{"id":49,"date":"2023-07-31T18:05:05","date_gmt":"2023-07-31T18:05:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=49"},"modified":"2024-11-24T14:55:49","modified_gmt":"2024-11-24T14:55:49","slug":"leadership-ethics","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/chapter\/leadership-ethics\/","title":{"raw":"Leadership Ethics","rendered":"Leadership Ethics"},"content":{"raw":"Leadership Ethics is a couplet that announces and reveals moral accountability for leaders. The literature around leadership ethics is growing since it has often been taken for granted that a leader would be ethical. We know this is not always the case. This chapter highlights the importance of ethical thinking, ethical discernment, and ethical\/moral reasoning when leading others. We often like to say we are ethical, but what do we really mean by that quality? If we haven't taken the time to think about how to think and reason ethically, now is a good time to start to contemplate how to do it and how much time we need to put into this kind of practice.\r\n\r\nTo start us thinking about leadership ethics, we can look at Harvard University's blog on it <a href=\"https:\/\/professional.dce.harvard.edu\/blog\/what-is-ethical-leadership-and-why-is-it-important\/\">here<\/a>. The six main principles of leadership ethics, according to Harvard University are:\r\n\r\n1. respect\r\n\r\n2. accountability\r\n\r\n3. service\r\n\r\n4. honesty\r\n\r\n5. justice\r\n\r\n6. community\r\n\r\nWe will talk more about these principles later in this chapter.\r\n\r\n<strong>Learning Outcomes <\/strong>After reading this chapter you will\r\n\r\n1. understand the importance of ethical discernment and ethical decision-making in leadership practices\r\n\r\n2. recognize the relationship between communication, ethical thinking, and leadership practices\r\n\r\n3. apply the six ethical leadership principles from Harvard University\r\n\r\n4. synthesize and apply at least three different kinds of ethical thinking systems\r\n\r\n<strong>Thought-Provoking Questions<\/strong>\r\n\r\n1. In your own leadership experience, how did you make decisions when you saw no \"good\" or \"constructive\" outcome?\r\n\r\n2. Since ethics involves other people, how do we make decisions involving other people from an objective perspective (or at least as objective as possible)?\r\n\r\n3. How often do you stop, wait, reflect about your actions from an already established ethical framework?\r\n\r\n<strong>Chapter Outline<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn this chapter, we first read about communication since it is an inescapable function in the process of leading others. In this way, we explore characteristics and dimensions of communication as well as its intersection with ethics in discernment and general moral reasoning. Then, we introduce four ethical lenses, virtue ethics, deontological ethics, consequentialist ethics, and dialogic ethics. This chapter should be read in tandem with the next chapter on communication ethics. We then connect to what we mean by the couplet, leadership ethics. At then end of this chapter, we consider how to apply Harvard's six principles of leadership ethics and directly connect them to communication ethics.\r\n\r\n*The following information comes from the Open Education resource used in CM4905, <a href=\"https:\/\/cmsseniors.press.plymouth.edu\/\">CMS Seniors<\/a>.\r\n\r\n*Paula Tompkins (2011), Professor Emerita at St. Cloud State University, argues that \u201cPracticing ethics involves discerning ethical issues and making decisions about how to act. <strong>Ethical discernment<\/strong> is the ability to recognize ethical issues and make ethical distinctions in order to formulate judgments about what is good, right, or virtuous. In ethical decision-making, an individual uses those judgments to guide her decisions about how to act ethically\u201d (p. 5). Professor Tompkins (2011) understands <strong>ethics as practical philosophy<\/strong> and suggests that \u201ccommunication ethics rests on the idea that individual acts and episodes of communication are important; they are not trivial\u201d (p.6).\r\n\r\nBecause Tompkins (2011) identifies communication as ephemeral, rhetorical, and transactional, with dimensions of content, relationship, authenticity\u2014there involves a constituent process of communicative engagement\u2014and all of these aspects suggest that <strong><em>what, how, and why<\/em><\/strong> we communicate matters. For Tompkins, all communicative gestures, transactions, and even unintentional acts\/behaviors have ethical dimensions. Therefore, we cannot continue to communicate on a daily basis without thinking about our communicative practices and what impacts they have on ourselves, others, and society as a whole.\r\n\r\nLet\u2019s unpack her description of communication which will help us to see why all communicative gestures have ethical dimensions.\r\n\r\n<strong>According to Tompkins (2011), communication is:<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li><strong>Ephemeral<\/strong> \u2013 because communication, especially when spoken, vaporizes once it is said. Even written communication vaporizes its possibility of meaning and simultaneously it is irrevocable because the written form exists and it is consumed or read by others. When communication is exchanged in some fashion, it cannot be taken back or taken away. We might try to fix the message, restate them message, address the message in some way but even so, it still existed for others to experience. Even if it is no longer present in existence, it was still delivered in some way and the message, its meaning, and its impact is eternally present. The echo of the message still exists in memories and in thoughts. So, even if we try to explain or clarify, the original \u201csaidness\u201d is never forgotten; it remains in its absence as everpresent.<\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Rhetorical \u2013 <\/strong>communication has the power to manipulate, persuade, and impact other people, entities, and environments. Because of the rhetoricality of communication, there is also an inherent responsibility to the other that is undeniable and inescapable. We must understand that everything communicated has the possibility of impacting others.<\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Transactional<\/strong> \u2013 communication is between people, between people and environments, between people and entities\/organizations. This means there is a transactional, interdependence that occurs naturally in human communication.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<strong>Communication has dimensions of:<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li><strong>Content \u2013 the message (logos)<\/strong><\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Relationship \u2013 people (pathos)<\/strong><\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Authenticity \u2013 ethics (ethos)<\/strong><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nYou might recognize these dimensions as being first acknowledged and developed by Aristotle (384BC-322BC) in his rhetorical triangle, a key part in his rhetorical theory. Logos has to do with the logic of a message. Pathos has to do with the emotional appeal of the argument (and may be the strongest persuasive element). Ethos has to do with the credibility of the speaker\/message creator and it originates from the Greek word for ethics.\r\n\r\nSome philosophers create very specific criteria for what makes something ethical or an ethical matter. For Tompkins, the act and event of communication is inherently <strong><em>always-already<\/em><\/strong> ethical. There is no avoiding ethics in communication.\r\n\r\nEthical issues can blow us off course. In order to not get blown off course, you have to know where you stand and what your particular \u201ccourse\u201d or path is, how it looks, and what it means. We know that as young children and as emerging adults, peer pressure holds some level of influence for many people. While we like to think that we make our own decisions and that we are not influenced by those around us, that simply is not true to the same extent for every person. We have studied the influence of media upon our decisions, choices, and experiences to some extent just by virtue of being a Communication and Media Studies student so we know that influences from media, others, and our environments are real, subtle, and sometimes not positive. Keeping this in mind, getting to know who we are individually without the influence of others can be helpful in understanding our individual moral compass and our ethical positioning and preferences in decision-making. This course is designed to enable us to learn about ourselves, be honest with ourselves, and begin to understand who we are as human beings embedded in a culture with other human beings. Learning about ourselves will help us to understand how we make decisions where we are right now in our lives outside of a judgmental framework. Once we know who we are and where we are, only then can we decide if we like what we see and if it matches our ideal vision. This is the first step of understanding our \u201ccourse\u201d which is then the first step of staying on course and not being blown off course.