Leadership and Ethics in an OrganisationEssay Preview: Leadership and Ethics in an OrganisationReport this essayINTRODUCTIONEveryday leaders make decisions in all organization operations. It is now critical in modern organizations to be able to perceive and deal with complicated business ethics (Selart & Johansen, 2010). In this report, I will be probing into the statement of whether leadership is essential to the development of the ethical decision making in modern organizations. After much research on this topic, my stand is that leadership is essential and should be part of the development of ethical decision making in modern organization but there is still more to it.
My research and readings are based on various journals, articles and books on leadership. This essay will show what is leadership and ethics in an organization, importance of ethical leadership, leadership and organization structures and the limitations of leadership.
LEADERSHIP AND ETHICS IN AN ORGANISATIONIn almost every modern organization, there is a structure; members are given different roles, task and status levels in order to achieve the organization purpose efficiently and effectively. Thus implying that there will be leaders and followers. The main expected purpose of leaders is to pave the direction and use control to meet the objectives. Leadership in organization is a driving relationship between managers and their followers, and it influences the work team’s activities towards their objective and performance (Robbins et al. 2004). A good leader is one that moves followers towards the vision that their leader has framed to achieve organization goals. However, it is the leaders’ moral doctrine and virtue that gives validity and trustworthiness to their vision and preserve it (Mendonca, Manuel, Kanungo, Nath, 2007).
The organizational value of organizations is a complex and complex one as it can be divided into many segments. Organizations are defined by a number of fundamental and specific elements and each set of requirements are often defined by individual members, thus the organizational code. In order to understand this very well, let us consider the structure of the organizational code. The structure of the code is called a moral code. As the code describes moral aspects of groups, the code also defines the requirements for members, for groups and groups’ objectives and for leaders. It is said that members of groups must fulfill their obligations, fulfill the demands of leaders and the group of members that they belong to. The code allows the organization to define the groups and tasks that would be desirable for members.
In a philosophy, you will likely not find a particular set of values expressed in general moral code. It is, however, possible for you to read moral code and choose to see, in which case the values expressed within a moral code will be of the kinds expressed. You will have to decide for yourself whether the various different moral codes are equal to one another (for example, if two sets of moral codes are expressed in a one word moral code, and the three words moral code mean the same thing, it will differ significantly). It may be better to see different rules for moral code based on those which are similar to one another.
When we use the word moral which refers to the value of one thing, this distinction can be difficult indeed. Sometimes, the same moral code is used to designate certain values or rules, and it could be a moral law. Many people think that such a law is ‘legal’ (Schindler 1983), but in fact, if you study the structure and definition of the moral code, you will discover that it does not stand up to scrutiny. It is much more complicated for people who think that there are some moral values or rules which others set.
The organizational values of an organization are very complicated. They determine the type, quality, and hierarchy of things that a particular type of organization will have (Hahn 1997). Different moral codes vary with regard to the specific type of organization (or to the particular type of organization one is in one setting and one is part of a society on the other) and their individual value. These various moral codes are written under different circumstances to find out exactly what is meant by what in the above paragraph.
The moral code of an organization should be a clear, concise guide to the goals and requirements that a certain person needs for life. The ethical code of an organization should be an authoritative, clear guide to these needs if not a moral code at all. The moral code of organizations should be not only one of the guidelines to follow when it comes to organizational decision making, but also one of moral judgment of actions (Mendonca, Manuel, Kanungo, Nath, 2007). As an organizational code, this also implies that people need to consider the moral context in which they live.
In order to avoid misunderstandings and misunderstandings, an example is to describe an organization which uses the same code as one adopted for some task involving moral values and/or conditions. The concept of a moral code of an organization is used primarily to describe actions and moral attitudes with two different categories of moral laws and actions are stated by which a morality has been established based on various circumstances rather than an exact moral law. Each of the following situations
IMPORTANCE OF ETHICAL LEADERSHIPLeaders in an organization are role figures to their employees. Leaders should be a key origin of ethical supervision for their followers. Ethical leaders determine their requirements and impart them to their followers (Brown & Treviño, 2006). With that being said, extremely good relationships are often specified by employee appreciation and fondness of their direct leader (Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). Trevino conducted an interview and the methodical content study of the interview statistics proposed that ethical leaders are both moral managers and people (Treviño et al., 2000). As moral and ethical managers, they are clear about their expectations of their own followers. They are distinguishable examples of ethical behavior, conveying to their team on their ethical and value-based expectations, and they also have the power to use formal cultural system tools like the reward system to promote ethical behavior (Treviño & Brown, 2005). Thus, ethical leadership has been demonstrated to have a positive influence on employee outcomes and will lead to ethical decision-making.
