Module 1: Ethical Leader — An Internal Look

Answer questions on template attached. Watch the documentary and answer questions on template attached 

DOCUMENTARY—Dirty Money – Drug Short – Nexflix Documentary about Big Pharma

Module Assignment 1 (100 points)

This assignment asks you to reflect and write about yourself. The one point = 1 quality sentence may not work here as I’m looking for more discussion on Part One.

 

Name: _________________________________________

 

PART ONE: Developing Your Personal Ethics Statement – The Foundation (18 points).

 

 

THE PURPOSE of this assignment is to get to a personal ethics statement which is different from a personal work statement. You are exploring what you value and what helps you determine when an action is right or wrong. You are also trying to get to a statement that will guide you when you are faced with a hard decision of what is the right or wrong thing to do. For example, a statement of “I believe in hard work” if more of a work ethic statement but not an ethics statement. If a person is stealing at work, how does “I believe in hard work,” guide me as to what to do?

 

A. Describe yourself.  What are you about?  What do you like to do?  How would a friend describe you to someone else?

 
 
 
 

B. What do you believe or value?  List the FIVE most important values or beliefs you have for your life and explain what you mean when you list that value. These are the things most important to you (health, happiness, security, family, faith, challenge, courage, truth, harmony, growth, risk, etc.). If you took Lead 3010 last semester, we did a values exercise. Revisit those values to see if they are still your five most important values. LIST AND EXPLAIN.

 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 

 
 

C. How do you determine what the right thing is to do at work when faced with an ethical situation?

 

 

 

 

D. Think about the moral philosophies in this module (right’s view, utilitarian view, fairness/justice view, relativist view and values view). When you find yourself saying to others, that something is not right – which philosophy do you most often use? Give an example.

 

 

E. How do you want others to describe you in the work place? This will also give more information about what you believe is important to you.

 

PART TWO: Your Personal Ethics Statement (9 points).

 

Given what you have identified as being important to you and how you hope others will regard you, write a personal ethics statement to guide you in the workplace. This statement needs to be short (fits on a business card) and needs to give you direction on how to make personally ethical decisions in the work place when faced with ethical dilemmas.

 

Remember, this is a statement of how you determine what is RIGHT or WRONG to do and not a work statement.

  

Test Your Statement

 

 PART THREE: Testing and Improving Your Personal Ethics Statement (20 points).

 

Now, test your Personal Workplace Ethics Statement to see if it guides you as to what to do in the following situations:

A. You have been working at ABC Inc. for five years and have been working with Jordan for the past two years. Recently, you came back to lunch sooner than typically and found Jordan was in the file room looking through files labeled confidential. These files are typically kept secured with a lock but for some reason Jordan had access to them. This did not make any sense. What should you do?

 

What does your statement guide you to do? Use language from your statement to show how your statement led you to this action.

 
 
 

B. You work for a company that produces snack products marketed and consumed by school age children. You are responsible for quality control and recently noticed that upon reviewing the latest lab results, that the food was dangerously high in fat and salt content. You decide to mention this at the next managers meeting. You also notice that the levels of contaminants are nearing a dangerous level although not high enough to trigger a recall. At the managers meeting, the VP asks whether the lab results were reviewed and modified by Dr. Smith yet? Dr. Smith’s assistant replies that he has been out of the office on medical leave and did not get a chance to work his magic before the surgery. The VP replies to you that there is nothing to worry about because Dr. Smith has not adjusted the numbers. “Why are the numbers adjusted,” you ask. The VP replies that every study has a range of error, so we just adjust the numbers in our favor for the degree of error. He then moves on to the next agenda item. What do you do?

 

What does your statement guide you to do? Use language from your statement to show how your statement led you to this action.

 

 
 
 

C. You are on a hiring committee looking to hire a new mid-level employee. The hiring committee is reviewing the 200 applicants to narrow it down to a pool of 15 candidates. The Human Resources staff person outlines the process that must be used and reminds the committee that it is illegal to consider one’s race, ethnicity, gender and age and then leaves the room. It is now up to the committee to determine what it will do to identify 15 candidates. The chair of the committee states “if we each take 15 names and Google them tonight, we should have a sense of who fits the company and who does not. Come back tomorrow with one or two people that are your top candidates.” The chair hands out the lists to each committee member and adjourns the meeting. What do you do?

