After reading the article “A Framework for Ethical Decision Making,” I gained insight into the six ethical lenses that guide our decision-making processes. One lens that particularly resonated with me is the Common Good Lens. I’ve come to realize that our ethical choices are significantly shaped by the environments we inhabit, influenced by both our behaviors and social factors. This lens emphasizes the importance of our communities in ethical reasoning.

As highlighted by Santa Clara University (2021), “This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others—especially the vulnerable—are requirements of such reasoning.” This quote struck me because it underscores how the communities we belong to impact our decision-making. I’ve noticed this in my own experiences, especially when working on group projects. When team members share a common goal and foster a positive atmosphere, decision-making becomes much smoother.

The framework for ethical decision-making reminds me of how I approach personal choices in my everyday life. Another lens that stood out to me is the Justice Lens, which focuses on fairness and equality. According to Santa Clara University (2021), “Equal treatment implies that people should be treated as equals according to some defensible standard such as merit or need, but not necessarily that everyone should be treated in the exact same way in every respect.” This principle is particularly relevant in collaborative settings. When creating team charters, we always establish guidelines to ensure that everyone is treated equitably and fairly.

Source: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/

In the article “40 Years of Storming: A Historical Review of Tuckman’s Model of Small Group Development,” Bonebright highlights several key aspects: the historical evolution and development of Tuckman’s model from its inception, the core stages of the model, and its practical applications. Initially, there were four stages of group development. These four stages include Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. Bonebright is very passionate when writing about the model’s evolution over nearly four decades and describing its impact in several atmospheres such as workplace behavior and team interactions. I find Tuckman’s model relevant to my experiences with team interactions throughout not only college but high school as well. In the past, I have often worried about group projects due to concerns about unequal credit for different group members’ contributions. However, in recent projects, I will have my team adopt an agreement form where everyone documents their contributions and signs off on them. This approach helps address the challenges described in the ‘Storming’ phase of Tuckman’s model, where conflicts over roles and contributions often arise. By formalizing our agreements, we can navigate these conflicts more effectively and ensure everyone receives appropriate recognition for their work.
On a related note, Tuckman’s model proves relevant in real-world contexts like organizational group development and project oversight. The phases of the model frequently correspond with typical patterns observed in workplace teams, where early disagreements eventually lead to smoother and more cohesive teamwork in the end. However, it is important to acknowledge the model’s limits. ​​The model lacks sufficient coverage of the external influences that form group dynamics and this tends to present a simplified, linear view of team interactions. For instance, the model does not fully account for how cultural differences and organizational changes in global teams can introduce complexities that significantly influence group development, highlighting limitations in its applicability to diverse and evolving team contexts.

Source: https://moodle-courses2425.wolfware.ncsu.edu/pluginfile.php/654178/mod_resource/content/2/40%20Years%20of%20Storming%20Tuckman.pdf

The article by Jaffe and Scott highlights how companies such as Levi Strauss, AT&T, and Nordstrom define conflicts between personal and organizational values through different structured values.

For example, at Levis Strauss, top managers would use the “value cards” exercise in order to rank their own values. This was done so that their personal values and organizational goals could be aligned in order to improve overall performance. I can relate to this as I have used this strategy before in a group project for a critical thinking assignment. I am a strong believer that people’s values have everything to do with how they work and the workplace they choose to be in everyday.  

As I read this article, I read about AT&T managers and how they engaged in a workshop where they defined their personal values and discussed how their values should direct their actions. This workshop resulted in enhanced team unity and had a positive effect on problem solving.

Continuing, Nordstrom emphasized to their employees how important it was to have a shared value of customer satisfaction, which allowed for personal discretion in how this value was applied. 

“The survey shows that when people’s personal values are seen as congruent with their company’s values, their personal lives are better and they feel more optimistic about their jobs.” This quote specifically stood out to me when reading the article because I have always been told about jobs in the real world that “it is not a job if you love doing it”. This makes perfect sense because when people are going to work and actually enjoying what they are doing and who they are working with they don’t have a negative work life to bring into their personal lives all of the time. 

After reading this article, I can conclude that obtaining organizational values can enhance personal engagement and resolve bumps in the road with not only your workplace but your personal life as well.

Source: https://moodle-courses2425.wolfware.ncsu.edu/pluginfile.php/654176/mod_resource/content/3/Jaffe_Link_Personal_Values_Team_Values.pdf

The article title is ‘How to link personal Values with team values.’

In the article from module 1 “Top 10 Qualities That Make A Great Leader”, Forbes highlights essential qualities that define great leaders, emphasizing traits that can drive success and inspiration to teams. As noted in the article, vision and honesty are fundamental in earning both respect and dedication from a team. Leaders who display a well-defined vision set the standard and inspire others to follow, while honesty establishes trust and fosters effective teamwork (Myers, 2024). The Forbes article’s observations resonate with my own experiences in leadership roles. I have observed that vision and honesty are fundamental and essential to earning not only the respect but also dedication of any team. Leaders who possess a well-defined vision not only set the standard but also inspire others to follow in the same direction. Honesty, on the other side of things, establishes not only trust but a true based relationship that is crucial for effective teamwork. Empathy and communication also stand out as particularly impactful in fostering a positive team culture. Leaders who are always actively listening and show genuine care for their team’s welfare create an environment where people feel valued and understood. As a result, this enhances collaboration and morale. The focus on adaptability and fortitude resonates with the rapidly changing and fast-paced nature of today’s work environment. Leaders who can adapt to new strategies and bounce back from setbacks are in better positions to guide their teams through the challenges they may face. Overall, these qualities are integral to creating an atmosphere and successful leadership approach. Balancing vision with empathy, and decisiveness with adaptability, can substantially impact a leader’s effectiveness and the overall success of one’s team.

Source:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/forbes-top-10-qualities-make-great-leader-tedson-myers-cpa-mba/

This is a test

Test