November). Groupthink: The problems ofconformity. Psychology Today, 271–279.Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: HoughtonMifflin.Janis, I. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking andcrisis management. New York, NY: Free Press.Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. New York, NY: FreePress.Janover, M. (2005). The limits of forgiveness and the ends ofpolitics. 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 salesforce performance. Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, 29, 257–275.Jassawalla, A. R., Malshe, A., & Sashittal, H. (2008). Studentperceptions of social loafing in undergraduate businessclassroom teams. Decision Sciences Journal of InnovativeEducation, 6, 423–424.Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the globalmanager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational
Dynamics, 29, 289–305.Jeffrey, S. (n.d.). How to discover your company’s core values andstart building a strong culture. CEOsage.Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multi-method examination of the benefitsand detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 40, 256–282.Jennings, P. L., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). The moralities ofobligation and aspiration: Towards a concept of exemplarymilitary ethics and leadership. Military Psychology, 23, 550–571.Johannesen, R. L. (1991). Virtue ethics, character, and politicalcommunication. In R. E. Denton (Ed.), Ethical dimensions ofpolitical communication (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Praeger.Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethicsin human communication (6th ed.). Long Grove, IL: WavelandPress.Johnson, C. E. (2014). Why “good” followers go “bad”: The powerof 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 thepower of followership in the leadership communication text.Paper presented at the annual convention of the NationalCommunication Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Johnson, C. E., & Shelton, P. M. (2014, October). Ethicalleadership in the age of apology. International LeadershipJournal, 6, 7–29.Johnson, C. E., Shelton, P. M., & Yates, L. (2012). Nice guys (andgals) finish first: Ethical leadership and organizational trust,satisfaction, and effectiveness. International LeadershipJournal, 4(1), 3–19.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2000). Joining together: Grouptheory and group skills (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation andcompetition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Training for cooperativegroup 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 individualisticgoal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. PsychologicalBulletin, 82, 47–62.Johnson, D. W., & Tjosvold, D. (1983). Productive conflictmanagement. New York, NY: Irvington.Johnson, J. (1993). Functions and processes of inner speech inlistening. In D. Wolvin & C. G. Coakley (Eds.), Perspectives inlistening (pp. 170–184). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Johnson, J., & Orange, M. (2003). The man who tried to buy theworld: Jean-Marie Messier and Vivendi Universal. New York,
NY: Portfolio.Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination: Implications of cognitivescience for ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Johnston, M. K., Reed, K., & Lawrence, K. (2011). Team listeningenvironment (TLE) scale: Development and validation. Journalof Business Communication, 48, 3–26.Jones, P. E., & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (2000). The potential forsocial 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 inorganizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy ofManagement Review, 15, 366–395.Jordan, J., Diermeier, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Thestrategic Samaritan: How effectiveness and proximity affectcorporate responses to external crises. Business EthicsQuarterly 22(4), 621–648.Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions duringteam problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflictresolution. 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 anddeveloping executive character. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Junod, T. (1998, November). Can you say. . . . Hero? Fred Rogershas been doing the same small good thing for a very long time.Esquire.Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values frameworkfor measuring the impact of workplace spirituality onorganizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 129–142.Kador, J. (2009). Effective apology: Mending fences, buildingbridges, and restoring trust. Williston, VT: Berret-Kohler.Kaiser, R. B., & Craig, S. B. (2014). Destructive leadership in andof organizations. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook ofleadership and organizations (pp. 260–284). New York, NY:Oxford University Press.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 managementcircuits. Harvard Business Review, 65–75.Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional andtransformational leaders. Canadian Journal of AdministrativeSciences, 18, 257–265.Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1990). The quest for altruism inorganizations. In S. Srivastra & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.),Appreciative management and leadership (pp. 228–256). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions ofleadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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 ofBusiness Ethics, 108, 537–553.Karakas, F., & Sarigollu, E. (2013). The role of leadership increating virtuous and compassionate organizations: Narrativesof benevolent leadership in an Anatolian Tiger. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 113, 663–678.Karakowsky, L., DeGama, N., & McBey, K. (2012). Facilitating thePygmalion effect: The overlooked role of subordinateperceptions of the leader. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology 85, 579–599.Karam, C. M., Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Butt, A., Srinivasan, N.,Fu, P. P. . . . & Chia, H.B. (2013). Perceptions of the ethicality offavors at work in Asia: An 11-society assessment. Asia PacificJournal of Management, 30, 373–408.Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1995). Social loafing: Researchfindings, implications, and future directions. Current Directionsin Psychological Science, 4, 134–140.Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Understanding individualmotivation in groups: The collective effort model. In M. E. Turner(Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 113–141).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Karim, A. (2000, June 23). Globalization, ethics, and AIDSvaccines. Science, 21–29.Karmali, R. (2015, November 19). HBOS’ demise: How ithappened. BBC.Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA:Bradford/MIT Press.Kasser, T., Vanssteenkiste, M., & Deckop, J. R. (2006). Theethical problems of a materialistic value orientation forbusinesses. Human Resource Management Ethics (pp. 283–306). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Kassing, J. W. (2002). Speaking up: Identifying employee’supward dissent strategies. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 16, 187–209.Kassing, J. W. (2005). Speaking up competently: A comparison ofperceived competence in upward dissent. CommunicationResearch Reports, 22, 227–234.Kassing, J. W. (2009). “In case you didn’t hear me the first time”:An examination of repetitious upward dissent. ManagementCommunication Quarterly, 22, 416–436.Kassing, J. W. (2011). Dissent in organizations. Cambridge,England: Polity Press.Kassing, J. W., & Kava, W. (2013). Assessing disagreementexpressed to management: Development of the UpwardDissent Scale. Communication Research Reports, 30, 46–56.
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 reporton the beguilings of evil. Albany: State University of New YorkPress.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 UniversityPress.Kellaway, K. (2015, October 15). Malala Yousafzai: “I want tobecome 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 creatingchange and changing leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.Kelley, R. (1992). The power of followership. New York, NY:Doubleday/Currency.Keltner, D., Langner, C. A., & Allison, M. L. (2006). Power andmoral leadership. In D. L. Rhode (Ed.), Moral leadership: Thetheory and practice of power, judgment, and policy (pp. 177–194). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Kennedy, D. (2004). The dark side of virtue: Reassessinginternational humanitarianism. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.Kenny, A. (2004). Ancient philosophy (Vol. 1). Oxford, England:Clarenton Press.Kernic, F. (2017). Facing death: The dynamics of leadership andgroup behavior in extreme situations when death strikes withoutwarning. In M. Holenweger, M. Jager, & F. Kernic (Eds.),Leadership in extreme situations: Advanced sciences andtechnologies 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 managerialwisdom. In E. H. Kessler & J. R. Bailey (Eds.), Handbook oforganizational and managerial wisdom (pp. xv–xxiv). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Kessler, G. (2018, December 30). A year of unprecedenteddeception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018. TheWashington Post.Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C.,Nelson, C. E., & Penney, L. M. (2010). Re-examiningMachiavelli: A three-dimensional model of Machiavellianism inthe workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1868–1896.Ketola, T. (2010). Responsible leadership: Building blocks ofindividual, organizational and societal behavior. CorporateSocial 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: EdwardElgar.Khuntia, R., & Suar, D. (2004). A scale to assess ethicalleadership of Indian and public sector managers. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 49, 13–26.Ki, E.-J., Choi, H.-L., & Lee, J. (2012). Does ethics statement of apublic relations firm make a difference? Yes it does!! Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 2, 267–276.Kickul, J. (2001). When organizations break their promises:Employee reactions to unfair processes and treatment. Journalof Business Ethics, 29, 289–307.Kidder, R. M. (2004). Foundation codes of ethics: Why do theymatter, what are they, and how are they relevant tophilanthropy? New Decisions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 45,75–83.
Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage. New York, NY: WilliamMorrow.Kinjerski, V. (2013). The Spirit at Work Scale: Developing andvalidating 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, andinfluence in the 21st century. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.King, D., Case, C. J., & Premo, K. M. (2011). A mission statementanalysis comparing the United States and three other Englishspeaking 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 academiaand organizations: Origins, a conceptual framework, andcurrent practices. In J. Biberman & M. D. Whitty (Eds.), At work:Spirituality matters (pp. 243–256). Scranton, PA: University ofScranton Press.Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 24, 33–41.Klatt, J. S., & Enright, R. D. (2009). Investigating the place offorgiveness with the Positive Youth Development paradigm.Journal of Moral Education, 38, 35–52.Klatt, J. S., & Enright, R. D. (2011). Initial validation of theunfolding forgiveness process in a natural environment.Counseling and Values, 56, 25–42.
Klemaier, J. (2018, November 29). New Belgium’s Kim Jordantalks 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 ofauthentic 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, TheNetherlands: Elsevier.Kline, S. L., Simunich, B., & Weber, H. (2009). The use ofequivocal messages in responding to corporate challenges.Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 40–58.Knapp, J. C. (2011). Rethinking ethics training: New approachesto 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 onshareholder value. Oxford, England: Templeton College,University of Oxford.Knobe, J. (2006). The concept of intentional action: A case studyin the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies, 130, 203–231.Knobe, J., & Burra, A. (2006). The folk concepts of intention andintentional action: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cognitionand Culture, 6, 113–132.Knoll, M., & van Kick, R. (2013). Do I hear the whistle. . .? A firstattempt to measure four forms of employee silence and theircorrelates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 349–362.
Koehn, D. (2010). Ethics, morality, and art in the classroom:Positive and negative relations. Journal of Business EthicsEducation, 7, 213–232.Koehn, N. (2017). Forged in crisis: The power of courageousleadership 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 theoreticalissues. 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 toLeader,S1, 6–18.Kolditz, T. A. (2007). In extremis leadership: Leading as if your lifedepended on it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Kolditz, T. A., & Brazil, D. M. (2005). Authentic leadership in inextremis settings: A concept for extraordinary leaders inexceptional 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 (especiallypurity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research inPersonality, 46(2), 184–194.
Kolp, A., & Rea, P. (2006). Leading with integrity: Character-basedleadership. Cincinnati, OH: AtomicDog.Korosec, K. (2015, August 24). Ten times more deaths linked tofaulty switch than GM first reported. Fortune.com.Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doingthe most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.Kotlyar, I., & Karakowsky, L. (2006). Leading conflict? Linkagesbetween leader behaviors and group conflict. Small GroupResearch, 37, 377–403.Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Credibility: How leadersgain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.KPMG. (2013/2015). The KPMG Survey of CorporateResponsibility: Executive summary. Retrieved fromhttp://home.kpmg.comKramer, F. M. (2010). Collective trust within organizations:Conceptual foundations and empirical insights. CorporateReputation 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.
Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013).Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, andfuture 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 inOrganizational Behavior, 31, 99–123.Kristof, N. D. (2010, June 27). Death by gadget. The New YorkTimes, p. WK11.Kristof, N. D. (2015, September 26). Malala Yousafzai’s fightcontinues [Op-Ed]. The New York Times.Kulik, C. T., Cregan, C., Metz, I., & Brown, M. (2009). HRmanagers as toxin handlers: The buffering effect of formalizingtoxin handling responsibilities. Human Resource Management,48, 695–716.Kung, H., & Schmidt, H. (1998). A global ethic and globalresponsibilities: Two declarations. Munich, Germany: SCMPress.Kuntz, K. (2017, February 27). A politician and an ex-hitman takeon Philippine leader. Spiegel Online.Kuriantzick. J. (2017, September 15). Why Aung San Suu Kyi isn’tprotecting the Rohingya in Burma. The Washington Post.Kurtzberg, T. R. (2014). Virtual teams: Mastering communicationand collaboration in the digital age. Santa Barbara, CA:Praeger.
Kyte, R. (2012). An ethical life: A practical guide to ethicalreasoning. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic.Kyte, R. (2016). Ethical business: Cultivating the good inorganizational culture. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic.Lachman, V. D. (2016). Moral resilience: Managing and preventingmoral 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, congruenceand purpose create the aesthetic of embodied leadershippractice. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 31–41.Ladkin, D. (2010). Rethinking leadership: A new look at oldleadership questions. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Ladkin, D. (2011). The art of “perceiving correctly”: What artistscan teach us about moral perception. Tamara: Journal forCritical Organization Inquiry, 9, 91–101.LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2012). The humanitarian leader in eachof us: Seven choices that shape a socially responsible life.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Lamb, K. (2017, April 2). Thousands dead: The Philippinepresident, the death squad allegations and brutal drugs war.The Guardian.
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 andcharacter education (pp. 30–52). New York, NY: Routledge.Lapsley, D. K., & Hill, P. L. (2008). On dual processing andheuristic approaches to moral cognition. Journal of MoralEducation, 37, 313–332.Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Developmentof 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: PalgraveMacmillan.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 innegotiation. In C. Menkel-Meadow & M. Wheeler (Eds.), What’sfair: Ethics for negotiators (pp. 5–14). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.