 

What does your statement guide you to do? Use language from your statement to show how your statement led you to this action.

 

 
 
 

D. As a marketing associate, you are working on a new ad campaign for a new mobile game application that uses GPS information. You are directed to put in the advertisement that Tribal Hunt (new game) provides the highest level of privacy protection but you are not sure that is the case. “Are you sure that we are protecting people’s privacy?”  you ask your supervisor. The supervisor responds, “Just do as I say. I’ll take the heat. I don’t know what it does but we can’t take the heat that Pokemon Go has taken over privacy. Do you want to lose your job over this?” What do you do?

 

What does your statement guide you to do? Use language from your statement to show how your statement led you to this action.

 

 
  

If your statement did not provide you with much direction on what to do, then modify it. Stay true to your values but write the statement in such a way that it guides you.  Share your revised statement below:

 

 

 

 

 

PART FOUR: Linking Module 1 Content to your Documentary

 

Your Documentary: _______________________________________________

 

A. Explain what happened in the documentary and what the unethical actions/decisions were. (5 points)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Explain behavior of three people looking at individual factors (18 points).

 

Identify THREE people who made decisions or took actions that impacted what happened in the documentary. For each person, discuss with sufficient detail (no less than 3 quality sentences) what they did, and whether in your opinion, the person acted ethically or unethically?

 

Also, think about our discussion of Individual Factors we covered in this module (personality, how raised, national culture, education, faith/religion, moral philosophy).

 

           
Individual Factors – pick at least one of the main organizational actors who acts unethically in your opinion and analyze what it was about this person that caused him or her to make the decisions they made. For each of the three people you discussed, also identify and discuss an individual factor that helps explain why this person made the choices he or she made. Recall our discussion of Walter Pavlo as an example.

 

            Now, pick a second main organizational actor that acts ethically in your opinion and analyze what it was about this person that caused him or her to make the decision they made.

 

            Analyze the individual factors that impact the third person.

(3 sentences of discussion per person)

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Person	What they did? What happened because of what they did? Did they act unethically or ethically? Need at least 3 quality sentences for this part of the answer.	Individual factors that explain why they acted unethically or ethically. What is it about this person that caused him or her to make the decisions they made? Need at least 3 quality sentences for this part of the answer.

 

 

 

C. Using the content in this module to explain WHY the actions/decisions are unethical. (30 points – 6 sentences for each philosophy).

 

For the module assignment, I ask you to focus on using the moral philosophies to explain why what happened in the documentary is unethical. Complete the following table to earn 30 points.

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Moral Philosophy	Hint: Use the right language	Explain why the behavior/action/what happened is  UNETHICAL through each moral philosophy
Utilitarianism	It is unethical because there are all these HARMS (explain the harms) which outweigh these smaller BENEFITS (explain the benefits).
Rights-View	It is unethical because the requirement/action is inconsistent with A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT or VERY BIG RIGHT (tell me what that right is).
Values-Based View	It is unethical because the requirement/action is inconsistent with A VALUE held my most people in this country (tell me what that value is). Example, values are honesty, self-determination, truthfulness, individualism, etc.
Fairness/Justice View	It is unethical because the requirement/action is UNFAIR and/or UNJUST because it is was not applied the same to everyone (explain) OR people have a unfair process (can’t opt out or can’t appeal) OR requirement was passed using an unfair process, etc. BUT you have to be specific and explain what part is unfair/unjust.
Relativist View	It is unethical because the requirement/action is inconsistent with A PUBLIC or SOCIETAL NORM (tell me what that norm is).

 

EXAMPLES OF PERSONAL ETHICS STATEMENTS

 

 

I will take time to consider and understand the different points of view and interests. I will act in a way that is fair and honors the rights of others. I will not be afraid to take the harder road even if it causes me harm.  