\r\n\r\nTraditionally, ethical decision-making has been discussed through three broad lenses. These lenses are very traditional and could be familiar to you if you have already taken an ethics course in a philosophy curriculum. Some of these lenses also have sub lenses attached to them. You might have heard about some of these lenses in other courses. These lenses are: virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and consequentialist ethics. These three lenses emerge from the domain of philosophy (understanding ethics as being a branch of philosophy) and have been the hallmarks of Western philosophy since the early Greek influences (such as Plato and Aristotle and others before their lifetimes). There is another lens that sometimes is not part of the traditional discussion on ethical lenses and it will be highlighted in this course. This lens emerged from the communication discipline though it does have explicit roots in and ties to Aristotle\u2019s virtue ethics; while being obviously different in focus, we call this <strong><em>dialogic ethics<\/em><\/strong>. When you hear the couplet, <strong><em>communication ethics<\/em><\/strong>, in scholarly books, articles, discussions, the speaker is most often specifically referring to dialogic ethics. It is important to have some understanding of the other ethical lenses because often, dialogic reasoning may involve or overlap with virtue, deontological, or consequentialist influences. It is also helpful to understand the differences between each type of lens because these differences impact ethical reasoning and decision making outcomes.\r\n\r\nAccording to Neher and Sandin (2007), these lenses can be grouped in the following ways:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Virtue Ethics<\/strong><\/span> \u2013 Bases decisions on character (Here is a snapshot of how virtue ethics is described)\r\n<div>\r\n\r\nA virtue ethic suggests a behavior is based upon one\u2019s character and having an understanding of what a \u201cvirtuous\u201d person would do in a given situation. Therefore, we ask questions such as: \u201cwhat would another person do\u201d <em>if<\/em> we believe that person to be virtuous. This does not mean that virtue ethics is ONLY about <em>doing<\/em>. Rather, a virtue ethic underscores <strong><em>being<\/em><\/strong> which is tied to character. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=NMblKpkKYao\">Here<\/a> is a short tutorial on virtue ethics. So, in a discussion about virtue ethics, you will find people listing qualities of a human being related to the kind of person they see as being virtuous, good, ideal, or someone who is perceived to <strong><em>be <\/em><\/strong>this way. Throughout history, many people published lists of qualities that make up a good character. From Plato and Aristotle, through the great Roman orators, and onward through each historical period. Neher and Sandin (2007) provide examples of these lists including one from Benjamin Franklin:\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Temperance<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Silence<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Order (to be organized)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Resolution (fulfill obligations)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Frugality (not wasteful)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Industrious<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Sincerity<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Justice<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Moderation<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Cleanliness<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Tranquility<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Chastity<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Humility<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nAristotle also wrote the book, <strong><em>Nicomachean Ethics<\/em><\/strong>, which was a book that was compiled from his lectures he gave at the Lyceum (his school). There is speculation about to whom he named this after, either his son or his father, both named <em>Nicomachus<\/em>. This book focuses on how people should live. According to Neher and Sandin (2007), the following is a list of virtues that he proposed people (mostly geared toward men) abide by:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Courage<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Self-control<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Generosity<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Magnificence (difficult to translate, maybe means public-spirited)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>High-mindedness (having a sense of honor)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Appropriate desires (ambition)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Gentleness<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Friendliness<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Truthfulness<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Wittiness and Tact<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Humility<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Sense of justice, honesty, righteousness (around others)<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Deontological Ethics<\/strong><\/span> \u2013 Bases decisions on a universal code, list, or duty\r\n\r\nDeontological ethics is an ethical lens that follows a universal code, law, or framework that does not change based upon context, environment, individuals, etc. The word, universal (meaning the same every time) refers to every given case without exceptions. Therefore, someone who believes in a deontological approach to ethics would argue that there is a set of rules that everyone in every situation must live by. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=-UhiRLuSlIU\">Here<\/a> is a short video to help explain this perspective.\r\n\r\nThe key to this deontological ethics is situated in the notion of having a universal guide for our actions. Neher and Sandin (2007) provide three examples of deontological frames: duty ethics, natural law, and divine command.\r\n\r\n<strong><em>Duty Ethics<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 Immanuel Kant\u2019s perspective of the duty ethic states that in every case, there is one action, regardless of the consequences and regardless of the context\/situation, that is ethical.\r\n\r\n<strong><em>Natural Law<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 This perspective asserts that whatever is consistent with the workings of natural order (biology for example) is the correct behavior. The measure in this case involves evaluating behavior based upon what is natural according to the biological condition, regardless of social constructions of appropriate behavior or context\/situation. In other words, if the condition or behavior occurs naturally in nature, then the condition or behavior is ethical. An example of this is that scientists confirm that homosexual and bisexual activity is found in hundreds of other species in the animal kingdom. Since they are in the natural world, they should be deemed ethical behavior. You can do a Google search and see hundreds of examples.\r\n<div id=\"content\" class=\"site-content\"><section class=\"standard post-44 chapter type-chapter status-publish hentry contributor-annette-holba focusable\" data-type=\"chapter\"><strong><em>Divine Command<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 This perspective judges and guides behavior based upon sacred\/original\/divine law set forth by a universal Being, such as God. This is often set forth under religious commands. The ten commandments is one example.For deontology, we, instead, focus on <strong><em>duty ethics<\/em><\/strong>. Therefore, in determining appropriate behavior, we seek the universal behavior that we deem correct all of the time.Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) situated our duty as: <strong><em>To ac<\/em><em>t <\/em><em>only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law without contradiction<\/em><\/strong> (Kant, <em>Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals<\/em>). So your actions should not make or create any kind of contradiction and that the action can occur the same in every given situation.Kant\u2019s examples of his ethical system of categorical imperatives include:\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li><strong>Lies or deception are always<\/strong> <strong>wrong<\/strong>.