Title: GVV II Reflection - Ethical Leadership and Success?
Caution: Follow the materials that I provided only. Do not use any additional outside resources, please!!! There will be three files total and utilizes from there only!!
Make sure do not research from different resources, three reading materials required from this assignment. : business executives, a personal struggle with success, and a personal, professional profile. All of the questions will be from these readings. Please try to follow these readings to answer questions from the instructions that I gave. Also i am adding my textbook (business ethics best practice for designing and management) to help the assignment. let me know if u have question.
Business Ethics (Management Class Assignment) Reflective Journal Title: GVV II Reflection - Ethical Leadership and Success? Caution: Follow the materials that I provided it only, do not use any additional outside resources please!!! There will be 3 files total and utilizes from there only!! Take the "Personal Professional Profile". Answer all the questions honestly. In the first part of your Reflection Journal address the following: 1. What was your response to Question 8? Did the category you placed yourself in surprise you? 2. What was your response to Question 14? Share what you believe is a definition of business purpose and how it relates to the GVV frameworks and your future career. Read the Marsh article, "Business Executives' Perceptions of Ethical Leadership and Its Development" in eReserves and address the following question: 3. Which of the types of experiences Dr. Marsh finds in her study impact individuals becoming ethical leaders have you had (see Figure 2 & its description of experiences with trauma, supportive community and diversity, p. 575 in article)? Which of these, if any, might have influenced how you responded above to your approaches and ideas about values in the workplace? (If you have not experienced any of her findings, reflect on two that you think would make a difference for you?) Read the GVV II Reading titled "A Personal Struggle with Success". Think hard about the situation faced by this Executive and how his views on values in the workplace were shaped over his career. Answer the following questions related to this executive's experiences and how they impact your thoughts. 4. What do you think of his view that “The higher I’ve gone in my career, the more limited and pressured I often feel with regard to my values.”? Do you agree? What are the implications of this perspective for you? 5. Finally, the important question he asks at the end of this reading: What kinds of changes may be necessary – at the 1) systemic (societal); 2) organizational and 3) personal levels – to support those who want to succeed in business and still be consistent with their values? Use the GVV and any other theory frameworks we have studied to address this question. Be SURE to address the three different levels of analysis in your answer. For each of the 5 questions assigned, grading will be on following criteria: • Complete and well-thought out response utilizing GVV concepts correctly • Professional caliber, clear writing with no typos or grammatical errors. Questions 1, 2 and 4 are worth 8 grading points each, questions 3 and 5, 11 points each for a total of 46 points. Questions 3 and 5 are worth more points as you need to integrate theory frameworks in with your consideration of the question. Questions 1, 2 and 4 are reflection and response only. For each question the point columns in the associated grading rubric are as follows: Superb – All criteria performed at very high level Very good - All criteria covered but very minor issues Good - All criteria covered but minor issues Weak - Some factors covered fully, some factors significantly missing Poor – Most factors only covered partially or not at all Reflection Journal 2 Reflection Journal 2 Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuestion 1 8.0 pts Superb 7.0 pts Very Good 6.0 pts Good 5.0 pts Weak 4.0 pts Poor 8.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuestion 2 8.0 pts Superb 7.0 pts Very Good 6.0 pts Good 5.0 pts Weak 4.0 pts Poor 8.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuestion 4 8.0 pts Superb 7.0 pts Very Good 6.0 pts Good 5.0 pts Weak 4.0 pts Poor 8.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuestion 3 11.0 pts Superb 10.0 pts Very Good 8.0 pts Good 7.0 pts Weak 5.0 pts Poor 11.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuestion 5 11.0 pts Superb 10.0 pts Very Good 8.0 pts Good 7.0 pts Weak 5.0 pts Poor 11.0 pts Total Points: 46.0 Business Executives’ Perceptions of Ethical Leadership and Its Development Catherine Marsh Received: 6 July 2011 / Accepted: 22 May 2012 / Published online: 12 June 2012 � Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 Abstract This paper summarized the findings of a qual- itative study that examines the perceptions of ethical leadership held by those who perceived themselves to be ethical leaders, and how life experiences shaped the values called upon when making ethical decisions. The experi- ences of 28 business executives were shared with the researcher, beginning with the recollection of a critical incident that detailed an ethical issue with which each executive had been involved. With the critical incident in mind, each executive told the personal story that explained the development of the values he or she called upon when resolving the ethical issue described. The stories were analyzed through the use of constant comparison, which resulted in the development of two models: (1) a frame- work for ethical leadership illuminating valued aspects of ethical leaderships and the value perspectives called upon when making ethical decisions, and (2) a model explaining how the executives’ ethical frameworks developed. The paper concludes with a brief discussion on virtue ethics, experiential learning, and human resource development. Keywords Ethics � Virtue � Leadership � Action learning Introduction As the daily news carries allegations of corrupt behavior in all arenas of life, the world’s attention is focused on the behavior of leaders in government, business, social, and even