 
 

For me, I value family, honesty, respecting others, and courage. The right decision for me is the one that helps more than it harms. Before making a decision, I will put myself in the shoes of the other person to understand, and then make a decision consistent with those values. 

 
 

I believe the right action is the one that follows the rule of law even when it is hard to do. I believe we all must take responsibility for our actions, and I will take actions that ensure that the rule of law is followed. 

 
 

I believe do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I would want others to come to me first to get my side of the story, hold me accountable for my actions while also showing some compassion, and challenge me to be my best self – take the hard road. 

 
 

My faith is the center of my determination of what is right or wrong to do. I strive to follow the teachings of Jesus. For me, when faced with a tough decision in the workplace, I first will turn to my faith and pray for discernment. I will look for examples in the Bible of how Jesus would make this decision. Of all his teachings, I am reminded of Jesus’ teachings to love my fellow neighbor and to forgive. (I ask that you give yourself more direction than “I will do as my faith leads me.”) 

 

\\s”
A n

I

i r \
f

i /
,1**-*.

i

n u a l E d i t i o n s : B u s i n e s s E t h i c s26

Article Prepared by: Eric Teoro, Lincoln Christian University

Stealing a Pen at Work Coutd TUrn
You On to Much Bigger Crimes
Ennnv ConN

Learning Outcomes
After reading this article, you will be able to:

. Recognize the personal effects of minor ethical breaches.

. Recognize the danger ofjustifying unethical behavior. L’

teal a pen from your offlce and you could find yourself
on a path toward becoming the next Bernie Madoff.

That’s the warning of a new study, called “The Slip-
pery Slope: How Small Ethical Transgressions Pave The Way For
Larger Future Transgressions,” by David Welsh of the Univer-
sity of Washington, Lisa Ord6fiez of the University of Arizona,
Deirdre Snyder of Providence College, and Michael Christian of
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. According to the
study, which was published inthe Joumal of Applied Psychology,
minor unethical behavior at work, if undetected, puts workers on
a “slippery slope” that could lead to worse behavior over time.

To most of us, fairly innocuous sins like taking a pen from
work or neglecting to refill the office coffee pot are much easier
to justify than, say, racking up $2 billion in trading losses. But
over time, the researchers found, those minor misdeeds make it
easier to justify more and bigger evils in the long run.

“People rationalize their behavior to justify ir,” Ord6flez,
one of the study’s authors, said in a press release. “They might
think ‘No one got hurt,’ or ‘Everyone does it.’ . . . they feel fine
about doing something a little bit worse the next time and then
commit more severe unethical actions.”

The researchers tested this theory by watching subjects
a number of different situations. One interesting experi-

ment found that subjects who were given 25 cents for doing
a minor unethical thing were much more likely to take $2.50

to do something more egregious later on than those who were
offered $2.50 to do a big no-no at the start. According to the
researchers, this shows that people are less likely to commit
what they call “abrupt and large dilemmas” when they haven’t
already committed gradual, small transgressions.

The study cites Madoff, who was sentenced to 150 years in
prison fbr orchestrating the largest Ponzi scheme in history and
spoke of this phenomenon to his longtime secretary, according
to Vanity Fair: “Well, you know what happens is, it starts out
with you taking a little bit, maybe a f’ew hundred, a few thou-
sand. You get comfortable with that, and before you know it, it
snowballs into something big.”

So what can you do to prevent yourself from becoming the
next Jeff Skilling? The researchers offer a number of tips to
discourage the minor stufl like putting in place a firm set of
ethical guidelines and calling workers out for the small things,
like taking home too many office supplies.

“The ideal is for employees to recognize when they’ve com-
mitted a minor transgression and check themselves,” Michael
S. Christian, one of the paper’s coauthors, wrote.

C r i t i c a l T h i n k i n g
1. Do you think minor ethical breaches are serious enough to

warrant attention? Why or why not?

2. Provide examples of minor ethical breaches that occur in the
workplace.

3. How would you respond to someone who is trying to justify

a minor ethical breach?

