Read “Ethical Scenarios for Analysis” on pp. 335-338 in Ch. 6 of
Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow.
Select and analyze one of the 5 scenarios provided.
Write a 250- to 300-word response to the following:
- Which decision-making approach would you use to resolve this ethical dilemma?
- How will you respond to the question below the ethical dilemma you selected?
1131486 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) © 1. nt through when faced with a moral dilemma. How successfully did you complete each stage? What would you do differently next time? Write up your analysis. 2. Develop a plan for improving your moral reasoning as part of your education. How can you take advantage of your college experiences to become more of a postconventional thinker? 3. Evaluate your duty orientation based on your responses to Self-Assessment 6.2. Where do you feel the strongest sense of obligation? The least? How are your scores reflected in your behavior and ethical decisions? Are you comfortable with your scores? If not, how might you raise them? 4. Create an original case study that demonstrates one or more of the ethical blind spots in action. 5. Which of the four decision-making formats do you find most useful? Why? �. In a group, brainstorm a list of possible ethical dilemmas faced by a college student. How many of these problems involve a clash between two important values? Identify which values are in conflict in each situation. 7. Apply one or more of the formats to one of the scenarios at the end of the chapter. First, reach your own conclusion. Then discuss the situation in a group. See whether you can reach a consensus. Make note of the important factors dividing or uniting group members. �. Use a format from the chapter to analyze an ethical decision facing society (e.g., gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, immigration, health care, gun rights, the death penalty). Write up your analysis and conclusions. Student Study Site Visit the student study site at https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e to access full SAGE journal articles for further research and information on key chapter topics. CASE STUDY 6.1 ETHICAL SCENARIOS FOR ANALYSIS Scenario A: Marketing Easy Money https://study.sagepub.com/johnsonmecl7e 1131486 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) © You are the marketing manager for a regional mortgage company. Prior to coming to your current position, you worked at a national lender that went bankrupt during the housing crisis of 2008–2009. Your previous employer aggressively marketed mortgages to those who couldn’t afford them and encouraged borrowers to take out home equity loans to pay for cars, vacations, and other luxuries. When home values crashed, borrowers were unable to repay their loans. The improving housing market has encouraged your competitors to once again ramp up their sales pitches. One local mortgage lender advertises “zip mortgages,” highlighting the speed of its application process. Another promises to help borrowers with credit problems get mortgages. Yet another encourages homeowners to view their houses as “banks,” refinancing their homes to pay off credit card debts, to invest in stocks and bitcoins, and to make purchases. You worry that these messages will once again tempt consumers to live beyond their means, buying homes they cannot afford and putting them at risk should house prices dip. So far your firm has avoided such marketing tactics. However, your CEO is worried that the firm will lose market share to its more aggressive competitors. He has asked you and your department to draw up a new advertising campaign that describes how easy it is to borrow from your company and the firm’s willingness to work with those who have credit issues. He also wants the campaign to highlight how borrowers can use the money from refinancing their houses to 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 Report You are the chair of the tenure and promotion committee at your small university. Your committee, made up of senior faculty, evaluates the teaching and scholarship of professors and then makes recommendations to the university provost. Committee members take their responsibilities seriously, knowing that peer review—where faculty members evaluate the work of other faculty—plays a critical role in higher education. They feel an obligation to maintain high teaching and research standards. No professor can be tenured (given guaranteed employment) or promoted to a higher rank (associate professor, full professor) without a positive recommendation from your group. Those denied tenure must leave the school at the end of the current school year. Your closest departmental colleague is being reviewed for tenure. (Your families sometimes celebrate holidays together and your children are friends.) He expects that you will offer a positive review and encourage the committee to recommend tenure. Unfortunately, your coworker’s teaching evaluations are below average. His scholarship is not strong enough to make up for these shortcomings. You know that your colleague will be devastated by a negative evaluation and will be forced to move to another city to take a new position. He will feel betrayed and blame you for the committee’s decision, though you are only one voice in the group. Will you support your colleague’s application for tenure? 1131486 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) © Scenario C: The School Name Change* You are a school board member for an urban school district. Most of the African American high school students in the district attend Thomas Jefferson, making it the only high school where minority students outnumber whites. Leaders—both black and white—from the neighborhood surrounding Jefferson High have requested that the district change the name of the school. They point out that the only black-majority high school in the district is named after someone who owned hundreds of 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 known for its marching band and debate team. You realize that renaming buildings that honor racist historical figures is a national trend. Yet, at the same time, you recognize that Thomas Jefferson holds a special place in American history. He was a primary author of the Declaration of Independence, 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. Possible replacements 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 Jefferson high school? *Inspired by actual events. Scenario D: The “Win–Win” Decision You direct the real estate department of a major retail clothing chain. Your primary responsibility is choosing sites for new stores as the company expands. When selecting sites, you use a grading system based on such factors 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. Your sister owns one of the proposed sites under consideration. When you grade the possible locations, hers is the only one that earns an A. The other two sites come in at a B and a C grade. You decide to recommend your sister’s property since it received the highest rating. You do not think you need to notify your supervisors that a relative owns this parcel of land. After all, this appears to be a “win–win” decision, one that benefits the company and your family. However, you decide to take a couple of days to reflect on your choice before submitting your report. Should you stay with your initial decision to recommend the property without 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?* 1131486 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) © You are a municipal judge deciding less serious cases involving violations of traffic laws, disorderly conduct, fish and game regulations, and local ordinances. A case involving an undocumented landscape worker charged with reckless driving is on your court docket. You know that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials will be waiting outside the courtroom to take this individual into custody following the hearing. He has lived in the country for over 20 years, is married to an American citizen, and has three children. He will be deported even though his crime is a minor one. Relations between your local court system and ICE are tense. Federal officials have stepped up their efforts to deport illegal aliens at the same time your town has declared itself a sanctuary city, which limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. You and the other judges are committed to keeping the courtroom a safe place for all citizens. You and your colleagues worry that members of immigrant communities will refuse to report rape, domestic violence, and other crimes if they know they will be taken into custody when they come to court to testify. You could let your reckless driving defendant escape ICE officers by having him exit through the door used by court officials. Doing so could be seen as interfering with federal law enforcement and might bring obstruction of justice charges and an investigation by the local bar association. Nevertheless, you believe that you would have the support of the chief municipal judge and your fellow jurists if you let the defendant 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 Instructions Indicate the extent you agree with each of the following statements on 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 doing something that’s wrong. 3. I regularly face decisions that have significant ethical implications. 4. My life has been filled with one moral predicament after another. 5. Many of the decisions that I make have ethical dimensions to them. �. I rarely face ethical dilemmas. 7. I frequently encounter ethical situations. 1131486 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) © �. 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 moral aspects in your everyday experiences. Items 8 through 12 measure the 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