<\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Stealing is never acceptable<\/strong>.<\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Suicide is always wrong<\/strong><\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>One should not be lazy<\/strong>.<\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Charity should not be engaged for impure reasons<\/strong>.<\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Cruelty to animals is never permissible<\/strong>.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nThe key to the Kantian categorical imperative (evaluating behavior through ethical reasoning) is to look for the universality of the law that which is associated with the behavior. If an action violates one of the duties, the action is <em>never<\/em> morally permissible.\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Consequentialist Ethics<\/strong><\/span> - Bases decisions on consequences\r\n\r\nConsequentialist ethics involves focusing on the consequences\/outcome of an action or a decision, instead of the character of a person (virtue ethics) or universal application of a set of rules (deontological ethics). According to Neher and Sandin (2007), there are multiple kinds of consequentialisms. In general, <strong><em>act consequentialism<\/em><\/strong> and <strong><em>rule consequentialism <\/em><\/strong>are essential distinctions to understand before moving forward to think about the kinds of consequentialisms that inform ethical decision-making. For the purpose of this course, we are only concerned with act consequentialism. <strong>Act consequentialism<\/strong> evaluates individual <strong>actions<\/strong> related to consequences. We will focus on<strong> act consequentialism<\/strong> under the label of <strong><em>utilitarianism and egalitarianism<\/em><\/strong>.\r\n\r\n<strong>Utilitarianism <\/strong> involves the idea that actions should be guided or evaluated by the notion, <strong><em>the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people<\/em><\/strong>. This is very general, but <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=WfiEa6MfoTw\">here<\/a> is a video that can explain in more detail.\r\n\r\nThere are many newly emerging nuances under consequentialisms that blend with the principle of utility but for our purposes in this course, we will focus only on the outcomes and how we reason about and through them. Questions of motive, ego, and <em>telos<\/em> (the aim or ends) can be side considerations and help us reason through making judgments about behavior or impending behavior.\r\n\r\nAccording to Neher and Sandin (2007), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) developed an elaborate system for calculating quantities of pleasure in terms of their duration, intensity, certainty, remoteness or nearness in time\/space\/place. This was a quantitative, objective methodology.\u00a0 He then determined the number of people who benefited or who were harmed by the action. Every person counted as one person. The counting had to be impartial. Additionally, you could not consider only what made your family happy but instead, you had to consider happiness of all people effected by the action. This sound objectively sound but with human beings involved, this was difficult to actually do without making certain guesses and judgments that diminished the objectiveness.\r\n\r\nUtilitarianism asserts \u201cthe greatest good for the greatest number\u201d (Neher and Sandin, 2007, p.60). Rightness or wrongness is determined by totaling the positive and negative outcomes of an action. The action that resulted in the highest number of positives\/goods, is the right thing to do.\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Dialogic Ethics<\/strong><\/span> - Bases decisions on relationships (usually interpersonal relationships)\r\n\r\nDialogic ethics privileges relationships, not character (virtue ethics), duty or universal law\/rule (deontological ethics), or consequences (utilitarian or egalitarian ethics). Dialogical ethics occur within dialogue. It is a system in which ethics can be judged by the attitudes and behaviors demonstrated by each participant in a communication transaction. Key to the definition of dialogic ethics is the willingness and ability of each participant to suspend self-interest in favor of experiencing the views, beliefs, and convictions of the other. More will be said about dialogic ethics in the next chapter on Communication Ethics.\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Leadership Ethics<\/strong><\/span>\r\n\r\nLeadership Ethics refers to leadership with a systematic operating system that is grounded in moral behavior that is guided by thinking ethically and engaging in self-reflection and moral reasoning. The ethical leader is skilled at moral reasoning and moral discernment. Since leadership necessarily impacts all kinds of individuals from new employees to long-time employees and people with all kinds of worldviews and approaches to problem-solving, the leader needs to be able to discern ethical issues and engage in a moral reasoning framework that takes into account others (and not just the self or ego). Additionally, leadership has a certain degree of power and the power differential across organizations is real. Some people have power (and voice) and other people do not. This is why it is imperative that ALL leadership styles and approaches have some kind of competence around ethical discernment and the ability to reason using ethical lenses or systems.\r\n\r\nThere is actually no one way to think about or frame leadership ethics. After thinking about the various ethical systems discussed above, it is helpful to create a list that can begin to design a system of leadership ethics as a starting place for ethical leadership or leading ethically. This list is meant to open our discussion around what Leadership Ethics might look like. The following characteristics should be the ground from which leadership action and practices occur.\r\n\r\n<span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Emulate Trustworthiness<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Conduct Business in Fairness around Goal Setting and Work Flow\r\n<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Being Accountable (Taking responsibility for the good and the bad\/successes and failures)\r\n<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Demonstrate Inclusiveness in Decision-Making <\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Being Honest in Communication, Transactions, and Other Organizational Behaviors\r\n<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Seeking Equitable Practices and Outcomes\r\n<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Being Respectful in all Communicative Actions<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\nEngage in Effective and Active Listening\r\n\r\nSeek Means to Enable Others to Reach their Fuller Potential\r\n\r\nFrom this list, can you distill a framework for a system of leadership ethics?\r\n\r\n<strong>Applying the <a href=\"https:\/\/professional.dce.harvard.edu\/blog\/what-is-ethical-leadership-and-why-is-it-important\/\">six principles<\/a> of leadership ethics laid out by Harvard University<\/strong>.\r\n\r\nWe can connect Harvard University's six principles directly to communication ethics especially in application. This means that we can have a pragmatic understanding of ethics in leadership and\u00a0 and ethics in general. While all people should have some kind of ethical framework or moral compass that guides their interactions with others, leaders have a heavier burden to develop their own ethical and moral frameworks because they are required to act, to engage, to necessarily impact others directly as part of their jobs\/positions. Frankly, even is one is a leading from within the masses (and does not have a formal position of leadership), everyone should be aware of these principles because most of our individual actions will have some kind of impact on others, on organizational cultures,\u00a0 and on our environments.\r\n\r\nLet's take a few minutes and think about how each principle is tied to leadership and communication ethics:\r\n\r\n<strong>Respect<\/strong> - showing someone respect or treating someone or something with respect is demonstrated by our communication behaviors and our use of language. As human beings, we can control this aspect of our engagement. Therefore it is imperative that we understand how we communicate information impacts others and our environments. Especially for leaders, our word choices and our nonverbal communication should be informed, matching\/consistent, and supportive, even when delivery a message that is deemed negative (such as when you have to remove someone from a project or demote someone's position or role). Jack Gibb's (1982) supportive-defensive communication paradigm can help leadership choose supportive language for situations like this.