Lazarus, H., & McManus, T. (2006). Transparency guru: Aninterview with Tom McManus. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 25, 923–936.Lee, J., Woeste, J. H., & Heath, R. L. (2007). Getting ready forcrises: Strategic excellence. Public Relations Review, 33, 334–336.Leeper, R. V. (1996). Moral objectivity, Jurgen Habermas’sdiscourse ethics, and public relations. Public Relations Review22, 133–150.Leets, L. (2001). Interrupting the cycle of moral exclusion: Acommunication contribution to social justice research. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 31, 1859–1891.Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011).Developing a capacity for organizational resilience throughstrategic human resource management. Human ResourceManagement Review, 21, 243–255.Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authenticleadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of followercommitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107,255–264.Levinthal, D. (2015, October 30). Spreading the free-marketgospel. 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.
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 McKinseyevil? 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 effectiveleadership methods. Organization Development Journal, 24(1),87–100.Li, F., Yu, K. F., Yang, J., Qi, Z., & Fu, J. H. (2014). Authenticleadership, traditionality, and interactional justice in the Chinesecontext. Management and Organization Behavior, 10, 249–272.Li, R., Zhang, A.-Y., & Tian, X.-M. (2016). Can self-sacrificialleadership promote subordinate taking charge? The mediatingrole of organizational identification and the moderating role ofrisk aversion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 758–781.Liao, Y., Liu, X.-Y., Kwan, H., & Jinsong, L. (2015). Work–familyeffects of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 128,535–545.Lieber, C. (2018, March 16). Did Nike’s “frat boy culture” lead tothe departures of two executives? Racked.Limon, M. S., & La France, B. H. (2005). Communication traitsand leadership emergence: Examining the impact ofargumentativeness, communication apprehension, and verbalaggressiveness in work groups. Southern CommunicationJournal, 70, 123–133.
Lin, S.-H., Ma, J., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). When leader behaviorbreaks bad: How ethical leader behavior can turn abusive viaego depletion and moral licensing. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 101, 815–830.Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why wefollow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—and how wecan survive them. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Lisman, C. D. (1996). The curricular integration of ethics: Theoryand practice. Westport, CT: Praeger.Liu, S.-M., Liao, J.–Q., & Wei, H. (2015). Authentic leadership andwhistleblowing: Mediating roles of psychological safety andpersonal identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 107–119.Livesey, S. M. (2003). Organizing and leading the grassroots: Aninterview with Lois Gibbs, Love Canal Homeowners Associationactivist. Organization, 16, 448–503.Lloyd, J. (2017, October 17). Dons, donors and the murkybusiness of funding universities. FT Life.Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting andtask performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (Eds.). (2013). New developmentsin goal setting and task performance. New York, NY: Routledge.Lohr, S. (2014), Unblinking eyes track employees. The New YorkTimes, p. A1.
Lombardo, C. (2017, April 3). How many people die frommalnutrition 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 thecountercultural Mister Rogers. Louisville, KY: Westminster JohnKnox Press.Lopez, G. (2018, March 26). It’s official: March for Our Lives wasone 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 ofcourage. In C. L. S. Pury & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The psychologyof courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue (pp. 23–45).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Lovegrove, I. (2013). Leaders in Antarctica: Characteristics of anAntarctic station manager. In C. M., Giannantonio & A. E.Hurley-Hanson (Eds.), Extreme leadership: Leaders, teams andsituations outside the norm (pp. 47–61). Cheltenham, England:Edward Elgar.Low, E. (2018, May 9). Here’s what Nike execs were getting awaywith as bullying culture ran deep. Investor’s Business Daily.Lowe, K. B., & Kroeck, K. G. (1996). Effectiveness correlates oftransformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analyticreview. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.
Lowenheim, N. (2009). A haunted past: Requesting forgivenessfor wrongdoing in international relations. Review of InternationalStudies, 35, 531–555.Lubit, R. (2002). The long-term organizational impact ofdestructively narcissistic managers. Academy of ManagementExecutive, 18, 127–183.Ludwig, D. C., & Longnecker, C. O. (1993). The Bathshebasyndrome: The ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 12, 265–273.Luke, J. S. (1998). Catalytic leadership: Strategies for aninterconnected 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 supervisedFlint’s water. The Detroit News.Maak, T. (2009). The cosmopolitical corporation. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 84, 361–372.Maas, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities:Fifteen years of minority influence research. PsychologicalBulletin, 95, 428–445.MacAvoy, P. W., & Millstein, I. M. (2003) The current crisis incorporate governance. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Maccoby, M. (2003). The productive narcissist. New York, NY:Broadway Books.
MacFarquhar, L. (2015). Strangers drowning: Grappling withimpossible idealism, drastic choices, and the overpowering urgeto help. New York, NY: Penguin Press.MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nded.). 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 empiricalreview. Journal of Management 43, 1940–1965.MacLellan, L. (2017, October 27). A new type of leader isemerging 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? Notfor Disney employees. TrickleDowners.Madrigal, A. C. (2012, January 10). The court case that almostmade it illegal to tape television shows. The Atlantic.Manjoo, F. (2018, September 12). The metamorphosis of SiliconValley C.E.O.s: From big to boring. The New York Times.Mankins, M., Brahm, C., & Caimi, G. (2014). Your scarcestresource. Harvard Business Review 92, 74–80.Manz, C. C., & Neck, C. P. (1995). Teamthink: Beyond thegroupthink syndrome in self-managing work teams. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 10(1), 7–15.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1989). Superleadership: Leadingothers to lead themselves. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsch, J., dela Paz, J., & Peterson, J. B.(2006). Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to fiction versusnon-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and thesimulation of fictional social worlds. Journal of Research inPersonality, 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 andprospective. In J. R. Shook & J. Margolis (Eds.), A companionto 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” initiativeis expected to pass. A business advocate calls it a “tragicoutcome.” Los Angeles Times.Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensionsof ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 69, 175–194.Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (2010). Minority influence andinnovations: Antecedents, processes and consequences.Hoboken, NJ: Psychology Press.
Mathews, M. C. (1990). Codes of ethics: Organizational behaviorand 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 LeadershipStudies, 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 inethical decision-making: A review and investigation of moralrecognition, 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 justiceperspective. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 17, 180–197.McCabe, D., & Treviño, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honorcodes and other contextual influences. Journal of HigherEducation, 64, 522–569.McCarron, H. S., Lewis-Smith, J., Belton, L, Yanovsky, B.,Robinson, J., & Osatuke, K. (2016). Creation of a multi-raterfeedback assessment for the development of servant leaders atthe Veterans Health Administration. Servant Leadership: Theory& Practice 3, 12–51.
McCarthy, N. (2017, September 14). Racial wealth inequality inthe U.S. is rampant. Forbes.McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2010). The Center forCreative Leadership handbook of leadership development (3rded.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.McConnell, P. (2014). Reckless endangerment: The failure ofHBOS. Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions, 7,202–215.McConnell, T. (2018, September 6). Chinese man arrested aftercalling Kenya’s president a “monkey.” AFP.McCory, K. (2017, August 4). “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreliconvicted 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, andoverview. 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. DownersGrove, IL: InterVarsity Press.McDonald, D. (2013). The firm: The story of McKinsey and itssecret influence on American business. New York, NY: Simon &Shuster.McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (2010). The corporate reflectingpool: Antecedents and consequences of narcissism inexecutives. In B. Schyns & T. Hansbrough (Eds.), When
leadership goes wrong: Destructive leadership, mistakes, andethical failures (pp. 247–284). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.McGregor, J., & Dworkin, E. (2017, February 17). The cost ofsilence: 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. PublicAdministration Review, 62, 599–609.McKay, J. (2014, September 12). Chief resilience officers: Comingto your city? Emergency Management.McKendall, M., DeMarr, B., & Jones-Rikkers, C. (2002). Ethicalcompliance programs and corporate illegality: Testing theassumptions of the corporate sentencing guidelines. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 37, 367–383.McKenna, F. P. (1993). It won’t happen to me: Unrealisticoptimism 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: Thetragedy of the uncommon. Journal of Business Ethics, 149, 169–185.McNamara, G., Moon, H., & Bromiley, P. (2002). Banking oncommitment: Intended and unintended consequences of anorganization’s attempt to attenuate escalation of commitment.Academy of Management Journal, 45, 443–452.
McNatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporarymanagement: A meta-analysis of the result. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 85, 314–322.McPherson, P. (2017, October 19). Rohingya crisis may be drivingAung San Suu Kyi closer to generals. The Guardian.McVea, J. F. (2007). Constructing good decisions in ethicallycharged situations: The role of dramatic rehearsal. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 70, 375–390.McVea, J. F. (2008). Ethics and pragmatism: John Dewey’sdeliberative 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 withjob at the happiest place on earth. The New York Times, p. A1Mehta, S., & Pillay, R. (2011). Revisiting servant leadership: Anempirical study in Indian context. Journal of ContemporaryManagement Research, 5(2), 24–41.Meilander, G. (1986). Virtue in contemporary religious thought. InR. J. Neuhaus (Ed.), Virtue: Public and private (pp. 7–30).Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Meisenbach, R. J. (2006). Habermas’s discourse ethics andprinciple of universalization as a moral framework fororganizational communication. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 20, 39–62.Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving highorganization performance through servant leadership. Journal
of Business Inquiry, 9, 74–88.Menzel, D. C. (2010). Ethics moments in government: Cases andcontroversies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Meredith, S. (2018, January 22). Inequality gap widens as “world’srichest 1% get 82% of the wealth,” Oxfam says. CNBC.Merie, R. (2017, August 4). Martin Shkreli is found guilty of threeof eight securities fraud charges. The Washington Post.Messick, D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996, Winter). Ethicalleadership and the psychology of decision making. SloanManagement Review, 37(2), 9–23.Metzger, M., Dalton, D. R., & Hill, J. W. (1993). The organizationof ethics and the ethics of organizations: The case for expandedorganizational ethics audits. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3, 27–43.Meyer, Z. (2018, May 2). Starbucks and two black men arrested inPhiladelphia incident reach private settlement. USA Today.Michigan governor: Solve Flint water crisis instead of layingblame. (2016, February 5). Reuters.Michigan governor’s emails shine light on Flint water crisis. (2016,Feb. 7). CNN.comMilgram redux. (2008). The Psychologist, 21, 748–755.Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience anddisobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57–76.
Miller, K. S., & Bellamy, R. (n.d.) Fine print, restrictive grants, andacademic freedom. AAUP American Association of UniversityProfessors.Minton-Eversol, T. (2012, July 19). Virtual teams used most byglobal organizations, survey says. Society for Human ResourceManagement.Mintz, A., & Wayne, C. (2016a). The polythink syndrome and elitegroup 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: IllinoisState University.Mirvis, P. H. (1997). “Soul work” in organizations. OrganizationScience, 8, 193–206.Mirza, J. (2018, November 26). Future imperiled: Govt stops feepayment of child labourers sent to school. The Express Tribune(Pakistan).Mitchell, M. S., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). The managerial relevanceof 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 andbetter from a crisis. New York, NY: AMACOM.
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 theyhappen: What every executive and manager needs to knowabout crisis management. New York, NY: AmericanManagement Association.Mitroff, I. I., Pearson, C. M., & Harrington, L. K. (1996). Theessential guide to managing corporate crises: A step-by-stephandbook 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 ofmorality: Emotion, brain disorders, and development (pp. 1–17).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Monks, R. G., & Minow, N. (2004). Corporate governance (3rded.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Montero, D. (2018). Kickback: Exposing the global corporatebribery 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: Moraldisengagement and unethical organizational behavior.Personnel Psychology, 65, 1–48.Moore, E. C. (1961). American pragmatism: Peirce, James andDewey. Westport CT: Greenwood Press.
Moore, J. (2018, March 2). These are the companies ending gunsales to buyers under the age of 21. Newsweek.Moore, M. (2016). 10 things they won’t tell you about the Flintwater tragedy. But I will. Retrieved fromhttp://michaelmoore.com/10FactsOnFlint/Moorhead, G., Neck, C. P., & West, M. S. (1998). The tendencytoward defective decision making within self-managing teams:The relevance of groupthink for the 21st century. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 327–351.Mor Barak, M. E. (2011). Managing diversity: Toward a globallyinclusive workplace (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Moriarty, J. (2005). On the relevance of political philosophy tobusiness ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 15, 455–473.Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005).Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequencesof leader humility. Human Relations, 58, 1323–1350.Morse, R. S. (2008). Developing public leaders in an age ofcollaborative 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 sharedata from kids left to their own devices. Sunday Age(Melbourne, Australia), p. 3.