Greate Central
www. mhhe. com/createcentral

Stealing a Pen at Work Could Turn You On to Much Bigger Crimes by Emily Cohn

lnternet References Ilouston Chronlclehttp rilsmallbusiness,chron, com/catch’thief’workplace’ 1 909 8.htnl
European Molecular Blology Labrotory Universlty of North Csrollna-Chapel Hllll Kenan’Flagler Business

http://www.embl.de/aboutus/sclence*society/discussion/discussion*20041 school
rcfl4mayg4 http://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/news2014/06/S1ippery’Slope

komThe Hufftngton post,htne26,2014, Online, copyright @ 2014 by Huffington Post Ino, Reprifled by permisslon via PARS Intornationsl

ExampleMoralPhilosophies.html
 
GUIDANCE ON MORAL PHILOSOPHIES

 EXAMPLE

There has been a deadly outbreak of the ZITA strain of the Bird Flu.  It is expected to arrive in the US in 7 days from oversea.  If you contract the ZITA strain of the Bird Flu, you have an 80% chance of dying. It is extremely contagious, and entire families are dead in a week.

 Scientists have found that 1% of the population contain antibodies to the Bird Flu. If they take blood from these individuals, they can create vaccinations in 24 hours and start massive vaccination drives.  They need every possible source of the antibodies to be used for the vaccination production.

 

The US Government is requiring every US citizen/resident/visitor to be tested. If found to contain the antibodies, the person is detained for a required blood withdrawal.  Is this ethical?

 YES, IT IS ETHICAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THIS.

 A. Utilitarian.  If we require the 1% of the people to give the blood, we can save millions of people. Yes, requiring people to give blood may be hurtful and harmful for some but it helps more people than it hurts.

 B.  Rights View.  We have a right for the US Government to protect us from harm. If the government knows of a cure, then it is ETHICAL for them to require people to undergo the blood test and give blood to help millions of others.

 C.  Social Integrative Theory.  In the US, vaccinations to prevent widespread outbreaks are common, accepted, and expected. The US requires us to vaccinate our children. The US can also use force to quarantine us if we pose a health risk. It is RIGHT for the US government to use force if necessary to make people keep other people healthy.

 D.  Fairness/Justice.  Everyone is being required to be tested to see if they carry the antibodies.  Anyone that is found to be a carrier is required to provide their blood.  Since the process used applies to everyone, what the Government is requiring is fair. Especially, if they ensure confidentiality of the blood results.

 E.  Values/Virtues Based.  We value helping our neighbors in a time of crisis in the US.  This is such a time when some of us are able to protect the rest of us.  Asking us to be tested and provide blood to save America is consistent with what we value.

 

NO, IT IS UNETHICAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THIS.

 A.  Utilitarian.  If we allow the US Government to have this power to force us to undergo testing which is not voluntary, we are forever changing America. We are giving the Government power that our forefathers worked so hard to prevent. Although we may protect some Americans now, the country will be irreparably harmed much greater than this current medical crisis.

 B.  Rights View.  The US Government cannot force Americans to undergo medical testing and provide blood unless they consent to do.  This is violating a right of privacy and right of self-determination.

 C.  Social Integrative Theory.  In the US, there is an understanding that tests that reveal what is in your blood and what is going on with your body is private information.  There is an unwritten rule or norm (sometimes written in the law), that the government shouldn’t force me to do things with my body that I do not want to do.   The government can ask for volunteers, but should not require citizens to do this.

 D.  Fairness/Justice.  Although the process proposed applies to everyone, the impact will have different impacts on people. From this massive blood test, the US government will have information on my health. People with illness such as HIV may lose their secrecy of their illness.   Also people deemed to have the antibody are detained and blood is withdrawn from them. They have not consented to this. There is no compensation for this. It is unfair to treat people differently just because they have something in their blood they have not control over.

 E. Values/Virtues Based.  In the US, we value consenting or agreeing to do something rather than being compelled to do something.  Our government is set up in a way to have limited power. This overreaching violates our values of we should consent/give you this power rather than you making us do something.