\r\n\r\n<strong>Defensive Communication Strategies\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Supportive Communication Strategies<\/strong>\r\n<table>\r\n<tbody>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><strong>Evaluation<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cWhy did you do this?\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cHow could you have done this?\u201d \u201cYou always interrupt me\u201d<\/td>\r\n<td><strong>Description<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cIt seems that the process might have taken too long to do, and many people left before it was their turn to speak. Let\u2019s create opportunity\u2026\u201d<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><strong>Control<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cI know how to handle this, so this is how it will be done\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cI think I have a better handle on the real issues, so we will do this\u2026.\u201d<\/td>\r\n<td><strong>Problem Orientation<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cI think we have a problem here and we need to think about how it can be addressed effectively\u201d<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><strong>Strategy<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cI do not believe you have the best interests of NH in mind when you propose this bill, so how\u00a0 can you suggest this is the only solution?\u201d<\/td>\r\n<td><strong>Spontaneity<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cTo be honest, there are other issues connected to this one issue that we need to consider; we should be open to discuss these other matters as well\u201d<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><strong>Neutrality<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cI don\u2019t really care about that 3% of NH Population\u201d or \u201cI do not care about that\u201d or \u201cWhatever\u2026it doesn\u2019t matter\u201d<\/td>\r\n<td><strong>Empathy<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cWe should find a solution that supports all of NH citizens\u201d or \u201cI recognize that this matter is important to you, so how can we include this consideration in our proposition?\u201d<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><strong>Superiority<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cSince I am your boss, I will take 15 minutes but you all need to be brief - 3 minutes or under.\u201d<\/td>\r\n<td><strong>Equality<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cLet\u2019s all stay under 3 minutes to state our positions\u201d<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><strong>Certainty<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cYour evidence is incorrect \u2013 so how can your\u00a0 policy really address the matter?<\/td>\r\n<td><strong>Provisionalism<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cIn my opinion, I see it another way. Perhaps we can explore the issue from a different vantage point to see how others understand the matter?\u201d<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<strong>Accountability<\/strong> - a leader (frankly, we all should do this) must be able to say, \"I was wrong and this is why\" or \"this is my error and I need to find a way to change the situation\" or \"I am sorry I did not listen to others, that was a mistake I made\". Leaders must take accountability for our decisions and actions. Too many leaders fail to share their vulnerability and this does not help situations especially when there should be a course correction. A leader does not have to be perfect, they need to know when they are wrong, admit it, and learn from it. This takes humility and authenticity.\r\n\r\n<\/section><strong>Service<\/strong> - some leaders have a sense of elitism because they think they know everything. But this is upside down. Leaders do not need to know everything (nobody can!). This elitist mindset should be turned around and leaders need to start seeing themselves as serving others instead of being served because of their elitist mindset. A service mindset involves serving others, helping them to achieve their fullest potential and treating them as we would want to be treated. A good example of this can be from the Market Basket labor dispute a few years back. A struggle between two cousins almost cause the supermarket chain to go under. The feuding cousins were complete opposites, one wanted to live like an elitist and be served by all of the chain's employees so he would earn higher profits and the other cousin wanted to serve the people, employees, venders, and customers. His communication with all of the stakeholders was humble, caring, inclusive, and supportive. The Market Basket chain is thriving today because the cousin with a servant mindset won the dispute and bought his cousin out of the company. Read more about Market Basket <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Market_Basket_protests\">here<\/a>. While it is Wikipedia, the information on this page is historically accurate. You can also go to <a href=\"https:\/\/digitalrepository.salemstate.edu\/handle\/20.500.13013\/683\">Salem State University<\/a> and download this <a href=\"https:\/\/digitalrepository.salemstate.edu\/bitstream\/handle\/20.500.13013\/683\/Connors__20Devon.pdf?sequence=5&amp;isAllowed=y\">article<\/a>, \"Market Basket: The Study of a Company's Conflict and Resolution\".\r\n\r\n<strong>Honesty<\/strong> - honesty in leaders is cherished. Leaders build relationships by being truthful, not hiding or omitting information, and not being afraid to reveal something that others may not like. People respect honesty even if the message is difficult. Honesty is built through language used and actions that match our language. Leaders who share information, good and bad, and whose actions match what they say can build relationships with those they lead more easily than leaders who do not communicate enough information that is truthful and real. Being able to not only say but show the information is key to demonstrating honesty.\r\n\r\n<strong>Justice<\/strong> - justice expands beyond issues of the law. In this case, justice refers to treating people fairly, and modeling how employees should treat others, especially when working in teams or with stakeholders. This means actions and decisions should be equitable and everyone should feel they have a voice and a place (a seat at the table). Going back to the Market Basket example, employees were treated equitably and every one, from part time warehouse workers to managers, to vendors, had opportunity to voice opinions and ideas and receive public respect and welcoming.\r\n\r\n<strong>Community<\/strong> - leaders have the responsibility to lead, to shape, to fuel, to inspire others. This builds a sense of community; a gestalt environment that is bigger than the sum of all of the parts. Leaders bring people together through a dialogic space that invites, welcomes, supports, and cares for those involved. This is an unconditional invitation that is shared through a framework of care for the organization, the practices in the organization, and the other, all others. Leading with invitational dialogic openness creates a community of home where people feel heard and valued. These people will also want to stay and they motivated to make their community\/home a better place to be.\r\n\r\nThese six principles rely on communication ethics centered around dialogue, mutual respect, openness, and willingness to share and co-create with others guided by hermeneutic humility and a mindset centered around care of, for, and about the other.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/span>\r\n\r\nLeadership Ethics should be a concern for all leaders of every kind, any style, and approach. Anyone making decisions that necessarily impact other people should be familiar with multiple ways of thinking and discerning ethically. They should have experience with\u00a0 some kind of ethical framework from which to make decisions. These are not the only ethical lenses people can use. There will be more discussion in the next chapter around ethical thinking and it is hoped that you will end up having a more textured understanding of ethical discernment for the leader. While some scholars pull out ethical leadership as a separate leadership type, I see ethical leadership as a skill that ALL leaders of every style and approach should develop.\r\n\r\nQuestions:\r\n\r\n1. What are your thoughts about how I see the relationship between leadership and ethics? Give some reasons and examples to support your answer.\r\n\r\n2. Why should leaders have a care or feel responsibility toward others? If you disagree with this, explain your position.