Mourdoukoutas, P. (2018, August 4). What is China doing inAfrica? Forbes.Moxley, R. S., & Pulley, M. L. (2004). Hardships. In C. D.McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for CreativeLeadership 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: Individualand 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 offorgiveness. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Muzaffar, C. (2002). Conclusion. In P. F. Knitter & C. Muzaffar(Eds.), Subverting greed: Religious perspectives on the globaleconomy (pp. 154–172). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.Najmabadi, S. (2018, April 24). From the Chinese government tothe Koch brothers, outside donors receive scrutiny at Texasuniversities. Texas Tribune.Nakamura, B. (2018, April 28). Nike’s “‘bro culture” collides with#MeToo movement. OregonLive.comNarvaez, D. (2006). Integrative ethical education. In M. Killen & J.Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 717–728). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2005). The psychologicalfoundations of everyday morality and moral expertise. In D. K.Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Character psychology andcharacter education (pp. 140–165). Notre Dame, IN: Universityof Notre Dame Press.Nash, L. L. (1990). Good intentions aside: A manager’s guide toresolving ethical problems. Boston, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.National Geographic Society (2017). Dian Fossey: Secrets in themist. [DVD]. Available from www.foxconnect.comNavarick, D. J. (2009). Reviving the Milgram obedience paradigmin 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.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Neiman, S. (2002). Evil in modern thought: An alternative historyof philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Nemeth, C. (1995). Dissent, group process and creativity: Thecontribution 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 ethicalleadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 90, 157–170.
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: Themoderating role of proactive personality and optimism. NewZealand Journal of Psychology, 45, 13–21.Nichols, M. L., & Day, V. E. (1982). A comparison of moralreasoning of groups and individuals on the “Defining IssuesTest.” Academy of Management Journal, 25, 21–28.Nicholson, C. (2013). Education and the pragmatic temperament.In A. Malachowski (Ed.), The Cambridge companion topragmatism (pp. 249–271). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.Nielsen, R. P., & Dufresne, R. (2005). Can ethical organizationalcharacter be stimulated and enabled? “Upbuilding” dialog ascrisis management method. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 311–326.Nittle, N. K. (2018, March 12). Which states have the highestmajority 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 andmoral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Noguchi, Y. (2018, February 22). Disney says promised bonusdepends on workers signing wage contract. NPR.
Not so smart. (2015, November 28). The Economist.Nye, J. S. (2008). The powers to lead. Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.Oatley, K. (2008). The mind’s flight simulator. Psychologist, 21,1030–1032.Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moral disengagement among bystandersto school bullying. Journal of School Violence, 10, 239–257.Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moral disengagement in self-reportedand 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 theempirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journalof Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.Okoth, J. (2018, October 12). Kenya: China, Kenya relations andthe 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 andAmerican democracy, World War I to 9/11. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.
Onishi, N. (2014, August 20). Clashes erupt as Liberia sets anEbola quarantine. The New York Times, p. A1.Onorato, M., & Zhu, J. (2014, Winter). An empirical study on therelationships between authentic leadership and organizationaltrust by industry segment. SAM Advanced ManagementJournal, 26–39.Oosting, J. (2017, March 7). Flint: “All clear” for drinking wateryears away. Detroit News.Opotow, S. (1990). Deterring moral exclusion. Journal of SocialIssues, 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 bombscenario and the slippery ethical slope. Peace and Conflict:Journal of Peace Psychology, 13, 457–461.Opotow, S., Gerson, J., & Woodside, S. (2005). From moralexclusion to moral inclusion: Theory for teaching peace. TheoryInto Practice, 44, 303–318.Opotow, S., & Weiss, L. (2000). Denial and the process of moralexclusion in environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 56,475–490.Oppel, R. A. (2018, July 17). MGM Resorts sues 1,000 victims ofLas Vegas Shooting, seeking to avoid liability. The New YorkTimes.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: Thegood soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Osswald, S., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Whatis moral courage? Definition, explication, and classification of acomplex construct. In C. L. S. Pury & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Thepsychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue(pp. 149–164). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.Oswick, C. (2009). Burgeoning workplace spirituality? A textualanalysis of momentum and directions. Journal of Management,Spirituality & Religion, 1, 15–25.Ötken, A. B., & Cenkci, T. (2012). The impact of paternalisticleadership on ethical climate: The moderating role of trust inleader. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 525–536.Our Mission to End School Shootings. (2018, March 24). Marchfor 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). Organizationalcommunication as cultural performance. CommunicationMonographs, 5, 126–147.Paddison, L. (2018, November 2). This country publisheseveryone’s income on “National Jealousy Day.” HuffPost.Paddock, R. C. (2017, April 2). From admiration to dismay inMyanmar. The New York Times, p. A6.
Paddock, R. C., & Beech, H. (2018, July 9). “A war against waterand time.” Toronto Star.Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle:Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conduciveenvironments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176–194.Pagan, N. O. (2008). Configuring the moral self: Aristotle andDewey. Foundations of Science, 13, 239–250.Pagliery, J. (2014). Apps aimed at children collect a shockingamount of data. CNN.Paine, L. S. (1996, March/April). Managing for organizationalintegrity. Harvard Business Review, 106–117.Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity andleadership: A multi-level conceptual framework. LeadershipQuarterly, 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 workplacepolicy. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jukiewicz (Eds.), Handbook ofworkplace 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). TheNew York Times.
Panchak, P. (2002). Time for a triple bottom line. Industry Week,p. 7.Papageorgis, D. (1968). Warning and persuasion. PsychologicalBulletin, 70, 271–282.Parboteeah, K. P., Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2014). Aninternational perspective on ethical climate. In N. M. Ashkanasy,C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook oforganizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 600–617). LosAngeles, CA: Sage.Park, G., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). A multilevel model of minorityopinion expression and team decision-making effectiveness.Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 824–853.Park, M., & Levenson, E. (2018, July 23). Coast Guard raisescapsized boat to the surface of Table Rock Lake. CNN.Parker-Pope, T. (2015, January 6). In with the new missionstatement. The New York Times, p. D4.Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. (2013). Anaccident waiting to happen: The failure of HBOS. House ofCommons, London, England.Pauchant, T. C., & Mitroff, I. I. (1992). Transforming the crisis-prone organization: Preventing individual, organizational, andenvironmental tragedies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Paul, J., & Strbiak, C. A. (1997). The ethics of strategic ambiguity.Journal of Business Communication, 34, 149–159.
Paul, R. (2017, November 28). Bangladesh to turn island intotemporary home for 100,000 Rohingya refugees. Reuters.Paulus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad ofpersonality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.Pearce, M. (2014, September 27). Growing use of police bodycameras raises privacy concerns. Los Angeles Times.Pearson, C. M., & Judith, A. C. (1998). Reframing crisismanagement. Academy of Management Review 23, 59–71.Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2004). On incivility, its impact anddirections 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 alternativebusiness ethic. London, England: McGraw-Hill.Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalisticleadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal ofManagement, 34, 566–593.Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A., & Jayaraman, V. (2010).Cross-cultural generalizability of paternalistic leadership: Anexpansion of leader-member exchange theory. Group &Organization Management, 35, 391–420.
Peralta, E. (2018, October 8). A new Chinese-funded railway inKenya sparks debt-trap fears. NPR.Perez-Pena, R. (2018, February 13). British charity’s executiveresigns over aid workers’ misconduct. The New York Times.Perlow, L. A., Hadley, C. N., & Eun, E. (2017, July/August). Stopthe meeting madness: How to free up time for meaningful work.Harvard Business Review, 62–69.Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risktechnologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengthsand virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.Peterson, D. K. (2002). The relationship between unethicalbehavior and the dimensions of the Ethical ClimateQuestionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 313–326.Petit, V., & Bollaert, H. (2012). Flying too close to the sun? Hubrisamong CEOS and how to prevent it. Journal of Business Ethics,108, 265–283.Petrick, J. A. (1998). Building organizational integrity and qualitywith the four Ps: Perspectives, paradigms, processes, andprinciples. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moralmanagement of people and processes (pp. 115–131). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.Petrick, J. A. (2008). Using the business integrity capacity modelto advance business ethics education. In D. L. Swanson & D. G.
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 itsantecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms.Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 331–348.Peyton Roberts, T., & Zigarmi, D. (2014). The impact ofdispositional 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 indangerous situations. In P. Sweeney, M. D. Matthews, & P. B.Lester (Eds.), Leadership in dangerous situations: A handbookfor 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 careersone 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 trilliondollars. Global Research.Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizationalethics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Phillips, R. A., & Margolis, J. D. (1999). Toward an ethics oforganizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9, 623–638.
Picchi, A. (2018, July 27). Disneyland’s minimum wage gets aboost to $15 an hour. CBSNews.Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (2011). Leaders and theleadership process: Readings, self-assessments andapplications (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Piliavin, J. A., & Chang, H. W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recenttheory and research. American Sociological Review, 16, 27–65.Plott, E. (2018, July 6). Inside Scott Pruitt’s tumultuous finalmonths as EPA administrator. The Atlantic.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects onfollowers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizationalcitizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.Pogatchnik, S. (2010, March 14). Abuse scandals hit CatholicChurch across Europe. The Oregonian, p. A11.Pogge, T. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics103(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 inPuerto Rico is far from done. Food & Wine.Popular DNA-testing companies build databases accessible bylaw enforcement, third-party companies. (2018, April 27).TheBlaze.
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 TheodoreMcCarrick resigns amid sexual abuse scandal. The New YorkTimes.Pradhan, S., & Pradhan, R. K. (2015). An empirical investigationof relationship among transformational leadership, affectiveorganizational 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 OrganizationalAnalysis, 11, 21–40.Pratkanis, A., & Aronson, E. (2001). Age of propaganda: Theeveryday use and abuse of persuasion. New York, NY: Holt.Press Association. (2006, January 28). Ex-HBOS bosses faceCity 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.
Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2008). Ethical turnarounds andtransformational leadership: A global imperative for corporatesocial responsibility. Thunderbird International BusinessReview, 50, 304–314.Pulley, B. (2005, October 17). Last days of the lion king. Forbes.Quiano, K., & Westcott, B. (2017, March 2). Ex-Davao deathsquad 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 inglobal business (pp. 352–379). Cheltenham, England: EdwardElgar.Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2015). The elements of moralphilosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Rahimina, F., & Sharifirad, M. S. (2015). Authentic leadership andemployee well-being: The mediating role of attachmentinsecurity. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 363–377.Rainer, C., & Motyl, M. (2015). Moral concerns and policyattitudes: Investigating the influence of elite rhetoric. PoliticalCommunication, 32, 229–248.Rainey, J. (2017, January 13). Robert Iger’s pay as Disney CEOdips slightly in 2016 to $43.9 million. Variety.Rainey, M. (2012, April/May). Fired before you’re hired. INSIGHTinto Diversity, 18–21.
Rajah, R., & Arvey, R. D. (2013). Helping group members developresilience. In A. J. DuBrin, (Ed.), Handbook of research on crisisleadership 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., Gustafson, D. J., Mainiero, L., & Umstot, D. (1993).Strategies of upward influence: A cross-national comparison ofHong Kong and American managers. Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement, 10, 157–175.Ralston, D. A., Hallinger, P., Egri, C. P., & Naothinsuhk, S. (2005).The effects of culture and life stage on workplace strategies ofupward influence: A comparison of Thailand and the UnitedStates. 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 ofsix 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 andaggressive communication: Theory, research, and application.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ransley, C., & Spy, T. (Eds.). (2004). Forgiveness and the healingprocess: 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 theallegations out of the news. PRI.Rapisarda, B. A. (2002). The impact of emotional intelligence onwork team cohesiveness and performance. InternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 363–370.Rasche, A., & Gilbert, D. U. (2012). Institutionalizing globalgovernance: The role of the United Nations Global Compact.Business Ethics: A European Review, 21, 100–114.Raskin, S. (2017, November 3). NYU department endsrelationship 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 philosophicalapproach (4th ed., pp. 274–285). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.Rawls, J. (1993b). Political liberalism. New York, NY: ColumbiaUniversity Press.Rawls, J. (2001a). Justice as fairness: A restatement (E. Kelly,Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Rawls, J. (2001b). The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related toleadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655–687.Reb, J., Goldman, B. M., Kray, L. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2006).Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions toorganizational remedies after procedural and interactionalinjustice. Personnel Psychology, 59, 31–64.Reed, L. L., Vidaver-Cohen, D., & Colwell, S. R. (2011). A newscale to measure executive servant leadership: Development,analysis, and implications for research. Journal of BusinessEthics, 101, 415–434.Regester, M., & Larkin, J. (2005). Risk issues and crisismanagement: A casebook of best practice (3rd ed.). London,England: Kogan Page.Rego, A., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2008). Workplace spirituality andorganizational commitment: An empirical study. Journal ofOrganizational Change Management, 21, 53–75.Reilly, K. (2018, March 24). Emma Gonzalez’s stunning silencefor Parkland: The latest on March for Our Lives. Time.Renati, R., Berrone, C., & Zaneti, M. A. (2012). Morallydisengaged and unempathetic: Do cyberbullies fit thesedefinitions? 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
ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 345–359.Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research andtheory. New York, NY: Praeger.Rest, J. R. (1993). Research on moral judgment in collegestudents. 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 theprofessions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 1–25).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1991). The college experience andmoral 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 ethicalpredispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences inthe recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,91, 233–243.Reynolds, S. J. (2006). A neurocognitive model of the ethicaldecision-making process: Implications for study and practice.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 737–748.Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention tothe moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
1027–1041.Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moraljudgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empiricalexamination of the moral individual. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92(6), 1610–1624.Rezaee, A. (2009). Corporate governance and ethics. Hoboken,NJ: Wiley.Rhoads, K. V. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). The business ofinfluence: Principles that lead to success in commercialsettings. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasionhandbook (pp. 513–542). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Richards, K. (2018, May 14). Uber promises to do better in a newbrand 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, andeffective 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 LeadershipVirtues Questionnaire. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 62(4), 235–250.Riley, C. (2017, September 19). McKinsey drawn into SouthAfrica’s sprawling corruption scandal. CNNMoney.Riley-Smith, B. (2018, September 11). To boldly brand: NASA maysell naming rights for spaceships. The Telegraph.
