Ethical Traits for Leaders

Ethical Traits for Leaders

Part A

Deanna M. Mulligan

Mulligan is the current CEO and a member of the Board of Directors (BoD) at the Guardian Life Insurance Company of America. Deanna is a remarkable leader who continues to influence change in the company. She was ranked among “The 50 most powerful women in business in 2019” by the Fortune (Guardian, 2020). Besides, she had assumed many leadership positions both in the company and before she joined the company. She has made a lot of decisions for the firm, some of which involve ethical considerations. Her leadership style has influenced many people across the insurance industry and in the community (Guardian, 2020). Guardian Insurance Company has received several awards and accolades under Deanna’s leadership. A combination of leadership traits makes Deanna an influential, transformative and ethical leader as discussed below.

Ethical traits

Deanna possesses many leadership traits that add to make her a remarkable example of an ethical leader. Through these leadership traits, Deanna has influenced her employees within the company. They are all working to be more like her, and through her example, the employees have developed a culture that not only supports but also cultivates ethical conduct (Guardian, 2020). She does not only communicate ethical values and code of the company, but she lives the ethical principles set for the firm. Among the many ethical traits, Deanna is an honest and considerate leader.

Honesty. Deanna is not only straightforward but also a truthful, fair and sincere leader with high levels of integrity. She is always honest with herself and with others. She has also cultivated the culture of honest dealing throughout the company by being a good example. In most circumstances, Deanna often finds herself in situations that would compromise her integrity, but she has always stood by her principles.

Considerate. Deanna is a highly thoughtful leader who makes well-considered decisions. She has to factor in the implications on herself, other and the business for every single decision she makes. Her compassion for others drives her to always this of the positive and negative effects of her action. She has ever made decisions and acted in ways that are fair and just for everyone and humanely treated people.

Example

Not long ago, Deanna was called into a meeting with the Board of Directors to discuss the conduct of her staff. The BoD was receiving a lot of complaints from concerned customers that one of the employees at the company’s headquarters was being rude to customers, and no action was in place. Deanna was aware of the issue and had discussed it with the employee who pleaded with her that she should not take the matter to the BoD and promised to change. She promised the employee that she won’t disclose her to the BoD. However, the employees continued with her behaviour and did not change as promised.

When the BoD questioned the CEO, she was at first, torn in between telling the truth by disclosing the identity of the employee and keeping her promise of nondisclosure. Deanna was afraid that the BoD might fire the employee who was a divorcee with three kids to look after. At the same time, she was obliged to her duty and moral campus to tell the truth. Deanna decided to do the right thing by telling the BoD who the employee was. However, she pleaded with the Directors not to lay her off and promised to talk to her again for the last time. This experience is an excellent example of Deanna’s integrity and compassion.

Part B

Deontological Perspective

The morality of action under deontological theory is decided based on a set of rules. A series of regulations act as the basis for determining the wrong or right actions (Fransson, 2017). In this case, it will be ethical to keep quiet about the issue. The nondisclosure agreement guides ethical conduct, and therefore, whistleblowing will be an unethical act. The set of rules as outlined in the nondisclosure agreement direct that keeping quiet about the firm’s endeavours is the right thing. By signing in, you agree to the terms, and therefore deontologist would consider it unethical to shout about the issue. Although keeping quiet will mean continued use of the product and consequential infection or even death of patients, abiding to set rules is the ethical move here.

Consequentialism

While deontologists base ethical conduct of a set of rules, consequentialists determine wrong or right based on the consequences of the action. According to consequentialists, an action is ethical is it results in a positive impact and unethical if the outcome is undesirable (Fransson, 2017). In this case, we already know that the artificial joint has a negative side effect, that is potentially fatal. Although the product is less costly, it has an adverse long time effect that can cause death. Therefore, the long-term use of artificial joints consists of a long-term threat to the health and life of the patient. In that sense, keeping quiet about the issue would be unethical. he

Consequentialists consider the act of keeping quiet about the adverse effects of the artificial joint unethical because the result would mean people getting infected and possibly losing their lives. The best thing, therefore, based on the consequentialism theory is to blow a whistle. Consequentialism is all about the outcome of the action. By shouting about the problem with the product, the responsible body will take action. The action will ensure that the company recall the product and the society will not experience its long-term adverse effects. Although this is against the set rules, it is the right thing to do according to consequentialists.

Part C

The first question creates a scenario of the post-conventional level of morality, where the concept of social contract comes in. At this stage, one has to think of what society would expect him to do in such a situation (Elm, 2019). The individual will also consider what the society expects of him, and what obligations he has to the society. Therefore, acting ethically would mean choosing what would benefit the community. In this case, shouting about the problem with the artificial joins will benefit the society and hence ethical.

The second question creates a scenario that is in line with the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning. Here, the individual is concerned about obedience and punishment (Elm, 2019). He has to weigh between keeping quiet, which is abiding with the company’s rules or getting fired is he reveals the information. The decision depends on whether the individual is ready to lose the job for disclosing the information or not. Although it is not apparent that the employee will lose the job for revealing the information, the ethical choice of the employee is centred on obedience and punishment.

The third question creates a scenario in the post-conventional level of reasoning, where the moral campus of an individual comes into action. At this level, individuals live their ethical principles attached to such concepts as liberty, freedom and justice (Elm, 2019). The actions taken by individuals are not shaped by social norms but rather by personal principles. In this case, it would be upon the individual’s moral conviction and character judgment to act ethically. The individual will apply his moral standards to decide whether to reveal the information or not. It is in the sixth stage of cognitive development where abstract moral reasoning dictates the actions of an individual.

The fourth question creates a scenario that is in the conventional level of cognitive development. The actions of an individual in this level are guided by listening and biding to the law (Elm, 2019). The level of reasoning falls under stage four, where an individual is concerned about obedience to the authority and social order. Therefore, morality depends on obedience or disobedience to the law. If someone does not obey the law, he is acting immorally. In this case, the individual’s decision to reveal or keep the information will depend on what the law says and obedience to such.

The fifth question brings about a scenario that can be categorized in the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning. Notably, the situation involves the second stage of cognitive development, which is self-interest orientation (Elm, 2019). The individual cares less about others and is only concerned about what he stands to gain by acting in a certain way. People consider the right behaviour as that which is ‘convenient’ or beneficial to them. In this case, the individual will consider keeping quest since he will keep the job and avoid friction with administrators.

References

Elm, D. R. (2019). Cognitive Moral Development in Ethical Decision-making. Business Ethics, 360, 155À177.

Fransson, G. (2017). Understanding Morality and Ethics.

Guardian. (2020). About Deanna M. Mulligan. Retrieved from.https://www.guardianlife.com/leadership/deanna-m-mulligan