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;","rendered":"<p>Leadership Ethics is a couplet that announces and reveals moral accountability for leaders. The literature around leadership ethics is growing since it has often been taken for granted that a leader would be ethical. We know this is not always the case. This chapter highlights the importance of ethical thinking, ethical discernment, and ethical\/moral reasoning when leading others. We often like to say we are ethical, but what do we really mean by that quality? If we haven&#8217;t taken the time to think about how to think and reason ethically, now is a good time to start to contemplate how to do it and how much time we need to put into this kind of practice.<\/p>\n<p>To start us thinking about leadership ethics, we can look at Harvard University&#8217;s blog on it <a href=\"https:\/\/professional.dce.harvard.edu\/blog\/what-is-ethical-leadership-and-why-is-it-important\/\">here<\/a>. The six main principles of leadership ethics, according to Harvard University are:<\/p>\n<p>1. respect<\/p>\n<p>2. accountability<\/p>\n<p>3. service<\/p>\n<p>4. honesty<\/p>\n<p>5. justice<\/p>\n<p>6. community<\/p>\n<p>We will talk more about these principles later in this chapter.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Learning Outcomes <\/strong>After reading this chapter you will<\/p>\n<p>1. understand the importance of ethical discernment and ethical decision-making in leadership practices<\/p>\n<p>2. recognize the relationship between communication, ethical thinking, and leadership practices<\/p>\n<p>3. apply the six ethical leadership principles from Harvard University<\/p>\n<p>4. synthesize and apply at least three different kinds of ethical thinking systems<\/p>\n<p><strong>Thought-Provoking Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1. In your own leadership experience, how did you make decisions when you saw no &#8220;good&#8221; or &#8220;constructive&#8221; outcome?<\/p>\n<p>2. Since ethics involves other people, how do we make decisions involving other people from an objective perspective (or at least as objective as possible)?<\/p>\n<p>3. How often do you stop, wait, reflect about your actions from an already established ethical framework?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Chapter Outline<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In this chapter, we first read about communication since it is an inescapable function in the process of leading others. In this way, we explore characteristics and dimensions of communication as well as its intersection with ethics in discernment and general moral reasoning. Then, we introduce four ethical lenses, virtue ethics, deontological ethics, consequentialist ethics, and dialogic ethics. This chapter should be read in tandem with the next chapter on communication ethics. We then connect to what we mean by the couplet, leadership ethics. At then end of this chapter, we consider how to apply Harvard&#8217;s six principles of leadership ethics and directly connect them to communication ethics.<\/p>\n<p>*The following information comes from the Open Education resource used in CM4905, <a href=\"https:\/\/cmsseniors.press.plymouth.edu\/\">CMS Seniors<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>*Paula Tompkins (2011), Professor Emerita at St. Cloud State University, argues that \u201cPracticing ethics involves discerning ethical issues and making decisions about how to act. <strong>Ethical discernment<\/strong> is the ability to recognize ethical issues and make ethical distinctions in order to formulate judgments about what is good, right, or virtuous. In ethical decision-making, an individual uses those judgments to guide her decisions about how to act ethically\u201d (p. 5). Professor Tompkins (2011) understands <strong>ethics as practical philosophy<\/strong> and suggests that \u201ccommunication ethics rests on the idea that individual acts and episodes of communication are important; they are not trivial\u201d (p.6).<\/p>\n<p>Because Tompkins (2011) identifies communication as ephemeral, rhetorical, and transactional, with dimensions of content, relationship, authenticity\u2014there involves a constituent process of communicative engagement\u2014and all of these aspects suggest that <strong><em>what, how, and why<\/em><\/strong> we communicate matters. For Tompkins, all communicative gestures, transactions, and even unintentional acts\/behaviors have ethical dimensions. Therefore, we cannot continue to communicate on a daily basis without thinking about our communicative practices and what impacts they have on ourselves, others, and society as a whole.<\/p>\n<p>Let\u2019s unpack her description of communication which will help us to see why all communicative gestures have ethical dimensions.<\/p>\n<p><strong>According to Tompkins (2011), communication is:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Ephemeral<\/strong> \u2013 because communication, especially when spoken, vaporizes once it is said. Even written communication vaporizes its possibility of meaning and simultaneously it is irrevocable because the written form exists and it is consumed or read by others. When communication is exchanged in some fashion, it cannot be taken back or taken away. We might try to fix the message, restate them message, address the message in some way but even so, it still existed for others to experience. Even if it is no longer present in existence, it was still delivered in some way and the message, its meaning, and its impact is eternally present. The echo of the message still exists in memories and in thoughts. So, even if we try to explain or clarify, the original \u201csaidness\u201d is never forgotten; it remains in its absence as everpresent.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Rhetorical \u2013 <\/strong>communication has the power to manipulate, persuade, and impact other people, entities, and environments. Because of the rhetoricality of communication, there is also an inherent responsibility to the other that is undeniable and inescapable. We must understand that everything communicated has the possibility of impacting others.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Transactional<\/strong> \u2013 communication is between people, between people and environments, between people and entities\/organizations. This means there is a transactional, interdependence that occurs naturally in human communication.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Communication has dimensions of:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Content \u2013 the message (logos)<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Relationship \u2013 people (pathos)<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Authenticity \u2013 ethics (ethos)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>You might recognize these dimensions as being first acknowledged and developed by Aristotle (384BC-322BC) in his rhetorical triangle, a key part in his rhetorical theory. Logos has to do with the logic of a message. Pathos has to do with the emotional appeal of the argument (and may be the strongest persuasive element). Ethos has to do with the credibility of the speaker\/message creator and it originates from the Greek word for ethics.<\/p>\n<p>Some philosophers create very specific criteria for what makes something ethical or an ethical matter. For Tompkins, the act and event of communication is inherently <strong><em>always-already<\/em><\/strong> ethical. There is no avoiding ethics in communication.<\/p>\n<p>Ethical issues can blow us off course. In order to not get blown off course, you have to know where you stand and what your particular \u201ccourse\u201d or path is, how it looks, and what it means. We know that as young children and as emerging adults, peer pressure holds some level of influence for many people. While we like to think that we make our own decisions and that we are not influenced by those around us, that simply is not true to the same extent for every person. We have studied the influence of media upon our decisions, choices, and experiences to some extent just by virtue of being a Communication and Media Studies student so we know that influences from media, others, and our environments are real, subtle, and sometimes not positive. Keeping this in mind, getting to know who we are individually without the influence of others can be helpful in understanding our individual moral compass and our ethical positioning and preferences in decision-making. This course is designed to enable us to learn about ourselves, be honest with ourselves, and begin to understand who we are as human beings embedded in a culture with other human beings. Learning about ourselves will help us to understand how we make decisions where we are right now in our lives outside of a judgmental framework. Once we know who we are and where we are, only then can we decide if we like what we see and if it matches our ideal vision. This is the first step of understanding our \u201ccourse\u201d which is then the first step of staying on course and not being blown off course.