The rise of workplace spying. (2015, July 5). The Week.Robehmed, N., & Berg, M. (2017, October 13). Oscar hero tozero: How Harvey Weinstein’s power enabled him—and led tohis decline. Forbes.Roberto, M. A. (2005). Why great leaders don’t take yes for ananswer. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.Roberts, K. H. (2006). Some characteristics of one type of highreliability organization. In D. Smith & D. Elliott (Eds.), Keyreadings in crisis management: Systems and structures forprevention 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 dispositionalcynicism on job-specific affect and work intentions. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 49, 381–389.Robins, F. (2006). The challenge of TBL: A responsibility towhom? 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 flightoperations at sea. Naval War College Review, 40(4), 76–90.Rockman, K. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2006). The ethicalimplications of virtual interaction. In A. E. Tenbrunsel (Ed.),Ethics in groups (pp. 101–123). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Rockness, H., & Rockness, J. (2005). Legislated ethics: FromEnron to Sarbanes-Oxley, the impact on corporate America.Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 31–54.Rodgers, R. K., & Bligh, M. C. (2014). Exploring the “flip side” ofthe coin: Do authentic leaders need authentic followers? In L.M. Lapierre & M. K. Carsten (Eds.), Followership: What is it andwhy people follow (pp. 27–45). Boston, MA: Emerald.Rogers, E. M., & Steinfatt, T. M. (1999). Interculturalcommunication. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Roloff, M. E., & Paulson, G. D. (2001). Confronting organizationaltransgressions. In J. M. Darley, D. M. Messick, & T. R. Tyler(Eds.), Social influences on ethical behavior in organizations(pp. 53–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Romo, V. (2018, November 8). Duck boat captain indicted inMissouri lake accident that killed 17. NPR.Roosevelt, M. (2018, February 27). Disneyland Resort workersstruggle to pay for food, housing and medical care, unionsurvey finds. Orange County Register.Roosevelt, M. (2018, February 28). Disney unions ballot driveseeks to $18 an hour at hospitality companies that receiveAnaheim subsidies. Orange County Register.Root, M. P. P. (2003). Racial and ethnic origins of harassment inthe workplace. In D. P. Pope Davis, H. L. K. Coleman, W. M.,Liu, & R. L. Toporek (Eds.), Handbook of multiculturalcompetencies in counseling and psychology (478–492).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosanas, J. M., & Velilla, M. (2003). Loyalty and trust as theethical bases of organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 44,49–59.Rosenberg, T. (2011, November 24). An electronic eye on hospitalhand-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: Someantecedents 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 ofManagement Journal, 36, 701–732.Rottenberg, J., & Kaufman, A. (2017, October 12). The fallout:How the Harvey Weinstein scandal exposed sexual harassmentas 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 ethicalleaders get ahead? Exploring ethical leadership andpromotability. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 215–236.Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Martinez, R. (2011). Improving the “leader-follower” relationship: Top manager or supervisor? The ethical
leadership trickle-down effect on follower job response. Journalof Business Ethics, 99, 587–608.Ruschman, N. L. (2002). Servant-leadership and the bestcompanies to work for in America. In L. C. Spears & M.Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership forthe twenty-first century (pp. 123–139). New York, NY: Wiley.Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). Thealtruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale.Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 293–302.Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servantleadership 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 bythe Camp fire wasn’t prepared for the worst. And thensomething even worse came. BuzzFeedNews.Sagarin, B. J., Cialdini, R. B., Rice, W. E., & Serna, S. B. (2002).Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: The motivations andmechanisms of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 83, 526–541.Sanborn, J. (2016, February 3). The toxic tap. Time, 34–39.Sandin, P. (2009). Approaches to ethics for corporate crisismanagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 109–116.
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 ethicstraining 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 timeto 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 organizationlevels. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1053–1078.Scheiber, N. (2017, November 1). Protecting the disgraced. TheNew York Times, p. B1.Schein, E. H. (1993). Career anchors: Discovering your realvalues (rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Schrag, B. (2001). The moral significance of employee loyalty.Business Ethics Quarterly, 11, 41–66.
Schultz, B. (1982). Argumentativeness: Its effect in groupdecision-making and its role in leadership perception.Communication Quarterly, 3, 368–375.Schultz, H., & Gordon, J. (2011). Onward: How Starbucks foughtfor its life without losing its soul. New York, NY: Rodale.Schuman, S. (2010). The handbook for working with difficultgroups: How they are difficult, why they are difficult and whatyou can do about it. Chichester, England: Wiley.Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: Anintegrated 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, andconsensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academyof Management Journal, 32, 745–772.Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of badleaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and itsoutcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.Sciullo, M. (2018, January 11). Joanne Rogers embodies the life,love and spirit of husband Fred Rogers’s legacy. PittsburghPost-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 crisiscommunication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sendjaya, S., Perketi, A., Hartel, C., Hirst, G., & Butarbutar, I.(2016). Are authentic leaders always moral? The role ofMachiavellianism in the relationship between authenticleadership and morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 125–139.Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Itsorigin, development, and application in organizations. Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 57–64.Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining andmeasuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journalof 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-centeredperspectives on leadership (pp. ix–xxxix). Greenwich CT:Information Age.Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moralreasoning: A review of moral identity research and itsimplications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18,513–540.Shapiro, D. (2017). Negotiating the nonnegotiable: How to resolveyour most emotionally charged conflicts. New York, NY:Penguin.Shaw, J. B., Erickson, A., & Harvey, M. (2011). A method formeasuring destructive leadership and identifying types of
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). Courageousresistance: 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: BelknapPress.Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2006). Fundamentals of organizationalcommunication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values (6th ed.).Boston, MA: Pearson.Shockley-Zalabak, P. S., Ellis, K., & Cesaria, R. (2000). Measuringorganizational trust: A diagnostic survey and internationalindicator. San Francisco, CA: International Association ofBusiness 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 forsupporting five key dimensions of trust. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.Shriver, D. W. (1995). An ethic for enemies: Forgiveness inpolitics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Shriver, D. W. (2001). Forgiveness: A bridge across abysses ofrevenge. In R. G. Helmick & R. L. Peterson (Eds.), Forgivenessand reconciliation: Religion, public policy, and conflicttransformation (pp. 151–167). Philadelphia, PA: TempletonFoundation Press.Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Dishonest deed,clear conscience: Self-preservation through moraldisengagement and motivated forgetting. Harvard BusinessSchool Working Paper 09-078.Skogstad, A., Schanke Aasland, M., Birkeland Nielsen, M. B.,Hetland, J., Berge Matthiesen, S. & Eidersen, S. (2014). Therelative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannicalleadership on subordinate job satisfaction: Results from twoprospective and representative studies. Zeitschrift furPsychologie, 222, 221–232.Sickles, J. (2014, September 8). Ebola evacuation to US greaterthan previously known. Yahoo News.Siddiqui, F., Schmidt, S., & Halsey, A. (2018, April 18). “She hasnerves of steel”: The story of the pilot who calmly landed theSouthwest Airlines flight. The Washington Post.Silverman, R. E. (2012, February 4). Where’s the boss? Trappedin 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 crisismanagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 351–361.
Simola, S. (2005). Concepts of care in organizational crisisprevention. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 341–353.Simola, S. (2010). Anti-corporate anger as a form of care-basedmoral agency. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 255–269.Simons, T. L. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceivedalignment between managers’ words and deeds as a researchfocus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35.Simonson, I., & Staw, B. M. (1992). De-escalation strategies: Acomparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losingcourses 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 ofhigh school students. The New York Times.Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy andPublic Affairs, 1, 229–243.Singer, P. (2009). The life you can save: Acting now to end worldpoverty. New York, NY: Random House.Singh, N., & Krishman, V. R. (2007). Self-sacrifice andtransformational leadership: Mediating role of altruism.Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29, 261–274.Sipe, J. W., & Frick, D. M. (2015). Seven pillars of servantleadership: Practicing the wisdom of leading by serving.Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Sleesman, D. J., Conlon, D. E., McNamara G., & Miles, J. E.(2012). Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review ofthe determinants of escalation of commitment. Academy ofManagement Journal, 3, 541–562.Smith, A. E., & Jussim, L. (1999). Do self-fulfilling propheciesaccumulate, dissipate, or remain stable over time? Journal ofPersonality 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 theability to bounce back. International Journal of BehavioralMedicine, 15, p. 196.Smith, C. M., & Tindale, R. S. (2009). Direct and indirect minorityinfluence in groups. In R. Martin & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Minorityinfluence and innovations: Antecedents, processes andconsequences (pp. 263–284). Hoboken, NJ: Psychology Press.Smith, I. H., Aquino, K., Koleva, S., & Graham, J. (2014). Themoral ties that bind . . . even to out-groups: The interactiveeffect of moral identity and the binding moral foundations.Psychological Science, 25, 1554–1562.Smith, J. Y. (2009, August 12). The Olympian force behind arevolution. 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.
Smith, W. (2007). Cosmopolitan citizenship: Virtue, irony andworldliness. 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 theDeepwater 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 positivepsychology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Snyder, P., Hall, M., Robertson, J., Jasinski, T., & Miller, J. S.(2006). Ethical rationality: A strategic approach to organizationalcrisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 371–383.Sokoll, S. (2014). Servant leadership and employee commitmentto 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 theworkplace (pp. 329–335). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Solomon, R. C. (1990). A passion for justice: Emotions and theorigins of the social contract. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Solomon, R. C. (1992). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation andintegrity in business. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sosik, J. J. (2015). Leading with character: Stories of valor andvirtue 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 ofservant-leadership. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership(pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Wiley.Spears, L. C. (2004). The understanding and practice of servantleadership. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Practicingservant leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, andforgiveness (pp. 9–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.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). Employeecynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 19, 429–459.Stanley, J. (n.d.). Nike announces new diversity initiativesfollowing scandal. Hypebeast.Stansbury, J. (2009). Reasoned moral agreement: Applyingdiscourse ethics within organizations. Business EthicsQuarterly, 19, 33–56.
Starmann, R. G. (1993). Tragedy at McDonald’s. In J. A.Gottschalk (Ed.), Crisis response: Inside stories on managingimage 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: OxfordUniversity Press.Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course ofaction. Academy of Management Review, 6, 577–587.Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Smart people are not stupid, but they surecan be foolish. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Why smart people canbe so stupid (pp. 232–242). New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behavior: Itsdescription 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. LeadershipQuarterly, 24, 680–695.Strachan, M. (2017). The best argument for saving public mediawas made by Mr. Rogers in 1969. HuffPost.Stracqualursi, V. (2018, July 3). Reports: EPA aides testify toCongress about how Pruitt enlisted them for personal errands.CNN.
Street, M. D. (1997). Groupthink: An examination of theoreticalissues, implications, and future research suggestions. SmallGroup Research, 28, 72–93.Sturm, R. E. (2017). Decreasing unethical decisions: The role ofmorality-based individual differences. Journal of BusinessEthics, 142, 37–57.Sucher, S. J. (2008). The moral leader: Challenges, tools, andinsights. 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 psychologyof 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 restoriativejustice. 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.
Sun, Y. (2014, February 7). China’s aid to Africa: Monster orMessiah? Brookings.Sweeney, C., & Bothwick, F. (2016). Inclusive leadership. Harlow,England: Pearson.Szmania, C. (2018, July 27). This one design flaw led to a deadlyMissouri 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 NewYorker.Tan, H.-H., & Quek, B.-C. (2001). An exploratory study on thecareer anchors of educators in Singapore. The Journal ofPsychology, 135(5), 527–545.Tangney, J. P. (2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives,empirical findings and directions for future research. Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 19, 70–82.Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impactof Culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journalof Applied Psychology, 95, 405–439.Taylor, A. (2018, May 21). Why the new CEO activism is bad foreveryone. Quartz at Work.