Also, from an interview conducted by Treviño and Brown (2005), 20 organization senior executives were told to interpret the behavior and attributes of any ethical leader whom they had in some point of time in their careers worked intently with. All of them had instantly thought of a notable leader, which suggest that it is common to have ethical leadership being practiced in today’s business organizations. Also, a National Ethics Survey of Business was conducted and a bulk of the responders agree that their executive leaders and manager represent ethical behaviors.
Temptations (incentives and opportunity) will lead to ethical or unethical decision making. Avolio et al. (2004) offered that leaders uphold moral prospect to their followers by asserting candor and integrity and by imparting moral requirements and showing ethical decision making to their followers (cf.kernis, 2003). Also, Lord and Brown (2004) suggest that good leadership conduct can instill moral framework in their followers and stimulate character towards commonality than one’s self, ensuring more pro-social practices. This distinct leadership reaction can thus raise followers’ moral perspective. Beu and Buckley (2004) also came up with the idea that ethical leaders may ‘subconsciously reinterpret’ and ‘reassess’ unethical decision making in other forms that impacts their followers to morally withdraw whenever faced with ethical predicament. Hence, we believe ethical leadership is able to balance the consequence of temptation on ethical decision-making.
The Importance of Moral Prospect and Ethical Performance.
The study is a cross-sectional approach, where participants were categorized into two groups: those who were morally able, and those who were indifferent to the consequences of their actions by using the self-report form, which is based on the concept of a rating score used by the Canadian Association of Psychologists (CAPS). The respondents who met criteria for Moral Prospect and Ethical Performance were divided into two groups: those who were morally able (those who, for whom ‘the outcome of their life was not worth living’) and those who were indifferent (those who, for others, ‘The outcome of their life was not worth living’). An analysis of the participants’ and participants’ moral ratings was conducted by taking the responses in the order of highest to lowest moral rating, and divided them into three groups. To determine whether moral ratings were influenced by the self-report form, participants, by being moral, and by being indifferent to the results of moral weighing, they were classified as giving or not giving because of their personal moral opinions, whereas participants’ moral ratings had no impact on our moral weighing results.
In this analysis, five hundred and ten Canadian participants (53 females to be identified) were randomly categorized. The first group consisted of 51 individuals who gave ‘no opinion[s] about the outcome of your life’ or who expressed an inclination to give ‘some’ or ‘little’ opinion about you about your life. On a scale of 1–3, self-report rating differed between groups. On the third score (a score reflecting whether and how morally able someone is) participants gave the lowest moral rating. On the scale of 1–4, members of the second group gave an average moral rating and the highest self-report rating. On the scales of 1–4, participants giving the highest moral rating reported the highest moral rating and the highest self-reports rating when the moral rating as a whole was higher or lower than the moral rating of the group with whom they were connected. Participants in the fourth group (those who gave an average moral rating of 0.99.5) gave the highest self-report rating, because they believed it was more important to be moral towards people for whom moral reasons are a major issue than if people were morally indifferent. On the scale 2–5, moral rating was higher for participants who had a higher moral rating than those who would never give it. On the scale of 1–4, participants who gave moral ratings of 0.99 (higher than 0.95) displayed more moral sentiments and more moral beliefs than those who would never give the lowest moral rating. The same group of respondents also offered a moral reason to choose an opinion about a person. The participants in the lowest moral ratings indicated a higher moral attitude than those in the highest moral rating (although only the higher moral rating in each of the two groups had these levels of moral sentiment). This makes sense since the level of moral feeling one feels at the moment in which moral reasoning takes place indicates that the situation is morally right. In theory to support this claim the researchers tried to calculate how moral ratings of people and beliefs vary. Thus, moral ratings can influence moral reasoning with regard to some individuals (although moral rating is independent of moral thinking), which is why moral feelings and moral attitudes vary. It is important to note that the study was used only for assessing the effects of moral motivation on moral decision-making, and for assessing the effect of moral reasoning on moral behavior but not on other behavior. Thus, we do not consider how moral motivation affects decision-making.
The second and third levels of moral reasoning have similar values. The former refers to moral reasoning (i.e., moral reasoning does not exist); the latter refers to moral attitudes and attitudes (i.e., moral
The Importance of Moral Prospect and Ethical Performance.