<\/p>\n<p>Traditionally, ethical decision-making has been discussed through three broad lenses. These lenses are very traditional and could be familiar to you if you have already taken an ethics course in a philosophy curriculum. Some of these lenses also have sub lenses attached to them. You might have heard about some of these lenses in other courses. These lenses are: virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and consequentialist ethics. These three lenses emerge from the domain of philosophy (understanding ethics as being a branch of philosophy) and have been the hallmarks of Western philosophy since the early Greek influences (such as Plato and Aristotle and others before their lifetimes). There is another lens that sometimes is not part of the traditional discussion on ethical lenses and it will be highlighted in this course. This lens emerged from the communication discipline though it does have explicit roots in and ties to Aristotle\u2019s virtue ethics; while being obviously different in focus, we call this <strong><em>dialogic ethics<\/em><\/strong>. When you hear the couplet, <strong><em>communication ethics<\/em><\/strong>, in scholarly books, articles, discussions, the speaker is most often specifically referring to dialogic ethics. It is important to have some understanding of the other ethical lenses because often, dialogic reasoning may involve or overlap with virtue, deontological, or consequentialist influences. It is also helpful to understand the differences between each type of lens because these differences impact ethical reasoning and decision making outcomes.<\/p>\n<p>According to Neher and Sandin (2007), these lenses can be grouped in the following ways:<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Virtue Ethics<\/strong><\/span> \u2013 Bases decisions on character (Here is a snapshot of how virtue ethics is described)<\/p>\n<div>\n<p>A virtue ethic suggests a behavior is based upon one\u2019s character and having an understanding of what a \u201cvirtuous\u201d person would do in a given situation. Therefore, we ask questions such as: \u201cwhat would another person do\u201d <em>if<\/em> we believe that person to be virtuous. This does not mean that virtue ethics is ONLY about <em>doing<\/em>. Rather, a virtue ethic underscores <strong><em>being<\/em><\/strong> which is tied to character. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=NMblKpkKYao\">Here<\/a> is a short tutorial on virtue ethics. So, in a discussion about virtue ethics, you will find people listing qualities of a human being related to the kind of person they see as being virtuous, good, ideal, or someone who is perceived to <strong><em>be <\/em><\/strong>this way. Throughout history, many people published lists of qualities that make up a good character. From Plato and Aristotle, through the great Roman orators, and onward through each historical period. Neher and Sandin (2007) provide examples of these lists including one from Benjamin Franklin:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<ul>\n<li>Temperance<\/li>\n<li>Silence<\/li>\n<li>Order (to be organized)<\/li>\n<li>Resolution (fulfill obligations)<\/li>\n<li>Frugality (not wasteful)<\/li>\n<li>Industrious<\/li>\n<li>Sincerity<\/li>\n<li>Justice<\/li>\n<li>Moderation<\/li>\n<li>Cleanliness<\/li>\n<li>Tranquility<\/li>\n<li>Chastity<\/li>\n<li>Humility<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Aristotle also wrote the book, <strong><em>Nicomachean Ethics<\/em><\/strong>, which was a book that was compiled from his lectures he gave at the Lyceum (his school). There is speculation about to whom he named this after, either his son or his father, both named <em>Nicomachus<\/em>. This book focuses on how people should live. According to Neher and Sandin (2007), the following is a list of virtues that he proposed people (mostly geared toward men) abide by:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Courage<\/li>\n<li>Self-control<\/li>\n<li>Generosity<\/li>\n<li>Magnificence (difficult to translate, maybe means public-spirited)<\/li>\n<li>High-mindedness (having a sense of honor)<\/li>\n<li>Appropriate desires (ambition)<\/li>\n<li>Gentleness<\/li>\n<li>Friendliness<\/li>\n<li>Truthfulness<\/li>\n<li>Wittiness and Tact<\/li>\n<li>Humility<\/li>\n<li>Sense of justice, honesty, righteousness (around others)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Deontological Ethics<\/strong><\/span> \u2013 Bases decisions on a universal code, list, or duty<\/p>\n<p>Deontological ethics is an ethical lens that follows a universal code, law, or framework that does not change based upon context, environment, individuals, etc. The word, universal (meaning the same every time) refers to every given case without exceptions. Therefore, someone who believes in a deontological approach to ethics would argue that there is a set of rules that everyone in every situation must live by. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=-UhiRLuSlIU\">Here<\/a> is a short video to help explain this perspective.<\/p>\n<p>The key to this deontological ethics is situated in the notion of having a universal guide for our actions. Neher and Sandin (2007) provide three examples of deontological frames: duty ethics, natural law, and divine command.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Duty Ethics<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 Immanuel Kant\u2019s perspective of the duty ethic states that in every case, there is one action, regardless of the consequences and regardless of the context\/situation, that is ethical.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Natural Law<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 This perspective asserts that whatever is consistent with the workings of natural order (biology for example) is the correct behavior. The measure in this case involves evaluating behavior based upon what is natural according to the biological condition, regardless of social constructions of appropriate behavior or context\/situation. In other words, if the condition or behavior occurs naturally in nature, then the condition or behavior is ethical. An example of this is that scientists confirm that homosexual and bisexual activity is found in hundreds of other species in the animal kingdom. Since they are in the natural world, they should be deemed ethical behavior. You can do a Google search and see hundreds of examples.<\/p>\n<div id=\"content\" class=\"site-content\">\n<section class=\"standard post-44 chapter type-chapter status-publish hentry contributor-annette-holba focusable\" data-type=\"chapter\"><strong><em>Divine Command<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 This perspective judges and guides behavior based upon sacred\/original\/divine law set forth by a universal Being, such as God. This is often set forth under religious commands. The ten commandments is one example.For deontology, we, instead, focus on <strong><em>duty ethics<\/em><\/strong>. Therefore, in determining appropriate behavior, we seek the universal behavior that we deem correct all of the time.Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) situated our duty as: <strong><em>To ac<\/em><em>t <\/em><em>only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law without contradiction<\/em><\/strong> (Kant, <em>Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals<\/em>). So your actions should not make or create any kind of contradiction and that the action can occur the same in every given situation.Kant\u2019s examples of his ethical system of categorical imperatives include:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Lies or deception are always<\/strong> <strong>wrong<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Stealing is never acceptable<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Suicide is always wrong<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>One should not be lazy<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Charity should not be engaged for impure reasons<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Cruelty to animals is never permissible<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The key to the Kantian categorical imperative (evaluating behavior through ethical reasoning) is to look for the universality of the law that which is associated with the behavior. If an action violates one of the duties, the action is <em>never<\/em> morally permissible.