Taylor, S. G., & Pattie, M. W. (2014). When does ethicalleadership affect workplace incivility? The moderating role offollower personality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24, 595–616.Taylor S. S., & Elmes, M. B. (2011). Aesthetics and ethics: Youcan’t have one without the other. Tamara: Journal for CriticalOrganization Inquiry, 9, 61–62.Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: Therole of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social JusticeResearch, 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 ofManagement, 33, 261–289.Terez, T. (2001, December). You could just spit: Tales of badbosses. Workforce, 24–25.Tessman, L. (2014). Virtue ethics and moral failure: Lessons fromneuroscientific moral psychology. In. M. W. Austin (Ed.), Virtuesin 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
The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International. Retrieved fromhttps://gorillafund.orgThoma, 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 moraljudgment 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 fromexperience to become a great leader. Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness Press.Thoresen, C. E., Harris, H. S., & Luskin, F. (2000). Forgivenessand 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: GuilfordPress.Thoroughgood, C. N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W.(2012). The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followersassociated 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 measuringdestructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies, 19, 230–255.
Tileaga, C. (2006). Representing the “other”: A discursive analysisof 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 therelationships with full range leadership model, employeeoutcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of BusinessEthics, 90, 533–547.Toohey, P. (2018, July 11). Against all odds, hero divers savesoccer boys. The Adelaide Advertiser.Top ten: Africa Infrastructure projects in 2018. (n.d.). TheBusiness Year.Toulmin, S. (1958/2003). The uses of argument. London, England:Cambridge University Press.
Torino, G. C., Rivera, D. P., Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., Sue,D.W. (Eds.). (2019). Microaggression theory: Influence andimplications (pp. 159–177). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Tourish, D. (2008). Challenging the transformational agenda:Leadership theory in transition? Management CommunicationQuarterly, 21, 522–528.Tourish, D. (2013). The dark side of transformational leadership: Acritical perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership,corporate cultism, and the spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinityin the workplace? Human Relations, 55, 147–172.Toward a global ethic: An international declaration of theParliament of the World’s Religions. (n.d.) Retrieved fromParliamentOfReligions.orgTownsend, M., & Deprez, E. E. (2018, May 9). Companies havean aha! moment: Bullies don’t make the best managers.BloombergTreviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2005). The role of leaders ininfluencing 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). Aqualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical
leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executivesuite. Human Relations, 56, 5–37.Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). Theethical context in organizations: Influences on employeeattitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 447–476.Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. E. (2000). Moralperson and moral manager: How executives develop areputation for ethical leadership. California ManagementReview, 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 andethics 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 inbusiness 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 organizationalcultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy ofManagement Review, 9, 653–699.Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for anethic of care. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality, andjustice. 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 andthe social construction of followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M.C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectiveson leadership (pp. 187–209). Greenwich CT: Information Age.Ulmer, R. R., Seeger, M. W., & Sellnow, T. L. (2007). Post-crisiscommunication and renewal: Expanding the parameters of post-crisis discourse. Public Relations Review, 33, 130–134.Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2000). Consistent questions ofambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in theBox as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 143–155.Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2008). Post-crisiscommunication and renewal: Understanding the potential forpositive 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.
Understanding poverty. (2018, September 24). The World Bank.United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of HumanRights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/UnKoch my campus. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.unkochmycampus.orgUseem, M. (1998). The leadership moment: Nine stories oftriumph and disaster and their lessons for us all. New York, NY:Times Books.Vaglanos, A. (2015, February 19). 1 in 3 women has beensexually harassed at work, according to survey. HuffPost.Valacich, J. S., & Schewenk, C. (1995). Devil’s advocacy anddialectical inquiry effects on face-to-face and computer-mediated group decision making. Organizational Behavior andHuman 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 leadershipsurvey: Development and validation of a multidimensionalmeasure. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 249–267.Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizingemployee silence and employee voice as multidimensionalconstructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392.
Van Hoot, S. (2009). Cosmopolitanism: A philosophy for globalethics. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queen’s UniversityPress.Van Knippenberg, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role ofleader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37.Van Slyke, J. A. (2014). Moral psychology, neuroscience, andvirtue. 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 theworkplace. In R. E. Kidwell, Jr. & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managingorganizational deviance (pp. 183–203). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Vejpongsa, T., & Kaewjinda, K. (2018, July 19). ‘We weren’t sure itwas for real.’ Toronto Star.Velasquez, M. G. (2014). Philosophy (12th ed.). Boston, MA:Wadsworth.Vetelson, A. J. (2005). Evil and human agency: Understandingcollective evildoing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases ofethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101
–125.Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1990). A theory and measure of ethicalclimate 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 heled death squad at Duterte’s behest. The New York Times.Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the constructof organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relationswith work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics,38, 193–203.Vitell, S. J., Nwachukwu, S. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1993). The effectsof culture on ethical decision-making: An application ofHofstede’s typology. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 753–760.Volcovici, V. (2018, June 13). Senate Republicans call for hearingon Pruitt scandals. Reuters.Von Culin, K. R., Tsukayama, E., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014).Unpacking grit: Motivational correlates of perseverance andpassion for long-term goals. The Journal of PositivePsychology, 9, 306–312.Vozza, S. (2014, February 25). Personal mission statement of 5famous CEOS (and why you should write one too). FastCompany.Waddock, S. (2014). Wisdom and responsible leadership:Aesthetic sensibility, moral imagination, and systems thinking. In
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 veteransexperience long waits for care. The Arizona Republic.Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Addingto contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect ofcharismatic leadership. Group and Organizational Studies, 15,381–394.Walker, L. J., Frimer, J. A., & Dunlop, W. L. (2010). Varieties ofmoral personality: Beyond the banality of heroism. Journal ofPersonality, 78(3), 970–942.Wallace, J. (2018, December 13). Report on Hurricane Harveyresponse finds plenty of room for improvement. HoustonChronicle.Wallace, T. (2015, November 19). Up to 10 former HBOSexecutives could be banned over collapse, damning reportfinds. The Telegraph.Waller, J. (2007). Becoming evil: How ordinary people commitgenocide and mass killing (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.Waller, J. (2016). Confronting evil: Engaging our responsibility toprevent 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 forgivenessintervention on patients with coronary artery disease.Psychology and Health, 24, 11–27.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., &Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development andvalidation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management,34, 89–126.Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servantleadership, procedural justice climate, service climate,employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: Across-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 toemployee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange,self-efficacy, and organizational identification. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 204–213.Wang, A. B. (2108, April 11). Bank of America to stop lendingsome gun manufacturers in wake of Parkland massacre. TheWashington Post.Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011).Transformational leadership and performance across criteriaand 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). Impactof authentic leadership on performance: Role of followers’positive psychological capital and relational processes. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 35, 5–12.Wang, Y.-D., & Hseih, J.-H. (2012). Toward a better understandingof the link between ethical climate and job satisfaction: Amultilevel analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 535–545.
Waples, E. P., Antes, A., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford,M. D. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethicsinstruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 133–151.Warnke, G. (1993). Justice and interpretation. Cambridge,England: MIT Press.Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Individualdifferences in servant leadership: The roles of values andpersonality. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,27, 700–716.Watkins, E., & Foran, C. (2018, July 5). EPA Scott Pruitt’s long listof controversies. CNN.Wayne, L. (2005, March 8). Boeing chief is ousted after admittingaffair. The New York Times, p. A1.Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as afoundation for moral agency. Organization Studies, 27, 341–436.Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integratedand decoupled corporate social performance: Managementcommitments, external pressures, and corporate ethicspractices. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 539–552.Weaver, G. R., Reynolds, S. J., & Brown, M. E. (2014). Moralintuition: Connecting current knowledge to future organizationalresearch 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.
Weber, J., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2001). Investigating influences onmanagers’ moral reasoning: The impact of personal andorganizational factors. Business & Society, 40, 105–107.Weber, J., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2013). Corporate ethics andcompliance programs: A report, analysis and critique. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 112, 609–626.Weber, J. A. (2007). Business ethics training: Insights fromlearning theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 61–85.Wei, X., Liu, Y. ,& Allen, N. J. (2016). Measuring team emotionalintelligence: A multimethod comparison. Group Dynamics:Theory, Research, and Practice 20, 34–50.Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (2006). Collective minds inorganizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. In D. Smith& D. Elliott (Eds.), Key readings in crisis management: Systemsand 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. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Weise, E. (2017, November 1). Russian fake accounts showedposts to 126 million Facebook users. USA Today.Weiser, B. (2018, December 19). Bike path attack suspect was onthe F.B.I.’s radar. The New York Times.Weitz, E. D. (2003). A century of genocide: Utopias of race andnation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Werhane, P. H. (1999). Moral imagination and managementdecision-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 fromorganizational research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Wheeler, D., Colbert, B., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusing onvalues: 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 testquiz 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 Hispanicunemployment rates don’t deserve applause. The Atlantic.White, S. S., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Problems with the Pygmalioneffect and some proposed solutions. Leadership Quarterly, 11,389–415.Whiting, K. (2018, November 2). Finland has just publishedeveryone taxes on “National Jealousy Day.” World EconomicForum.Whitlock, C. (2017, September 30). How the military handlessexual assault cases behind closed doors. The Washington
Post.Whitney, D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003). The power ofappreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change. SanFrancisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Why McKinsey is under attack in South Africa (2017, October 12).The Economist.Why your negotiating behavior may be ethically challenged—andhow to fix it. (2008, April). Negotiation, 11(4), 1–5.Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. (2008). The effect of culture onconsumers’ willingness to punish irresponsible corporatebehaviour: Applying Hofstede’s typology to the punishmentaspect of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: AEuropean Review, 17, 210–226.Williams, K. D., Harkins, S. G., & Karau, S. J. (2003). Socialperformance. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGEhandbook of social psychology (pp. 327–346). London,England: Sage.Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6thed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Wilson, D. S. (2015). Does altruism exist? Culture, genes, and thewelfare of others. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Wilson, S. R. (2002). Seeking and resisting compliance: Whypeople say what they do when trying to influence others.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Witt, E. (2018, March 25). The March for Our Lives presents aradical 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 itreally so bad? A comparison of positive and negativeexperiences in Antarctic winter stations. Environment andBehavior, 32, 84–110.Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed?Two meta-analytic syntheses of forewarnings of influenceappeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 119–138.Woods, K. C., & Buchanan, N. T. (2008). Sexual harassment inthe workplace. In M. Paludi (Ed.), The psychology of women atwork: 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 ifthey don’t like many of his policies. Business Insider.Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imaginedgender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 15–30.Wooler, S. (2018, March 15). Health boss claims back 5.90 forshort taxi ride after telling nation to exercise more. The Sun.
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: OxfordUniversity Press.Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2005). Initial questions about the art andscience of forgiving. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook offorgiveness (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Routledge.Wright, D. K. (1993). Enforcement dilemma: Voluntary nature ofpublic relations codes. Public Relations Review, 19, 13–20.Wu, Y., & Bai, Z. (2017, March 21). Plunder or mutual gain? Onthe ever-growing scale of China’s investment in infrastructure inAfrica. International Center for Trade and SustainableDevelopment.Wu, L.-Z., Kwan, H. K., Hong-kit, F., Chiu, R. K., & He, X. (2014).CEO ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility: Amoderated mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 130,819–831.Yidong, T., & Xinxin, L. (2013). How ethical leadership influencesemployees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsicmotivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 441–455.Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effectof leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptionsof charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 428–436.Yousafzai, M., & Lamb, C. (2013). I am Malala: The girl who stoodup for education and was shot by the Taliban. New York, NY:Back Bay Books.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Yount, J. (1993). Patterns of influencebehaviors 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. SocialBehavior 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 monitoringUS airline passengers using air marshals. Business Insider.Zhang, Y., & Liao, Z. (2015). Consequences of abusivesupervision: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement 32, 959–987.Zhong, C.-B. (2011). The ethical dangers of deliberative decisionmaking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1–25.Zhou, R., Long, L., & Hao, P. (2016). Positive affect,environmental uncertainty, and self-sacrificial leadershipinfluence follower’s self-sacrificial behaviors. Social Behaviorand Personality, 44, 1515–1524.
Zhu, W., He, H., Trevino, L. K., Chao, M. M., & Wang, W. (2015).Ethical leadership and follower voice and performance: The roleof follower identifications and entity morality beliefs. LeadershipQuarterly, 26, 702–718.Zhu, W., May, D. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The impact of ethicalleadership behavior on employee outcomes: The roles ofpsychological empowerment and authenticity. Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, 11(1), 16–26.Zimbardo, P. G. (2005). A situationist perspective on thepsychology of evil. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychologyof good and evil (pp. 21–50). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding howgood people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House.Zinnbauer, B. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness andspirituality. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook ofthe psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 21–42). NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.Zyglidopoulus, S. C. (2002). The social and environmentalresponsibilities of multinationals: Evidence from the Brent Sparcase. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 141–151.
