The ability to influence people

Introduction

Leadership is often defined as the ability to influence people to do what they normally would not do. An effective leader guides the organization and its employees to accomplish organizational goals. An unethical leader, in the same vein, can guide the organization and its employees to act unethically, harming both the organization and the stakeholders. Leadership is an exploration, a reflection, and a test of what the leader values. Seeking understanding of how you resolve ethical dilemmas, taking inventory of where an ethical weakness may lie, and examining the traits of an ethical leader helps you define, shape, and apply an ethical decision-making framework that takes in consideration all stakeholders that may be impacted by your decisions.

This task focuses on you, as a leader, by helping you to define, refine, and test your ethical boundaries through self-reflection and analysis.
Scenario

You are a sales representative for a medical device company that manufactures artificial joints. Your company has developed an artificial knee joint that is less expensive than the competition and will dramatically reduce healing time for patients. However, it is also known to produce a serious, and potentially lethal, infection in a small percentage of patients. Your company refuses to disclose this potential side effect to patients. You feel you have a duty to disclose, but signed a non-disclosure agreement (a contract stating that you would keep all information about the company confidential) when you were hired by the company.
Requirements

Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide.

You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.

Prepare a report (suggested length of 6–8 pages) in which you do the following:

A. Select a leader who you feel has exhibited exemplary ethical conduct to do the following:

1. Discuss two ethical traits that your chosen leader has demonstrated.
2. Explain how your chosen leader has exhibited ethical conduct.

B. Analyze the dilemma found in the scenario from both the consequentialist and deontological perspectives.

Note: Consider how consequentialists and deontologists would approach the dilemma: What questions would they ask and what decision might they reach?

1. Discuss which level of cognitive moral development (i.e., preconventional, conventional, or postconventional) is represented in the scenario for each of the following questions:
   • What action would be best for society in the long term?
   • If I reveal this information, will my company find out and fire me?
   • Which course of action would best serve justice?
   • Are there any laws that indicate whether I should disclose this information?
   • If I keep quiet, will my company reward me for that?

C. Submit a copy of the PDF file with your results from the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI), which was completed in the course of study, as a separate document.

D. Reflect on the ELI by doing the following:

1. Explain your preferred ethical lens or what it means to have none if you have a center perspective.
   a. Analyze whether you have the same preferred lens in different settings (i.e., work, personal, social).
2. Describe one of the following: your blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice.
   a. Discuss three steps you can take to mitigate your chosen blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice in order to make better ethical decisions in the future.
3. Explain your primary values and classical virtue(s) from the ELI.
   a. Discuss how these primary values and classical virtue(s) compare to the top five values from the Clarifying Your Values exercise, found in the course of study.
4. Discuss how you plan to use the ethical lenses to approach ethical situations throughout your professional life.

E. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

F. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
Rubric

A1. ETHICAL TRAITS:

Not Evident
A discussion is not provided, or makes no reference to the ethical traits that the candidate’s chosen leader has demonstrated.

Approaching Competency
The discussion does not include 2 ethical traits that the candidate’s chosen leader has demonstrated, or the discussion is illogical or poorly supported.

Competent
The discussion addresses 2 ethical traits that the candidate’s chosen leader has demonstrated, and the discussion is logical and well supported.
A2. ETHICAL CONDUCT:

Not Evident
An explanation is not provided, or makes no reference to how the candidate’s chosen leader has exhibited ethical conduct.

Approaching Competency
The explanation of how the candidate’s chosen leader has exhibited ethical conduct, is illogical or the ideas presented are poorly supported.

Competent
The explanation addresses how the candidate’s chosen leader has exhibited ethical conduct, and the explanation is logical and well supported.
B. DILEMMA ANALYSIS:

Not Evident
An analysis is not provided, or makes no reference to the dilemma found in the scenario from the consequentialist or deontological perspectives.

Approaching Competency
The analysis does not address the dilemma found in the scenario from both the consequentialist and deontological perspectives, or the ideas presented are illogical, or poorly supported.

Competent
The analysis addresses the dilemma found in the scenario from both the consequentialist and deontological perspectives, and the ideas presented are logical and well supported.
B1. LEVELS OF COGNITIVE MORAL DEVELOPMENT:

Not Evident
A discussion is not provided, or makes no reference to which level of cognitive moral development is represented in the scenario for any of the given questions.