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Consequentialist Ethics<\/strong><\/span> &#8211; Bases decisions on consequences<\/p>\n<p>Consequentialist ethics involves focusing on the consequences\/outcome of an action or a decision, instead of the character of a person (virtue ethics) or universal application of a set of rules (deontological ethics). According to Neher and Sandin (2007), there are multiple kinds of consequentialisms. In general, <strong><em>act consequentialism<\/em><\/strong> and <strong><em>rule consequentialism <\/em><\/strong>are essential distinctions to understand before moving forward to think about the kinds of consequentialisms that inform ethical decision-making. For the purpose of this course, we are only concerned with act consequentialism. <strong>Act consequentialism<\/strong> evaluates individual <strong>actions<\/strong> related to consequences. We will focus on<strong> act consequentialism<\/strong> under the label of <strong><em>utilitarianism and egalitarianism<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Utilitarianism <\/strong> involves the idea that actions should be guided or evaluated by the notion, <strong><em>the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people<\/em><\/strong>. This is very general, but <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=WfiEa6MfoTw\">here<\/a> is a video that can explain in more detail.<\/p>\n<p>There are many newly emerging nuances under consequentialisms that blend with the principle of utility but for our purposes in this course, we will focus only on the outcomes and how we reason about and through them. Questions of motive, ego, and <em>telos<\/em> (the aim or ends) can be side considerations and help us reason through making judgments about behavior or impending behavior.<\/p>\n<p>According to Neher and Sandin (2007), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) developed an elaborate system for calculating quantities of pleasure in terms of their duration, intensity, certainty, remoteness or nearness in time\/space\/place. This was a quantitative, objective methodology.\u00a0 He then determined the number of people who benefited or who were harmed by the action. Every person counted as one person. The counting had to be impartial. Additionally, you could not consider only what made your family happy but instead, you had to consider happiness of all people effected by the action. This sound objectively sound but with human beings involved, this was difficult to actually do without making certain guesses and judgments that diminished the objectiveness.<\/p>\n<p>Utilitarianism asserts \u201cthe greatest good for the greatest number\u201d (Neher and Sandin, 2007, p.60). Rightness or wrongness is determined by totaling the positive and negative outcomes of an action. The action that resulted in the highest number of positives\/goods, is the right thing to do.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Dialogic Ethics<\/strong><\/span> &#8211; Bases decisions on relationships (usually interpersonal relationships)<\/p>\n<p>Dialogic ethics privileges relationships, not character (virtue ethics), duty or universal law\/rule (deontological ethics), or consequences (utilitarian or egalitarian ethics). Dialogical ethics occur within dialogue. It is a system in which ethics can be judged by the attitudes and behaviors demonstrated by each participant in a communication transaction. Key to the definition of dialogic ethics is the willingness and ability of each participant to suspend self-interest in favor of experiencing the views, beliefs, and convictions of the other. More will be said about dialogic ethics in the next chapter on Communication Ethics.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Leadership Ethics<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Leadership Ethics refers to leadership with a systematic operating system that is grounded in moral behavior that is guided by thinking ethically and engaging in self-reflection and moral reasoning. The ethical leader is skilled at moral reasoning and moral discernment. Since leadership necessarily impacts all kinds of individuals from new employees to long-time employees and people with all kinds of worldviews and approaches to problem-solving, the leader needs to be able to discern ethical issues and engage in a moral reasoning framework that takes into account others (and not just the self or ego). Additionally, leadership has a certain degree of power and the power differential across organizations is real. Some people have power (and voice) and other people do not. This is why it is imperative that ALL leadership styles and approaches have some kind of competence around ethical discernment and the ability to reason using ethical lenses or systems.<\/p>\n<p>There is actually no one way to think about or frame leadership ethics. After thinking about the various ethical systems discussed above, it is helpful to create a list that can begin to design a system of leadership ethics as a starting place for ethical leadership or leading ethically. This list is meant to open our discussion around what Leadership Ethics might look like. The following characteristics should be the ground from which leadership action and practices occur.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Emulate Trustworthiness<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Conduct Business in Fairness around Goal Setting and Work Flow<br \/>\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Being Accountable (Taking responsibility for the good and the bad\/successes and failures)<br \/>\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Demonstrate Inclusiveness in Decision-Making <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Being Honest in Communication, Transactions, and Other Organizational Behaviors<br \/>\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Seeking Equitable Practices and Outcomes<br \/>\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"ILfuVd\" lang=\"en\"><span class=\"hgKElc\">Being Respectful in all Communicative Actions<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Engage in Effective and Active Listening<\/p>\n<p>Seek Means to Enable Others to Reach their Fuller Potential<\/p>\n<p>From this list, can you distill a framework for a system of leadership ethics?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Applying the <a href=\"https:\/\/professional.dce.harvard.edu\/blog\/what-is-ethical-leadership-and-why-is-it-important\/\">six principles<\/a> of leadership ethics laid out by Harvard University<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>We can connect Harvard University&#8217;s six principles directly to communication ethics especially in application. This means that we can have a pragmatic understanding of ethics in leadership and\u00a0 and ethics in general. While all people should have some kind of ethical framework or moral compass that guides their interactions with others, leaders have a heavier burden to develop their own ethical and moral frameworks because they are required to act, to engage, to necessarily impact others directly as part of their jobs\/positions. Frankly, even is one is a leading from within the masses (and does not have a formal position of leadership), everyone should be aware of these principles because most of our individual actions will have some kind of impact on others, on organizational cultures,\u00a0 and on our environments.<\/p>\n<p>Let&#8217;s take a few minutes and think about how each principle is tied to leadership and communication ethics:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Respect<\/strong> &#8211; showing someone respect or treating someone or something with respect is demonstrated by our communication behaviors and our use of language. As human beings, we can control this aspect of our engagement. Therefore it is imperative that we understand how we communicate information impacts others and our environments. Especially for leaders, our word choices and our nonverbal communication should be informed, matching\/consistent, and supportive, even when delivery a message that is deemed negative (such as when you have to remove someone from a project or demote someone&#8217;s position or role). Jack Gibb&#8217;s (1982) supportive-defensive communication paradigm can help leadership choose supportive language for situations like this.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Defensive Communication Strategies\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Supportive Communication Strategies<\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Evaluation<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhy did you do this?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cHow could you have done this?\u201d \u201cYou always interrupt me\u201d<\/td>\n<td><strong>Description<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt seems that the process might have taken too long to do, and many people left before it was their turn to speak. Let\u2019s create opportunity\u2026\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Control<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cI know how to handle this, so this is how it will be done\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI think I have a better handle on the real issues, so we will do this\u2026.