IndexAbbott, 366Abbott, Greg, 409Abilene paradox, 304, 305Ability grouping, 213Abu Ghraib prison, 110, 117Acquiescent silence, 345Active bystanders, 114Active followers, 150Acton, Lord, 11Act utilitarianism, 145Adams, Guy, 113Affective (destructive) conflict, 295Affective prebehavioral disposition competence, 54Affordable Care Act, 333“Age of Apology,” 122AI. See Appreciative inquiryal-Assad, Bashar, 12al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr, 5Alford, C. Fred, 109Allinson, Robert, 413ALT. See Authentic Leadership TheoryAltruism, 147, 156–161, 168Amazon, 13, 37, 196American Express, 58Anand, Vikas, 346Ancestry.com, 15Annan, Kofi, 124Anning, Fraser, 5Anticipatory socialization, 346Apple, 97, 147, 191, 214, 365Appreciative inquiry (AI), 335Appreciative listening, 291Aquinas, Thomas, 77Arendt, Hannah, 115Aristotle, 70–71, 190Armstrong, Lance, 19, 123
Arnold, Benedict, 19Ashforth, Blake, 346Atlas Shrugged, 351AT&T, 13, 58, 59, 249Audubon Society, 227Aurelius, Marcus, 383Authentic Leadership Theory (ALT), 255Authoritarianism, 262Authoritarian Reflex, 371Autry, James, 249Avolio, Bruce, 256Badaracco, Joseph, 79, 190BAE Systems, 337Baird, Catharyn, 193, 194, 196Balfour, Danny, 113Ballmer, Steve, 97Banana Republic, 20Bandura, Albert, 47Bank of America, 16, 333Barker, Larry, 291Barrick Gold Corporation, 337Bass, Bernard, 244Bat Flu, 394Baumeister, Roy, 110Bay of Pigs fiasco, 301Bazerman, Max, 44, 180, 182BB&T Charitable Foundation, 351Beecher, Henry Ward, 207Benetton, 368Benevolent leadership theory, 262, 264Bentham, Jeremy, 145, 414Berkshire Hathaway, 77Berlin, Isaiah, 364Bezos, Jeff, 13, 37Biden, Joe, 303Big Dig (Boston), 305Biogen, 192BioGenex, 125Black Friday sales, 230
Blair, Tony, 123Blaming others, 48Block, Peter, 249Bloomberg, Michael, 47The Body Shop, 381Boeing, 58, 62, 85Bogle, Jack, 79Boin, Arjen, 410Boisjoly, Roger, 46Bombardier, 337Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 101, 402Booker, Corey, 78Boster, Franklin, 211Boston Marathon bombing, 16Bower, Marvin, 59Bowie, Norman, 148BP, 415Branch Davidian compound, 301Branson, Richard, 93, 262Brent Spar, 43Bribery, global corporate, 163–166Bristol-Myers Squibb, 164Brotheridge, Celeste, 80Brown, Duane, 94Brown, Michael, 265Buddha, 190Buffett, Warren, 14, 77Bulger, Whitey, 347Burns, James MacGregor, 243–244Bush, George H. W., 81, 122Bush, George W., 109Callous leaders, 3–4Cambridge Analytica, 413Cantor Fitzgerald, 413Career anchors, 93Caremark, 13Caring climates, 323Carrefour, 368Carson, Ben, 180
Carson, Rachel, 101, 402Carsten, Melissa, 150Case studiescharacter (leader’s), 97–102crisis leadership, 428–434decision making, ethical, 200–202ethical perspectives, 163–169evil, combating, 131–138global society, leadership challenges in, 390–396influence, ethical issues in, 232–238leadership theories, 269–275organizational climate, 351–356shadow side of leadership, how leaders cast shadows,23–29shadow side of leadership, why leaders cast shadows,58–63small groups, ethical leadership in, 311–316Castro, Fidel, 16Categorical imperative (Kant), 147–150, 372Catholic priests (US), 19–20Caux Round Table, 384–385CCL. See Center for Creative LeadershipCenter for Creative Leadership (CCL), 53, 87Chaleff, Ira, 185Challenger, explosion, 46, 301Chappell, Thomas, 125Character (leader’s), 70–107building character, 85–95career anchors, 93case studies, 97–102clergy sex abuse, 84compassion, 81–83courage, 72–74developing habits, 88–90elements, 70–85further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 96–97genocide, 75grit, 74–75habit, definition of, 89
hearing stories/living shared stories, 86–87highly unsuccessful executives, habits of, 90–92 (box)humanitarian leadership, 82–83 (box)humility, 80–81implications and applications, 96integrity, 79–80justice, 77–78learning from hardship, 87–88#MeToo movement, 72moral identity, 83–85optimism, 78–79personal mission statements, 92–93practical wisdom, 76–77rescripting, 89role models, 85self-assessment, 102–104student study site, 97temperance, 75–76“trust busters,” 79values, identifying of, 93–95virtue ethics, 70wisdom and prudence, 76–77Chevron, 164Chick-Fil-A, 27, 334Chief resilience officers (CROs), 423Chipotle, 125Christianity, 156Christie, Richard, 40Chrystal, Stanley, 303Cialdini, Robert, 226Cicero, 383Citigroup, 341Clergy sex abuse, 19–20, 84Clinton, Bill, 84, 123, 409Clinton, Hillary, 24, 86CMP. See Crisis management planCoca Cola, 60, 333Coercive power, 7Cognitive decision-making competence, 54Cognitive dissonance, 180
Colby, Anne, 70Collaborative leadership, 307Collective corruption, 344Collins, James, 334Colluders, 53Columbia explosion, 46, 301Columbine mass shooting, 16, 410Compassion, 81–83Complicit bystanders, 114Comprehensive listening, 291Conformers, 53Confucianism, 156Confucius, 70, 190, 364Connolly, John, 347ConocoPhillips, 336Constructive leaders, 6The Container Store, 249Context management competence, 54Contingent reward, 244Cook, Tim, 97, 191Cordon Bleu-Tomasso, 125Corporate activism, 332Corporate Athlete, 92Corporate social responsibility (CSR), 161, 332Corrupt leaders, 4–5Cosby, Bill, 18Costco, 227Courage, 72–74Covey, Stephen, 89, 90Crace, R. Kelly, 94Creutzfeldt-Jakob (CJD) brain disease, 406Crisis leadership, 402–441abnormal accidents, 404biases, 404case studies, 428–434components, 412–423crises, types of, 403–404crisis event, 408–409crisis management plans, 427discourse of renewal, 410
ethical demands, 424–426ethical rationality, 420follower ethics, 423–424foresight effect, 418further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 427–428heroic imagination, 417“Horwitz Rule,” 419implications and applications, 426–427intention effect, 418mindful cultures, 419normal accidents, 404organizational crisis learning, 409postcrisis, 409–410precrisis, 404–408reconsidering structure, 409resilience, 421–423retrospective sense making, 409scorecard, 410–411 (box)self-assessment, 434–436“Stockdale Paradox,” 417stonewalling, 415student study site, 428transparency, 413–416triage, 407vicarious learning, 409Crisis management plan (CMP), 407, 427Critical listening, 291CROs. See Chief resilience officersCSR. See Corporate social responsibilityCullen, John, 323Culture (organizational). See Organizational climateCummins Inc., 341Custer, George Armstrong, 3CVS, 13Dalai Lama, 156Damon, William, 70Danone, 366Darwin, Charles, 74
Dayspring cards, 125Decision making, ethical, 174–206case studies, 200–202cognitive dissonance, 180conventional thinking, 178decision-making formats, 188–198Defining Issues Test, 179dual process approach, 174–176duty orientation, 186ethical fading, 177follower ethics, 185Foursquare Protocol, 198Four-Way Method, 188–190further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 199–200implications and applications, 198–199implicit prejudice, 181in-group favoritism, 181justice-as-fairness theory, 179maintaining norms schema, 179moral action, components of, 176–186moral attentiveness, 177moral dumbfounding, 174–175moral emotions, 183moral hypocrisy, 183moral judgment, 178moral potency, 182motivation, 182–183other-condemning moral emotions, 183other-praising (positive) emotions, 184other-suffering emotions, 184partial disengagement, 188postconventional reasoning, 178postconventional schema, 179preconventional thinking, 178recognition, 176–178self-assessment, 202–203self-conscious emotions, 184Social Intuitionist Model, 175student study site, 200
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 415Defense Distributed, 25Defining Issues Test (DIT), 179Dehumanization, 48DePree, Max, 249Derailed leaders, 6Desai, Sreedhari, 209Deutsche Bank, 333Dewey, John, 153, 154Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 41(box)Dialectic inquiry method, 302Diet of Worms, 83Diogenes, 383Discourse ethics, 218Discovery Communications, 13Discovery Toy party, 229Discrimination, 342Discriminative listening, 291Disney, 39, 234Distributive negotiation, 222DIT. See Defining Issues TestDiversity and inclusion (D&I) efforts, 324DNA-testing companies, 15Dodd-Frank Act, 19Donaldson, Thomas, 385Douglass, Frederick, 101, 402Dramatic rehearsal, 154Drones, 15Duchon, Dennis, 126Dunfee, Thomas, 385Duterte, Rodrigo, 131–132Duty orientation, 186Ebbers, Bernie, 85Ebola epidemic (West Africa), 367Eden, Dov, 207EI. See Emotional intelligenceEichmann, Adolf, 115Einarsen, Ståle, 6
Eisner, Michael, 39Eli Lilly, 164Elizabeth II, Queen, 77Ellison, Darren, 260Ells, Steve, 125Ellsworth, Richard, 79Emotional-ethical threshold, 211Emotional intelligence (EI), 294–295Empathetic listening, 291Encounter socialization, 346Enright, Robert, 120Enron, 59, 95, 339Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 27, 136, 402Eskom, 59Ethical climate, 322Ethical fading, 177Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS), 265Ethical leadership theory, 265, 267Ethical perspectives, 144–173active followers, 150act utilitarianism, 145altruism, 147, 156–161capitalist theorists, 153case studies, 163–169categorical imperative (Kant), 147–150corporate social responsibility, 161dramatic rehearsal, 154ethics of care, 159–160 (box)follower ethics, 150further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 162–163group-focused leader altruistic behaviors, 157hospice volunteers, 157implications and applications, 162individual-focused leader altruistic behaviors, 157justice as fairness, 151–153meaningful work, 148organizational-focused leader altruistic attitudes, 158passive followers, 150pragmatism, 153–156
proactive followers see, 150rule utilitarianism, 145societal-focused leader altruistic behaviors, 158student study site, 163toxin handlers, 158utilitarianism, 144–147“veil of ignorance,” 151Ethics Game simulation, 196Ethnocentrism, 44, 379Euphemistic language, 47Evil, combating, 108–142Abu Ghraib prison, 110active bystanders, 114“banality of evil,” 116bureaucracy, evil as, 112–113case studies, 131–138choice, evil as, 113–114community, 127complicit bystanders, 114cultural factors, 115dreadful pleasure, 109exclusion, evil as, 110–112faces of evil, 108–109facing evil, 116–117“5-R” model, 124follower ethics, 114–115forgiveness, 119–125further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 130–131harmful bystanders, 114Holocaust, 113idealism, evil as, 109–110implications and applications, 129–130inner life, 126meaningful work, 126–127moral community, 110moral exclusion, symptoms of, 111 (box)moral inversion, 113ordinary, evil as, 114–115pseudo-apologies, 123, 124
psychological factors, 115scope of justice, 110self-assessment, 138–139situational pressures, 118–119 (box)social factors, 115–116spirituality, 125–129Stanford Prison Experiment, 117student study site, 131“surplus populations,” 113warning labels, 108Evil leaders, 5Expert power, 7Exxon Valdez, 413, 417Facebook, 226, 336, 366, 406, 413Farrow, Mia, 24Farrow, Ronan, 24Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 147, 190, 303, 347,406Federal Emergency Management Agency, 409, 421FedEx, 337Female genital mutilation (FGM), 392Feurstein, Aaron, 191FIFA, 344Finkelstein, Sidney, 90Fiorina, Carly, 3Fisher, Roger, 222Fletcher, George, 20Flint, Michigan (poisoning of), 135–138Followership, ethical challenges of, 8–10Foot-in-the-door strategy, 227Ford, Henry, 126Ford Motor Company, 46, 176Foresight effect, 418Forgiveness, 119–125breaking the cycle of evil, 119–120process, 120–122seeking forgiveness, 122–125Fortune, 79Fossey, Dian, 99–100