  

A Framework for Thinking Ethically

This document is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. We all have an image of our better selves-of

how we are when we act ethically or are “at our best.” We probably also have an image of what an ethical

community, an ethical business, an ethical government, or an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do

with all these levels-acting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and governments, and making

our society as a whole ethical in the way it treats everyone.

What is Ethics?

Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many

situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, teachers,

professionals, and so on.

It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:

 Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our ethical choices.

Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, but

many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us

it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard.

 Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do

advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of problems we face.

 Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law

can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as some totalitarian regimes have

made it. Law can be a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law

may have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be slow to

address new problems.

 Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become

corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery before the Civil War).

“When in Rome, do as the Romans do” is not a satisfactory ethical standard.

 Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better

ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an

explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just

because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.

Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard

There are two fundamental problems in identifying the ethical standards we are to follow:

1. On what do we base our ethical standards?

2. How do those standards get applied to specific situations we face?

If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, what are they based

on? Many philosophers and ethicists have helped us answer this critical question. They have suggested at least

five different sources of ethical standards we should use.

Five Sources of Ethical Standards

The Utilitarian Approach
Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the least harm,

or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. The ethical corporate action, then, is

the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected-customers, employees,

shareholders, the community, and the environment. Ethical warfare balances the good achieved in ending

terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries, and destruction. The utilitarian approach

deals with consequences; it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.

The Rights Approach
Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the

moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their

human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such

dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights –

including the rights to make one’s own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be

injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on-is widely debated; some now argue that non-humans have rights, too.

Also, it is often said that rights imply duties-in particular, the duty to respect others’ rights.

The Fairness or Justice Approach
Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals should be treated equally.

Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally-or if unequally, then fairly

based on some standard that is defensible. We pay people more based on their harder work or the greater

amount that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate over CEO salaries that

are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge disparity is based on a

defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and hence is unfair.

The Virtue Approach
A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that

provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act

according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty,

courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all

examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, “What kind of person will I become if I do this?” or “Is

this action consistent with my acting at my best?”

Added by Dr. Clark: Relativist Approach and Integrative Social Contracts Theory

Whether an action is the ethical or right action to take depends on the situation taking in the viewpoints/cultural

norms of the people and situation. Often the consensus of the group as to the right or wrong action is deemed

the right action.

Relativist Approach shares some similarities to Integrative Social Contracts Theory which also considers the

NORMS of a group of people. The difference is that there are universal norms (hypernorms) about moral

behavior that can trump the cultural norms of a group of people.

Putting the Approaches Together

Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There are still

problems to be solved, however.

The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific approaches. We may not all

agree to the same set of human and civil rights.

We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is

a harm.

The second problem is that the different approaches may not all answer the question “What is ethical?” in the

same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important information with which to determine what is ethical

in a particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the different approaches do lead to similar answers.

Making Decisions

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for

exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a

course of action. Having a method for ethical decision making is absolutely essential. When practiced regularly,

the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps.

The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and dialogue

with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided by the insights and different

perspectives of others, can we make good ethical choices in such situations.

We have found the following framework for ethical decision making a useful method for exploring ethical

dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making

Recognize an Ethical Issue

1. Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Does this decision involve a
choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

2. Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Get the Facts

3. What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the situation?
Do I know enough to make a decision?

4. What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are some concerns more
important? Why?

5. What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I
identified creative options?

Evaluate Alternative Actions

6. Evaluate the options by asking the following questions:

 Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? (The Utilitarian Approach)

 Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Approach)

 Which option treats people equally or proportionately? (The Justice Approach)

 Which option best serves the community

as a whole, not just some members?

(The Common Good Approach)

 Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Approach)

Make a Decision and Test It

7. Considering all these approaches, which option best addresses the situation?
8. If I told someone I respect-or told a television audience-which option I have chosen, what would they

say?

Act and Reflect on the Outcome

9. How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all
stakeholders?

10. How did my decision turn out and what have I learned from this specific situation?

This framework for thinking ethically is the product of dialogue and debate at the Markkula Center for Applied

Ethics at Santa Clara University. Primary contributors include Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J.

Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean, David DeCosse, Claire André, and Kirk O. Hanson. It was last

revised in May 2009.