\u201d<\/td>\n<td><strong>Problem Orientation<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cI think we have a problem here and we need to think about how it can be addressed effectively\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Strategy<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cI do not believe you have the best interests of NH in mind when you propose this bill, so how\u00a0 can you suggest this is the only solution?\u201d<\/td>\n<td><strong>Spontaneity<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cTo be honest, there are other issues connected to this one issue that we need to consider; we should be open to discuss these other matters as well\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Neutrality<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cI don\u2019t really care about that 3% of NH Population\u201d or \u201cI do not care about that\u201d or \u201cWhatever\u2026it doesn\u2019t matter\u201d<\/td>\n<td><strong>Empathy<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe should find a solution that supports all of NH citizens\u201d or \u201cI recognize that this matter is important to you, so how can we include this consideration in our proposition?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Superiority<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cSince I am your boss, I will take 15 minutes but you all need to be brief &#8211; 3 minutes or under.\u201d<\/td>\n<td><strong>Equality<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cLet\u2019s all stay under 3 minutes to state our positions\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Certainty<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cYour evidence is incorrect \u2013 so how can your\u00a0 policy really address the matter?<\/td>\n<td><strong>Provisionalism<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn my opinion, I see it another way. Perhaps we can explore the issue from a different vantage point to see how others understand the matter?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>Accountability<\/strong> &#8211; a leader (frankly, we all should do this) must be able to say, &#8220;I was wrong and this is why&#8221; or &#8220;this is my error and I need to find a way to change the situation&#8221; or &#8220;I am sorry I did not listen to others, that was a mistake I made&#8221;. Leaders must take accountability for our decisions and actions. Too many leaders fail to share their vulnerability and this does not help situations especially when there should be a course correction. A leader does not have to be perfect, they need to know when they are wrong, admit it, and learn from it. This takes humility and authenticity.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<p><strong>Service<\/strong> &#8211; some leaders have a sense of elitism because they think they know everything. But this is upside down. Leaders do not need to know everything (nobody can!). This elitist mindset should be turned around and leaders need to start seeing themselves as serving others instead of being served because of their elitist mindset. A service mindset involves serving others, helping them to achieve their fullest potential and treating them as we would want to be treated. A good example of this can be from the Market Basket labor dispute a few years back. A struggle between two cousins almost cause the supermarket chain to go under. The feuding cousins were complete opposites, one wanted to live like an elitist and be served by all of the chain&#8217;s employees so he would earn higher profits and the other cousin wanted to serve the people, employees, venders, and customers. His communication with all of the stakeholders was humble, caring, inclusive, and supportive. The Market Basket chain is thriving today because the cousin with a servant mindset won the dispute and bought his cousin out of the company. Read more about Market Basket <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Market_Basket_protests\">here<\/a>. While it is Wikipedia, the information on this page is historically accurate. You can also go to <a href=\"https:\/\/digitalrepository.salemstate.edu\/handle\/20.500.13013\/683\">Salem State University<\/a> and download this <a href=\"https:\/\/digitalrepository.salemstate.edu\/bitstream\/handle\/20.500.13013\/683\/Connors__20Devon.pdf?sequence=5&amp;isAllowed=y\">article<\/a>, &#8220;Market Basket: The Study of a Company&#8217;s Conflict and Resolution&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Honesty<\/strong> &#8211; honesty in leaders is cherished. Leaders build relationships by being truthful, not hiding or omitting information, and not being afraid to reveal something that others may not like. People respect honesty even if the message is difficult. Honesty is built through language used and actions that match our language. Leaders who share information, good and bad, and whose actions match what they say can build relationships with those they lead more easily than leaders who do not communicate enough information that is truthful and real. Being able to not only say but show the information is key to demonstrating honesty.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Justice<\/strong> &#8211; justice expands beyond issues of the law. In this case, justice refers to treating people fairly, and modeling how employees should treat others, especially when working in teams or with stakeholders. This means actions and decisions should be equitable and everyone should feel they have a voice and a place (a seat at the table). Going back to the Market Basket example, employees were treated equitably and every one, from part time warehouse workers to managers, to vendors, had opportunity to voice opinions and ideas and receive public respect and welcoming.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Community<\/strong> &#8211; leaders have the responsibility to lead, to shape, to fuel, to inspire others. This builds a sense of community; a gestalt environment that is bigger than the sum of all of the parts. Leaders bring people together through a dialogic space that invites, welcomes, supports, and cares for those involved. This is an unconditional invitation that is shared through a framework of care for the organization, the practices in the organization, and the other, all others. Leading with invitational dialogic openness creates a community of home where people feel heard and valued. These people will also want to stay and they motivated to make their community\/home a better place to be.<\/p>\n<p>These six principles rely on communication ethics centered around dialogue, mutual respect, openness, and willingness to share and co-create with others guided by hermeneutic humility and a mindset centered around care of, for, and about the other.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 18pt\"><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Leadership Ethics should be a concern for all leaders of every kind, any style, and approach. Anyone making decisions that necessarily impact other people should be familiar with multiple ways of thinking and discerning ethically. They should have experience with\u00a0 some kind of ethical framework from which to make decisions. These are not the only ethical lenses people can use. There will be more discussion in the next chapter around ethical thinking and it is hoped that you will end up having a more textured understanding of ethical discernment for the leader. While some scholars pull out ethical leadership as a separate leadership type, I see ethical leadership as a skill that ALL leaders of every style and approach should develop.<\/p>\n<p>Questions:<\/p>\n<p>1. What are your thoughts about how I see the relationship between leadership and ethics? Give some reasons and examples to support your answer.<\/p>\n<p>2. Why should leaders have a care or feel responsibility toward others? If you disagree with this, explain your position.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":47,"menu_order":3,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-49","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/49","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/47"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/49\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":92,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/49\/revisions\/92"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/49\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=49"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=49"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=49"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}