Foursquare Protocol, 198Four-Stream model (benevolent leadership), 262, 264, 265Fowler, Susan, 72Fox News, 27Francis, Pope, 83, 84, 122Franco, Zeno, 402, 416Franklin, Benjamin, 76FranklinCovey, 89Frazier, Kenneth, 333Fries, Michael, 13Fromm, Erich, 114Fry, Louis, 128Fukushima nuclear power plant, 406Galatea effect, 214, 230Galdikas, Birute, 99Gandhi, Mahatma, 209, 244, 245Gandhi, Mohandas K., 123Gap, 20Garrison, William Lloyd, 102Gates, Bill and Melinda, 14Geis, Florence, 40General Motors, 48, 90Genocide, introduction of term, 75Gert, Bernard, 381Ghosn, Carlos, 76Gibb, Jack, 293Gilligan, Carol, 159 (box)Gioia, Dennis, 46Giving Voice to Values, 187–188 (box)GlaxoSmithKline, 164Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness(GLOBE) Research Project, 246, 373–374Global society, leadership challenges in, 364–401Authoritarian Reflex, 371Bat Flu, 394case studies, 390–396Caux Round Table, 384–385challenges, 378–388common morality, 381
cosmopolitanism, 383cultural differences and ethical values, 368–378dark side of globalization, 364–368ethnocentrism, 379followership ethics, 375–376further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 389–390Golden Rule, 383, 387HKH model, 386hypernorms, 386implications and applications, 389integrative social contracts theory, 385macrosocial contracts, 385metaethics guidelines, 388 (box)microsocial contracts, 386mindfulness, 380moral foundations theory, 376–378moral free space, 386multinational enterprises, 386prejudice, 378Project GLOBE, 373–374self-assessment, 397–398stereotyping, 379student study site, 390survival values versus self-expression values, 370traditional values vs. secular-rational values, 370World Values Survey, 370–371Golden Rule, 383, 387Goldman, Stephen, 196, 197Goldman Sachs, 59Golem effect, 230Goodall, Jane, 99Google, 13, 58, 98GoPro, 13Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, 154Grant, Ulysses S., 72, 122Greed, 39, 58–60“Greekthink,” 237Greenleaf, Robert, 249Grit, 74–75
Groppel, Jack, 92Groupthink, 300–301Gun printers (3-D), 26Gunsmoke myth, 304Gupta, Rajat, 59Gutfreund, John, 331Gutierrez, Ambra Battilana, 23Habermas, Jürgen, 218Habitat for Humanity, 332Habits, developing, 88–90Haidt, Jonathan, 174, 376Hallie, Philip, 440Hamilton, J. Brooke, 386Hanna-Attisha, Mona, 416Hard power, 7Harmful bystanders, 114Harrison, David, 265Harvey, Jerry, 304Harvey, Steve, 125Hastert, Dennis, 18Hastings, Reed, 124Havel, Václav, 78, 87Hayward, Tony, 415HBOS, 402HDS. See Hogan Development ScaleHealth maintenance organization (HMO), 346HealthSouth, 84Hearit, Keith, 415Held, Virginia, 159 (box)Hemingway, Earnest, 80Hewlett-Packard, 3, 45High-reliability organizations (HROs), 419Hill, Vanessa, 386HKH (Hamilton, Knouse, Hill) model, 386Hobby Lobby, 333Hofstede, Geert, 371Hogan, Robert and Joyce, 41 (box)Hogan Development Scale (HDS), 41 (box)Holocaust, 113
Hooker Chemical, 405Horwitz, Don, 419“Horwitz Rule,” 419Hospice volunteers, 157Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 180Hreljac, Ryan, 82 (box)Huang, Liu, 300Hubris, 39, 58–60Huckabee, Mike, 334Humility, 80–81Hunter, John, 211Hurd, Mark, 45Hurricane Katrina, 226, 409, 421Hussein, Saddam, 16, 164Hypernorms, 386IBM, 37, 371Ibori, James, 164Iger, Robert, 234Ignatieff, Michael, 70Impression management, 17, 40Incivility, 342Incompetent leaders, 3Incrementalism, 346Independence climates, 323Influence, ethical issues in, 207–242ability grouping, 213argumentation, 214–219authority, 229bargainers, 221case studies, 232–238commitment and consistency, 227–228communication of expectations, 211–214compliance gaining, 208–210discourse ethics, 218emotional-ethical threshold, 211follower ethics, 209foot-in-the-door strategy, 227framing, 207–208
further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 231–232Galatea effect, 214, 230Golem effect, 230“Greekthink,” 237illusion of invulnerability, 226implications and applications, 230–231liking, 229lobbyists, 227negotiation, 219–224principled negotiation model, 222Principle of Universalization, 218prosocial tactics, 211Pygmalion effect, 211–212, 230reciprocation, 226–227rejection then retreat, 227resisting influence, 226–230scarcity, 229–230self-assessment, 238–240self-fulfilling prophecy, 211, 212social roof, 228–229student study site, 232Toulmin model, 217–218 (box)tribal minds, stepping beyond, 224–225 (box)win–lose approach, 222Inglehart, Ronald, 370Ingraham, Laura, 27Inner life, 126Instrumental climates, 323Insular leaders, 5Integrative leadership, 307Integrative negotiation, 222Integrative social contracts theory (ISCT), 385Integrity, 79–80, 329–330Intel, 365Intemperate leaders, 3Intention effect, 418International Monetary Fund, 76Interstate Batteries, 125Invulnerability, illusion of, 226
Iscariot, Judas, 19ISCT. See Integrative social contracts theoryISIS, 5, 109, 246Islamic law, 395Islamic National Party (BNP), 165Jack in the Box, 415James, Joshua, 440James, William, 153Janis, Irving, 300JC Penney, 20, 368Jesus, 156–157, 190Jobs, Steve, 97, 214Johannesen, Richard, 339John Paul, II, 120Johnson, Lyndon, 259Johnson, Patrice, 291Johnson & Johnson, 414Johnsonville Sausage, 12Jolie, Angelina, 23Jones, Jim, 10Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 125JPMorgan Chase, 123J Sainsbury, 337Judaism, 156Judd, Ashley, 23, 72Justice, 77–78, 328–329Justice as fairness, 151–153, 179Kador, John, 124Kahn, Dominique Strauss, 76Kalanick, Travis, 329Kant, Immanuel, 144, 147, 383Kanter, Rosabeth, 22Karakas, Fahri, 263Karau, Steven, 288Keil, Mark, 306Kelleher, Herb, 329Kellerman, Barbara, 3, 5Kelly Blue Book, 223
Kennedy, John F., 16, 81, 245, 259Khosrowshahi, Dana, 98Kilpatrick, Kwame, 49Kim Jong-Il, 11Kim Jong-un, 12King, Martin Luther, Jr., 16, 84, 245Knoll, Michael, 345Knouse, Stephen, 386Koch, Charles, 351Koch, David, 351Kohlberg, Lawrence, 178Kolditz, Thomas, 426Kouchaki, Mayam, 209Kozlowski, Dennis, 84Kuipers, Sanneke, 410Kung, Hans, 383Kyte, Richard, 180Ladkin, Donna, 260LaFasto, Frank, 82 (box)Laissez-faire leaders, 6, 244Lapsley, Daniel, 55Larson, Carl, 82 (box)Lasnik, Robert, 25Las Vegas mass shooting, 417Laub, Jim, 249Lauer, Matt, 124Law and order climates, 323Lawrence, Penny, 20Law of the Sea negotiations, 224Lax, David, 220Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, 18, 266Leadership theories, 243–282authentic leadership, 255–267authoritarianism, 262balanced processing, 255benevolent leadership theory, 262, 264case studies, 269–275community responsiveness, 263contingent reward, 244
descriptive theories, 243ethical leadership, 265–267follower ethics, 258–259Four-Stream model (benevolent leadership), 262, 264further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 268–269implications and applications, 268internalized moral perspective, 255laissez-faire leaders, 244management by exception, 244normative theories, 243passive-avoidant leaders, 244paternalistic leadership, 262positive engagement, 263relational transparency, 255self-assessment, 275–277self-awareness, 255self-sacrifice, 247–249 (box)servant leadership, 249–255, 251–252 (box)social learning theory, 265student study site, 269transactional leaders, 244transformational leadership, 243–247trigger events, 256Learning, vicarious, 409Legitimate power, 7Lehman Brothers, 19Lemkin, Raphael, 75Lendlease, 337LePage, Paul, 3Levi Strauss, 381Lewis, C. S., 113Liberty Global, 13Liddy, G. Gordon, 227Life Values Inventory, 94Lincoln, Abraham, 101, 245, 402Lipman-Blumen, Jean, 3, 5LMX theory. See Leader–member exchange theoryLobbyists, 227Loblaw, 368
Loescher, Peter, 344London Olympics, 305Lonergan, Bernard, 193Louis C. K., 122Love Canal environmental crisis, 405Lovegrove, Ian, 433Luthans, Fred, 256Luther, Martin, 83, 123Lutnick, Howard, 413MacFarlane, Seth, 23MacFarquar, Lisa, 161Machiavelli, Niccolò, 40, 190Machiavellianism, 40MacIntyre, Alasdair, 87Macrosocial contracts, 385Madoff, Bernie, 17, 181Maduro, Nicolas, 3Majoo, Farhad, 97Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, 408Management by exception, 244Mandela, Nelson, 87, 120March of Dimes, 227Markey, Ed, 62–63Mattel, 90Mattis, Jim, 40McDonald, Duff, 58McDonald’s, 419McGowan, Rose, 23, 72McKesson, 336McKinnel, Hank, 13McKinsey & Company, 58, 402McVea, John, 154Meaningful work, 126–127, 148Medtronic, 125Mengele, Josef, 156Menzel, Donald, 54Mercer, Lucy, 84Merck & Co., 46, 333Messick, David, 44
Metamorphosis socialization, 346#MeToo movement, 72Meyer, Urban, 14MGM Resorts, 417Microaggressions, 325–327 (box)Microsocial contracts, 386Microsoft, 97, 98Mill, John Stuart, 145Mindfulness, 380Mintz, Alex, 302Miramax, 23Mission statements, personal, 92–93Mitroff, Ian, 404, 405MNEs. See Multinational enterprisesMontealegre, Ramiro, 306Montero, David, 163Moral attentiveness, 177Moral dumbfounding, 174–175Moral exclusion, symptoms of, 111 (box)Moral foundations theory, 376–378Moral free space, 386Moral identity, 83–85Moral inversion, 113Moral justification, 47Mori, Yoshiro, 409Morning Star, 12Morris, J. Andrew, 80Morrison, Denise, 93Moxley, Russ, 87Moynihan, Brian, 333Mugabe, Robert, 12Mullen, Jim, 192Multinational enterprises (MNEs), 386Munoz, Oscar, 122Musk, Elon, 98Nadella, Satya, 98Narcissism, 39Narvaez, Darcia, 55, 179Nassar, Larry, 20
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 62,331National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP), 154National Australia Bank, 337National Basketball Association, 333National Geographic, 99National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 46National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,81National Rifle Association, 322NDAs. See Nondisclosure agreementsNegotiation, 222Nelson, Rashon, 355Nestlé, 366Netflix, 124New Belgium Brewing, 332New Yorker, 23New York Post, 23New York Times, 23, 97, 421Nike, 20, 402Nixon, Richard, 10, 227, 259Noddings, Nel, 159 (box)Nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), 23Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 384Northern Healthy, 61Northwest Mutual Insurance, 338Novartis, 164Nugent, Robert, 415Obama, Barack, 3, 303, 409O’Connor, Sandra Day, 87Oklahoma City bombing, 16, 409Old Navy, 62Olmsted, Kathryn, 16–17Opioid crisis, 3, 20Opotow, Susan, 111Oppenheimer Funds, 421Opportunistic silence, 345Optimism, 78–79
Organizational climate, 322–363acquiescent silence, 345aggression, 343anticipatory socialization, 346appreciative inquiry, 335caring climates, 323case studies, 351–356climate-building tools, 334–348collective corruption, 344compromise, 347core values, 335–336 (box)corporate activism, 332corporate social responsibility, 332culture, 322discrimination, 342diversity and inclusion efforts, 324encounter socialization, 346ethical climate, 322ethics codes, 341–342 (box)follower ethics, 344further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 349–350healthy ethical climates, 323–334implications and applications, 348–349incivility, 342incrementalism, 346independence climates, 323instrumental climates, 323integrity, 329–330justice, 328–329law and order climates, 323metamorphosis socialization, 346microaggressions, 325–327 (box)mission statements, 336–337opportunistic silence, 345organizational trust, 327prosocial silence, 345quiescent silence, 345rules climates, 323self-assessment, 356–359