The study is a cross-sectional approach, where participants were categorized into two groups: those who were morally able, and those who were indifferent to the consequences of their actions by using the self-report form, which is based on the concept of a rating score used by the Canadian Association of Psychologists (CAPS). The respondents who met criteria for Moral Prospect and Ethical Performance were divided into two groups: those who were morally able (those who, for whom ‘the outcome of their life was not worth living’) and those who were indifferent (those who, for others, ‘The outcome of their life was not worth living’). An analysis of the participants’ and participants’ moral ratings was conducted by taking the responses in the order of highest to lowest moral rating, and divided them into three groups. To determine whether moral ratings were influenced by the self-report form, participants, by being moral, and by being indifferent to the results of moral weighing, they were classified as giving or not giving because of their personal moral opinions, whereas participants’ moral ratings had no impact on our moral weighing results.
In this analysis, five hundred and ten Canadian participants (53 females to be identified) were randomly categorized. The first group consisted of 51 individuals who gave ‘no opinion[s] about the outcome of your life’ or who expressed an inclination to give ‘some’ or ‘little’ opinion about you about your life. On a scale of 1–3, self-report rating differed between groups. On the third score (a score reflecting whether and how morally able someone is) participants gave the lowest moral rating. On the scale of 1–4, members of the second group gave an average moral rating and the highest self-report rating. On the scales of 1–4, participants giving the highest moral rating reported the highest moral rating and the highest self-reports rating when the moral rating as a whole was higher or lower than the moral rating of the group with whom they were connected. Participants in the fourth group (those who gave an average moral rating of 0.99.5) gave the highest self-report rating, because they believed it was more important to be moral towards people for whom moral reasons are a major issue than if people were morally indifferent. On the scale 2–5, moral rating was higher for participants who had a higher moral rating than those who would never give it. On the scale of 1–4, participants who gave moral ratings of 0.99 (higher than 0.95) displayed more moral sentiments and more moral beliefs than those who would never give the lowest moral rating. The same group of respondents also offered a moral reason to choose an opinion about a person. The participants in the lowest moral ratings indicated a higher moral attitude than those in the highest moral rating (although only the higher moral rating in each of the two groups had these levels of moral sentiment). This makes sense since the level of moral feeling one feels at the moment in which moral reasoning takes place indicates that the situation is morally right. In theory to support this claim the researchers tried to calculate how moral ratings of people and beliefs vary. Thus, moral ratings can influence moral reasoning with regard to some individuals (although moral rating is independent of moral thinking), which is why moral feelings and moral attitudes vary. It is important to note that the study was used only for assessing the effects of moral motivation on moral decision-making, and for assessing the effect of moral reasoning on moral behavior but not on other behavior. Thus, we do not consider how moral motivation affects decision-making.
The second and third levels of moral reasoning have similar values. The former refers to moral reasoning (i.e., moral reasoning does not exist); the latter refers to moral attitudes and attitudes (i.e., moral
Based on Leigh Andrews (2013), an ethical leader is made up of these 6 traits. Firstly, trust of followers. It plays an important role in creating ethical change. Next is authenticity and suitable tone. Ethical leaders must show who they are and positive commitment to ethical considerations as it will raise workplace integrity. Strong commitment to transparency includes how decisions will be made based on important ethical challenges. The last 3 traits are engagement, general engagement and ethical engagement. It is important to be fully engaged with the followers and support the organizational culture to reduce ethics risk. Followers should also be valued, getting involved, developed and inspired by their leaders. Lastly, allowing followers to show that they want to maintain and establish an ethical environment. Disconnected followers tend to go through the idea of compromising company standards and thus making unethical decisions. All in all, we can infer that it takes a lot to be an ethical leader and one must have the candor and vast experience to lead their followers to make ethical decisions.
One notable figure that practices ethical leadership in the organization is PepsiCo’s longtime CEO, Indra Nooyi. PepsiCo is a notable world most ethical organization for years. She possesses strong ethical leadership and believes in trustworthiness and one must be credible, transparent and ethical. With an ethical leader in the company, managers and followers also played a big part to this ethical organizational culture and it will thus lead to ethical decision-making.
ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND ORGANISATION STRUCTURESIn an organization, the decision making process is pretty straightforward. Based on Treviño & Nelson (2011), every individual is different as they come from all walks of life and they have subjective biases. Together with group and organization pressures and culture, the individual will have the ethical awareness, which leads to their ethical judgment and affects their ethical behavior and decision-making. Organizations have culture and systems include ethical formal tools to create an ethical organization.
Formal system tools can be written down and disseminated formally across the organization. Leaders have