religious institutions. The courts selectively prosecute high profile-offenders, the Catholic Church sends priests into retirement, and political candidates challenge one another’s records for signs of moral weakness. Legislation, in the form of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, passed by the United States Congress following the Enron, Tyco and Worldcom scandals, has been enacted, but the scandals continue. Both executives and scholars are realizing that while legislation is necessary, leadership may be the primary determinant in ethical action. Gini (1998) stressed, ‘‘The ethics of leadership—whether it be good or bad, positive or negative—affects the ethos of the workplace and thereby helps to form the ethical choices and decisions of the workers in the workplace’’ (p. 28). Pollard (2005) stated, ‘‘While rules may bring a higher standard of accountability and add the ‘stick’ of more penalties, they cannot deter- mine the honesty, character, or integrity of the people involved’’ (p. 14). Lavengood (Pollard 2005) conceded that where public policy leaves off, leadership must assist with the devel- opment of a moral community that shapes human character and behavior. Gough (1998) concurred and explained that when caught in an internal struggle with regards to getting ahead or doing the right thing, ‘‘The determining factor is nothing less than the strengths and the weaknesses of your character’’ (p. 43). Badaracco (2006) emphasized, ‘‘Questions of character are not simply useful … they are crucial to successful leadership….’’ (pp. 8–9). Quinn (2004) indicated that as leaders become more inwardly focused on their values, their inner and outer worlds become aligned, significantly impacting organizational behavior. He expounded, ‘‘We also become less self-focused and more other-focused’’ (p. 22). The study summarized in this paper examined the eth- ical character of leadership in today’s organizations by C. Marsh (&) North Park University, Chicago, IL, USA e-mail:
[email protected] 123 J Bus Ethics (2013) 114:565–582 DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1366-7 assisting executives in turning inward and uncovering the values upon which they base their most difficult business decisions, and listening to them reveal clues pertaining to the development of a framework for ethical leadership. This study can be differentiated from other studies that are predominantly quantitative and utilize a measurable approach that begins with existing research on values, such as that of Rokeach (1973), Schwartz (1992, 1994, 2000), or research on values embedded in existing leadership models (Kanungo 2001; Mendonca 2001; Bass and Steidlmeier 1999; Greenleaf 1970/1991). Based on Rokeach (1973), Hood (2003) connected leadership values with business ethics in a study that measured, by means of a Likert scale, the relationship of 14 of the Rokeach values with trans- formational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles (Burns 1978, 2003). Based on a modified version of Schwartz’s instrument (1994) developed by Stern et al. (1998), Sosik (2005) used multisource field data collected in five organizations to examine links among managers’ personal values, charismatic leadership of managers, and three outcome measures. Also, employing the tool devel- oped by Stern et al. (1998), Fritzsche and Oz (2007) related personal values to ethical dilemmas, by means of a Likert scale, to determine the extent to which personal values inform ethical decisions. To assess the impact of the exposure of foreign culture on the development of leaders’ values, Chang and Lin (2008) used a modified version of Schwartz’s Likert based Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) (Schwartz 2005, 2006). Graf et al. (2011) also made use of the PVQ in their assessment of the effects of ideal and counter-ideal values (Van Quaquebeke et al. 2010) between leaders and followers. Recent empirical studies that examine leader values through indirect values frame- works embedded in leadership models include Groves and LaRocca (2011) and Reed et al. (2011). Groves and LaR- occa (2011) utilized the historic ethical philosophies of teleology and deontology as associated with models of transformational and transactional leadership (Kanungo 2001; Mendonca 2001; Bass and Steidlmeier 1999) to examine leader ethical values. Reed et al. (2011) examined ethical leader values implicited within the servant leader- ship model (Greenleaf 1970/1991). While the import of quantitative methods in determining statistical relationships between the variables of human values and ethical leadership must be acknowledged, the need for a more interpretative approach to understanding the immeasurable aspects of ethical leadership, as repre- sented in the current study, is emerging. A number of researchers (Trevino et al. 2003; April et al. 2010; Resick et al. 2011) have approached the topic by means of qual- itative methods. Trevino et al. (2003) conducted inductive research by interviewing corporate ethics officers and senior executives to examine ‘‘the perceived content domain of executive ethical leadership’’ (p. 5), including values and behaviors. April et al. (2010) had middle managers, enrolled in MBA programs in South Africa and the Netherlands, self-report enablers (values), and stum- bling blocks to ethical action. Resick et al. (2011) used qualitative methods to identify attributes (values are included) and behaviors that managers from Asia, Amer- ica, and Europe ascribe to ethical and unethical leaders. Although their findings were consistent with the GLOBE (House et al. 2004) framework of values across culture, the Resick et al. (2011) did not design the study with the GLOBE framework in mind. The three above-mentioned qualitative studies explored particular phenomenon and did not attempt to correlate findings to particular models or frameworks, unlike the quantitative studies. These quali- tative studies differ from the quantitative studies in that they do not measure known variables; they explore per- ceptions of each study’s participants through open-ended questions. They do not generalize externally (Maxwell 2002), rather they explore multiple perspectives and