sexual harassment, 342stakeholder focus, 332student study site, 350sustainability, 332zero-tolerance policies, 343Organizational crisis learning, 409Origen of Alexandria, 108Overconfidence, 45Overdijk, Werner, 410Oxfam, 20Paine, Lynn, 329Palmer, Parker, 2, 3, 6, 37, 284Paltrow, Gwyneth, 23Panama Papers, 14Panera Bread, 413Parker, Mark, 353Parkland teens, 402Passive-avoidant leaders, 244Passive followers, 150Patagonia, 12Paternalistic leadership (PL), 262Paterson, Tad, 300Patton, Bruce, 222Pauchant, Terry, 405PayPal, 208, 333Pearl Harbor, 301Pearlman, Robert, 62Peets Coffee, 381Peirce, Charles, 153PepsiCo, 58, 341, 414Perkins, Zelda, 24Personal mission statements, 92–93Petrick, Joseph, 54Petrobras, 208Pfeffer, Jeffrey, 257Pfizer, 13Pichai, Sundar, 13, 98Pinera, Sebastian, 417Pizza Hut, 62
PL. See Paternalistic leadershipPlowman, Donde Ashmos, 126Pogge, Thomas, 383Polanski, Roman, 24Polythink, 302–304Pompeo, Mike, 28Popeye’s Chicken, 249Porras, Jerry, 334Practical wisdom, 76–77Pragmatism, 153–156Prejudice, 378Price, Terry, 45Primark, 368The Prince, 40Principled negotiation model, 222Principle of Universalization, 218Privacy issues, 15Proactive followers see, 150Proctor & Gamble, 59Project GLOBE (Global Leadership and OrganizationalBehavior Effectiveness), 373Prosocial silence, 345Protestantism, 371Prudence, 76–77Pruitt, Scott, 27–28Pseudo-apologies, 123, 124Psychopathy, 40Pulley, Mary Lynn, 87Purdue Pharma, 20Purple Promise Award, 338Putin, Vladimir, 10, 409Putnam, Hilary, 153Pygmalion effect, 211–212, 213, 230Quaker Oats, 90Questionable Practice (QP), 387Quiescent silence, 345Quisling, Vidkun, 19Rahim, Gurmeet Ram, 254
Ralston, David, 375Rand, Ayn, 351Rawl, Lawrence, 413Rawls, John, 151, 152Reave, Laura, 127Reciprocation, 226–227Reconsidering structure, 409Reese, Pee Wee, 20Referent (role model) power, 7Rejection then retreat, 227Rescripting, 89Rest, James, 176Retrospective sense making, 409Return on investment (ROI), 191Reward power, 7Rigid leaders, 3Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, 406Robinson, Donte, 355Robinson, Jackie, 20Rockefeller Foundation, 423Rockwell Collins, 341Rohingya refugee crisis, 133–135Role models, 85Rolling Stone, 303Roosevelt, Eleanor, 84Roosevelt, Franklin, 84, 244, 245Rorty, Richard, 153Rose, Charlie, 122Royce, Josiah, 20Rules climates, 323Rule utilitarianism, 145Ryan, Tom, 13Saatchi and Saatchi, 90Sackler, Richard, 20Sadat, Anwar, 120Salomon Brothers, 331Samsung, 90Sandburg, Sheryl, 14, 21Sandy Hook Elementary mass shooting, 16
Sarbanes–Oxley Act, 330, 338Sarigollu, Ermine, 263Schein, Edgar, 93Schröder, Gerhard, 123Schultz, Howard, 79, 355Schwinn, 90Scotiabank, 337Scrushy, Richard, 84Sears, 58, 368SeaWorld, 406Sebenius, James, 220Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 98, 165Seeger, Matthew, 402, 403Selbie, Duncan, 18Self-directed work teams (SDWTs), 302Self-fulfilling prophecy, 211, 212Self-leadership, 287Self-sacrifice, 247–249 (box)Sellnow, Timothy, 402, 403Seneca, 383Servant leadership, 249–255, 251–252 (box)Sessions, Jeff, 40The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, 89Sexual harassment, 342Shackleton, Ernst, 101, 416Shadow side of leadership, how leaders cast shadows, 2–35“brutal” bosses, behaviors of, 11callous leaders, 3–4case studies, 23–29coercive power, 7concentrated power, danger of, 12constructive leaders, 6contrast between light and darkness, 2–6corrupt leaders, 4–5derailed leaders, 6destructive leader behaviors, 5DNA-testing companies, 15drones, 15evil leaders, 5expert power, 7
followership, ethical challenges of, 8–10further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 22–23hard power, 7implications and applications, 21–22impression management, 17incompetent leaders, 3inconsistency, shadow of, 18–19insular leaders, 5intemperate leaders, 3irresponsibility, shadow of, 20–21laissez-faire leaders, 6leader–member exchange theory, 18legitimate power, 7mismanaged information, shadow of, 14–18misplaced and broken loyalties, shadow of, 19–20nondisclosure agreements, 23power, shadow of, 7–12power deprivation, 12privacy issues, 15privilege, shadow of, 13–14prototypes, 17referent (role model) power, 7reward power, 7rigid leaders, 3self-assessment, 29–32soft power, 7study study site, 23supportive-disloyal leaders, 6terror, leadership by, 12–13 (box)toxic leaders, 3, 4 (table)tyrannical leaders, 6Shadow side of leadership, why leaders cast shadows, 36–67affective prebehavioral disposition competence, 54blaming others, 48case studies, 58–63cognitive decision-making competence, 54colluders, 53conformers, 53context management competence, 54
contextual factors, 52–53dark side personality traits, 41–43 (box)devaluing victims, 48–49diffusion of responsibility, 48displacement of responsibility, 48ethical skills, 55–56 (box)ethnocentrism, 44euphemistic language, 47failure of moral imagination, 46–47faulty decision making, 43–44follower ethics, 49–51 (box)further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 57–58goal blockage, 38greed, 39, 58hubris, 39, 58implications and applications, 56–57impression management, 40inner monsters, 37–38lack of ethical expertise, 51–52Machiavellianism, 40moral disengagement, 47moral justification, 47narcissism, 39overconfidence, 45personality disorders, 39–41psychopathy, 40self-assessment, 63–64self-centeredness, 38–39shadow casters, types of, 36stereotypes, 45student study site, 58theories about how the world operates, 44theories about other people, 44–45theories about ourselves, 45toxic triangle, 53turning immoral conduct into moral conduct, 47–48unhealthy motivations, 36unmet needs, 38untrustworthy leaders, 38
victim blaming, 49Shaka Zulu, 12–13 (box)Shakespeare, William, 2Shapiro, Daniel, 224Shell Oil, 164Shkreli, Martin, 80Shriver, Donald, 121Shriver, Eunice Kennedy, 81, 85Shults, Tammie Jo, 260Siemens Global, 344Silent Spring, 101Silva, Lula da, 4Simmons, Russell, 122Singer, Peter, 147Skilling, Jeffrey, 59Small groups, ethical leadership in, 284–321Abilene paradox, 304, 305affective (destructive) conflict, 295appreciative listening, 291case studies, 311–316collaborative leadership, 307common good, group leadership for, 307–308comprehensive listening, 291critical listening, 291definitions, 285–286 (box)dialectic inquiry method, 302discriminative listening, 291emotional intelligence, 294–295empathetic listening, 291escalation of commitment, 305–307ethical group interaction, 290–299false agreement, 304–305follower ethics, 300further exploration, challenge, and self-assessment, 309–310groupthink, 300–301Gunsmoke myth, 304implications and applications, 307–308individual ethical accountability, 286–289integrative leadership, 307
minority opinion, 298–299moral pitfalls, 300–307motivation factors, 288polythink, 302–304productive conflict, 295–296risk seeking, 306self-assessment, 317–318self-directed work teams, 302self-enhancement, 306self-leadership, 287social loafing, 288student study site, 310substantive (constructive) conflict, 295sunk costs, 306team dysfunctions, 289–290 (box)therapeutic listening, 291virtual teams, 296–298 (box)Smith, Travis, 85Sneader, Kevin, 60Social Intuitionist Model, 175Social learning theory, 265Social loafing, 288Sociometric Solutions, 15, 16Soft power, 7Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, 87Sony, 90Southwest Airlines, 329SpaceX, 62, 98Special Olympics, 81Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams, 424Spirituality, 125–129Spiritual leadership theory, 128Spoerry, Anne, 168Staggs, Tom, 234Stanford Prison Experiment, 117Starbucks, 79, 208, 355Stereotypes, 45, 379Stockdale, James, 417“Stockdale Paradox,” 417Stonecipher, Harry, 85
Stonewalling, 415Strong Lives, 61Substantive (constructive) conflict, 295Sullivan, Scott, 85Sun Tzu, 190Supportive-disloyal leaders, 6Sutcliffe, Kathleen, 419Swift, Taylor, 72Tales of Good and Evil, Help and Harm, 440Target, 62, 333Tax transparency, 166–167Temperance, 75–76Terror, leadership by, 12–13 (box)Tesco, 337Tesla, 98Thai cave rescuers, 402Theories. See Leadership theoriesTheranos Labs, 322Therapeutic listening, 291Thoreau, Henry David, 77Tillerson, Rex, 40Tillman, Pat, 16Timberland, 19Time, 72Ting-Toomey, Stella, 388Today Show, 124Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), 406Tokyo Rose, 19Tom’s of Maine, 125Tonka, Paul, 27Toro, 125Toshiba, 176Toulmin, Stephen, 217Toulmin model, 217–218 (box)Toxic leaders, 3, 4 (table)Toxic triangle, 53Toxin handlers, 158Transactional leaders, 244Trevino, Linda, 265
Trigger events, 256Trudeau, Justin, 123Trump, Donald, 14, 27, 28, 40, 84, 86, 148, 190, 274, 365“Trust busters,” 79Turing Pharmaceutical, 80Tutu, Desmond, 108, 120, 20923andMe, 15Twitter, 226, 366, 406Tyco, 85Tylenol poisoning, 414Tyrannical leaders, 6Uber, 98, 329Uhl-Bien, Mary, 150Ulmer, Robert, 403United States Anti-Doping Agency, 124United States Olympic Committee, 20Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations), 384UPS, 16Urbanski, John, 80Ury, William, 222USA Gymnastics, 20, 402U.S. Air Force, 16USA Today, 58U.S. Sentencing Commission, 330, 347Utilitarianism, 144–147Vagelos, Roy, 46Valde, Kathleen, 339Values, identifying of, 93–95van Dick, Rolf, 345Veterans Administration, 14Vicarious learning, 409Victor, Bart, 323Vietnam War, 301Virgin, 93, 262Virtual teams, 296–298 (box)Virtue ethics, 70Volkswagen, 52, 322
Waller, James, 116The Wall Street Journal, 13Walmart, 20, 52, 221Wang Laboratories, 90Washington, George, 86Watergate scandal, 227Watson, Kittie, 291Watson, Thomas, 37Wayne, Carly, 302Wayne, John, 72Weick, Karl, 419Weinstein, Harvey, 23–24, 72Wells Fargo, 122, 322Wheatley, Margaret, 81, 125, 249Whedbee, Karen, 339Whicker, Marcia Lynn, 38Whitacre, Ed, 13Whyte, David, 125Wilberforce, William, 75, 85Williams, Kipling, 288Wilson, Cory, 25Winfrey, Oprah, 93Wisdom, 76–77Woodman, Nick, 13Woodruff, Paul, 2Woolworths, 337Workplace Bullying Institute, 11WorldCom, 85World Trade Center terrorist attacks (2001), 413, 421World Values Survey (WVS), 370–371Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), 285Yousafzai, Malala, 402YouTube, 184, 226, 291, 329, 406Yukl, Gary, 210Yunus, Muhammad, 154, 155Zack, Naomi, 407, 408Zappos, 12Zaslav, David, 13
Zero-tolerance policies, 343Zillow, 223Zimbardo, Philip, 117, 417Zuckerberg, Mark, 14
About the AuthorCraig E. Johnson(PhD, University of Denver) is emeritus professor ofleadership studies at George Fox University, Newberg,Oregon, where he taught undergraduate and graduatecourses in leadership, ethics, management, andcommunication. During his time at the university, he servedas director of the George Fox Doctor of BusinessAdministration program and chair of the Department ofCommunication Arts. Though retired from full-time teaching,Johnson continues to serve as an adjunct professor. He is theauthor of Organizational Ethics: A Practical Approach (alsopublished by SAGE) and co-author, with Michael Z.Hackman, of Leadership: A Communication Perspective. Hisresearch findings, instructional ideas, and book reviews havebeen published in the Journal of Leadership Studies, theJournal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, theJournal of Leadership Education, Academy of ManagementLearning and Education, the International Leadership Journal,Communication Quarterly, Communication Reports, and otherjournals. In 2016, he received the George Fox Universityoutstanding graduate faculty researcher award. He has heldvolunteer leadership positions in a variety of religious andnonprofit organizations. In addition to teaching and writing, heenjoys working out, reading, fly-fishing, watching sports, andspending time with family.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