Approaching Competency
The discussion does not address which level of cognitive moral development is represented in the scenario for each of the given questions, or is poorly reasoned or illogical.

Competent
The discussion addresses which level of cognitive moral development is represented in the scenario for each of the given questions, and is well reasoned and logical.
C. ELI RESULTS:

Not Evident
A copy of the PDF file with the results from the Ethical Lens Inventory is not provided.

Approaching Competency
Not applicable.

Competent
A copy of the PDF file with the results from the Ethical Lens Inventory is provided.
D1.PREFERRED ETHICAL LENS:

Not Evident
An explanation is not provided or makes no reference to the preferred ethical lens or center perspective.

Approaching Competency
The explanation of the preferred ethical lens or center perspective is illogical or irrelevant to the ELI framework.

Competent
The explanation includes the preferred ethical lens or center perspective, and the explanation is logical and relevant to the ELI framework.
D1A. DIFFERENT SETTINGS:

Not Evident
An analysis is not provided, or makes no reference to whether the candidate has the same preferred lens in different settings.

Approaching Competency
The analysis of whether the candidate has the same preferred lens in different settings is poorly supported, or the ideas presented are illogical.

Competent
The analysis addresses whether the candidate has the same preferred lens in different settings, and the ideas presented are logical and well supported.
D2. BLIND SPOT, RISK, DOUBLE STANDARD, OR VICE:

Not Evident
A description is not provided, or the description makes no reference to the candidate’s blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice.

Approaching Competency
The description of the candidate’s blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice is illogical or irrelevant to the ELI framework.

Competent
The description addresses the candidate’s blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice. The ideas presented are logical and relevant to the ELI framework.
D2A. STEPS TO MITIGATE:

Not Evident
A discussion is not provided or makes no reference to any of the 3 steps taken to mitigate the chosen blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice in order to make better ethical decisions in the future.

Approaching Competency
The discussion does not address 3 steps taken to mitigate the chosen blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice in order to make better ethical decisions in the future, or the ideas presented are illogical or poorly supported.

Competent
The discussion addresses 3 steps taken to mitigate the chosen blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice in order to make better ethical decisions in the future, and the ideas presented are logical and well supported.
D3. PRIMARY VALUES AND CLASSICAL VIRTUE(S):

Not Evident
An explanation is not provided or makes no reference to the candidate’s primary values or classical virtue(s) from the ELI.

Approaching Competency
The explanation of the candidate’s primary values and classical virtue(s) is illogical or irrelevant to the ELI framework.

Competent
The explanation addresses the candidate’s primary values and classical virtue(s) from the ELI, and it is logical and relevant to the ELI framework.
D3A. COMPARISON TO TOP FIVE VALUES:

Not Evident
A discussion is not provided or makes no reference to how the candidate’s primary values or classical virtue(s) compare to the top five values from the Clarifying Your Values exercise.

Approaching Competency
The discussion of how the candidate’s primary values and classical virtue(s) compare to the top five values from the Clarifying Your Values exercise is illogical, or the ideas presented are poorly supported.

Competent
The discussion addresses how the candidate’s primary values and classical virtue(s) compare to the top five values from the Clarifying Your Values exercise, and the ideas presented are well supported and logical.
D4. USE OF ETHICAL LENSES:

Not Evident
A discussion is not provided, or makes no reference to how to use the ethical lenses to approach ethical situations throughout the candidate’s professional life.

Approaching Competency
The discussion of how to use the ethical lenses to approach ethical situations throughout the candidate’s professional life is illogical, or the ideas presented are poorly supported.

Competent
The discussion addresses how to use the ethical lenses to approach ethical situations throughout the candidate’s professional life, and the ideas presented are logical and well supported.
E. Sources:

Not Evident
The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

Approaching Competency
The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized, and a reference list; however, the citations and/or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.

Competent
The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are properly quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list that accurately identifies the author, date, title, and source location as available.
F. Professional Communication :

Not Evident
Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

Approaching Competency
Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

Competent
Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding.
Supporting Documents

Sample Solution