EHM2 — EHM2 TASK 1: ETHICAL THEORIES, LEADERSHIP, AND THE ETHICAL LENS INVENTORY
Introduction
Leadership is often defined as the ability to influence people. An effective ethical leader guides an organization and its employees to accomplish organizational goals. In the same vein, an unethical leader can guide an organization and its employees to act unethically, harming both the organization and the stakeholders. Being a leader is an exploration, a reflection, and a test of your leadership values. Seeking understanding of how you resolve ethical dilemmas, taking inventory of where an ethical weakness may lie, and examining the traits of an ethical leader helps you define, shape, and apply an ethical decision-making framework, while also taking into consideration all stakeholders who may be affected by your decisions.
For this task, you will respond to an ethical situation as well as analyze the results of the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI), which should be completed in the course. This task focuses on you as a leader by helping you to define, refine, and test your ethical boundaries through self-reflection and analysis.
Scenario
You are a sales representative for a medical device company that manufactures artificial joints. Your company has developed an artificial knee joint that is less expensive than the competition and will dramatically reduce healing time for patients. However, it is also known to produce a serious and potentially lethal infection in a small percentage of patients. The company refuses to disclose this potential side effect. You feel you have a duty to divulge this issue, but you signed a nondisclosure agreement when you were hired and worry about possible repercussions.
Requirements
Your submission must represent your original work and understanding of the course material. Most performance assessment submissions are automatically scanned through the University similarity checker. Students are strongly encouraged to wait for the similarity report to generate after uploading their work and then review it to ensure Academic Authenticity guidelines are met before submitting the file for evaluation.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
Write an essay ( length of 15 pages) in which you do the following:
- Select a nonfictional leader who you feel has exhibited exemplary ethical conduct and do the following:
- Discuss twoethical traits your chosen leader has demonstrated.
- Explain how your chosen leader has exhibited ethical conduct.
Note: The chosen leader can be someone you know personally or someone famous.
- Compare the deontological and consequentialist perspectives and how eachperspective would approach the dilemma from the scenario.
- Identify and explain which level of cognitive moral development (i.e., preconventional, conventional, or postconventional) is represented in the scenario for eachof the following questions:
- Which action would most likely serve the greater good in society?
- If I reveal this information, will I get into trouble and possibly even lose my job?
- Which action best aligns with my long-held belief in the principle of justice?
- What do the laws say, and what would a law-abiding citizen do?
- If I keep quiet, will I get some sort of reward?
- Reflect on your Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI) by doing the following:
- Explain your preferred ethical lens, relevant to the
ELI.
Analyze whether you have the same preferred lens in different settings (e.g., work, personal, social).
Explain one of your primary values and oneclassical virtue from the ELI.
Note: If you are a Center Perspective, choose any primary value.
- Compare your primary value from part D2 with oneof your own self-identified or personal values. Then compare your classical virtue from part D2 with a different self-identified or personal value.
Note: Examples of personal values can be found in the attached “Clarifying Your Values” chart.
- Describe oneof the following from your ELI:
- blind spot
- risk
- double standard
- vice
- Discuss twosteps you can take to mitigate the blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice described in part D3 in order to make better ethical decisions in the future.
- Discuss how the information from your ELI could be applied to an ethical situation in the workplace.
- Submit a copy of the PDF file with the results from your ELI as a separate document.
- Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
- Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
Rubric
A1: Ethical Traits:
Competent
The discussion of 2 ethical traits the chosen leader has demonstrated is logical and well supported.
A2: Ethical Conduct:
Competent
The explanation of how the chosen leader has exhibited ethical conduct is logical, and the ideas presented are well supported.
B: Dilemma Analysis:
Competent
The response compares how the dilemma found in the scenario could be approached from both the deontological and consequentialist perspectives. The submission is logical and well supported.
C: Levels of Cognitive Moral Development:
Competent
The identification and explanation of which level of cognitive moral development is represented in the scenario is well reasoned and logical for at least four of the 5 given questions
D1: Preferred Ethical Lens:
Competent
The explanation of the preferred ethical lens is logical and relevant to the ELI results.
D1a: Different Settings:
Competent
The analysis of whether the candidate has the same preferred lens in different settings is well supported, and the ideas presented are logical.
D2: Primary Value and Classical Virtue:
Competent
The explanation of both the primary value and classical virtue from the ELI is logical and relevant to the candidate’s ELI results.
D2a: Comparison to Values:
Competent
The comparison of the primary value from part D2 with 1 self-identified or personal value and the comparison of the classical virtue from part D2 with a different self-identified personal value are both logical and well supported.
D3: Blind Spot, Risk, Double Standard or Vice:
Competent
The description of the chosen blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice from the candidate’s ELI is logical and relevant.
D3a: Making Better Ethical Decisions:
Competent
The discussion of both of the 2 steps that could mitigate the blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice from part D3 in order to make better ethical decisions in the future is logical and well supported.
D4: Professional Use of ELI:
Competent
The discussion of how the information from the candidate’s ELI could be applied to an ethical situation in the workplace is logical, and the ideas presented are well supported.
E: ELI Results:
Competent
A copy of the PDF file with the results from the ELI is provided.
F: Sources
Competent
The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are properly quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list that accurately identifies the author, date, title, and source location as available.
G: Professional Communication
Competent
This submission includes satisfactory use of grammar, sentence fluency, contextual spelling, and punctuation, which promote accurate interpretation and understanding.
RELATED: Assessment 4: Leveraging and Managing Employee Talent
Order This Paper
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.