I found this article insightful, even though it was quite long. I appreciated that it began by emphasizing the first step in the decision-making process: recognizing that you’re facing a moral dilemma. Once that’s identified, the next step is understanding the nature of the dilemma and deciding how to resolve it. I found it particularly interesting that the article discusses how people often struggle to identify moral dilemmas due to “moral intensity.” According to the article’s Proposition 1, issues with high moral intensity are more likely to be recognized as moral issues than those with low moral intensity. I completely agree with this point! I would also add that issues with low moral intensity not only tend to go unrecognized as moral dilemmas but also make people less likely to see themselves as moral agents. This tendency contributes to what’s known as the bystander effect, where individuals are less likely to intervene in a situation that doesn’t directly impact them. When moral intensity is low, people might feel less accountable or assume someone else will step in, resulting in inaction. This article effectively highlights the link between moral awareness and action, showing how moral intensity can influence whether individuals see a situation as requiring ethical consideration and intervention.

Source:

Thomas M. Jones. Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 366-3. Published by: Academy of Management. http://www.jstor.org/stable/258867

In my experience as a lifeguard, I can see how the intuitive decision-making model applies. This model refers to arriving at decisions without conscious reasoning and is often used by experts who face high-stakes situations, such as fire chiefs, pilots, and nurses. These professionals don’t typically sort through a list of options; instead, they identify cues in the environment, recognize patterns, and draw upon their experience to make quick, effective decisions.

As a lifeguard, I’ve been trained to respond similarly. We’re required to know precisely what to look for and how to perform life-saving procedures based on immediate observations. Since so much of our work is about responding intuitively, proper training is critical. I’ve practiced numerous life-saving scenarios during training, preparing for every potential emergency that might occur at the pool. Additionally, we’re required to recertify every two years, ensuring we retain the skills and knowledge to recognize and respond to a crisis swiftly. Although I’ve never had to make a real rescue in my five years as a lifeguard, I’ve practiced these scenarios hundreds of times. Through these repeated exercises, I’ve developed an intuitive understanding of how to assess situations quickly and act without needing to consciously analyze every step. This ability to recognize patterns—such as spotting subtle signs of distress—enables me to respond instinctively, much like the experts described in research on intuitive decision-making.

Source: Principles of Management. Pages 478-479. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. 2010.

One key point in this article that stands out is the idea that language both shapes and limits the development of values. Through language, we can articulate and share beliefs, norms, and cultural ideals. For example, words like “justice,” “freedom,” and “equality” carry meanings that are socially constructed and shared, enabling communities to rally around common ideals. The language we use to describe our values thus becomes essential for building collective understanding and commitment.

However, language also constrains our ability to develop values fully. Limited by cultural and historical contexts, language can lack precise words for certain concepts, or those concepts may be entirely absent in some cultures. This is especially apparent in cross-cultural comparisons: while some cultures may lack a word for “personal success,” they may have rich terminology around “community harmony.” The absence of specific terms does not imply a lack of value but rather a different framework for what is deemed important. Without language for certain values, it becomes challenging to fully articulate or explore them, which restricts how they’re developed and understood within that linguistic framework.

Language can also reinforce stereotypes and biases, influencing how we perceive values in ourselves and others. For example, euphemisms for marginalized groups can affect societal attitudes and limit a community’s ability to develop inclusive values. Similarly, vague or euphemistic language can dilute values’ meanings, making it harder for people to connect with or advocate for them. This limitation is particularly impactful when considering that many values are instilled early in life, often shaped by parental influences and lived experiences, extending to the language used to describe and contextualize these values.

Source: Guth, William D., and Renato Tagiuri. “Personal Values and Corporate Strategy.” Harvard Business Review, 1965.

While reading this text, several points resonated strongly with me. First, the concept of establishing credibility by under-promising and over-delivering is compelling. In my engineering entrepreneurship class, it’s clear how challenging it can be to not only recognize a product’s limitations but also share those weaknesses with investors and consumers. When pitching products, the natural inclination is to highlight every positive feature and potential, not the areas where it falls short. Yet, the honesty in acknowledging limitations can ultimately strengthen credibility and build trust with stakeholders.

Another valuable takeaway is the emphasis on accountability. When mistakes are made, taking responsibility by openly communicating what went wrong and explaining the reasoning behind certain decisions is essential. This ability to self-reflect and assess one’s role in a larger issue is an important skill for leaders and is essential for ethical leadership. 

Lastly, I appreciated the point that KIND values collaborative decision-making with its trading partners. This approach creates a community-driven framework for problem-solving and helps build a sense of shared purpose and motivation for outsourced teams. It not only enhances partnerships but also promotes alignment on values, strengthening the ethical foundation of the organization.

In summary, I found this section insightful and informative, answering many questions I had about implementing ethics and values in the workplace. The guidance on credibility, accountability, and collaboration provides a practical blueprint for transparent ethical leadership.

Source: Lubetzky, D. (2015). Transparency and Authenticity: The Value of OpenCommication. Ballentine Books. https://moodle-courses2425.wolfware.ncsu.edu/pluginfile.php/654233/mod_resource/content/2/Lubetzky_Do_The_Kind_Thing_Chap7_Transparency%20and%20Authenticity.pdf

By: Maggie Pohl

The article highlights how changing societal values throughout history change employee and employer expectations, changing leadership styles. In my opinion, the most prevalent time of societal change when it came to employee rights was during the industrial revolution. Before this time, leadership was rigid, and decisions about worker rights were left to individual leaders, often to the detriment of employees. The industrial revolution marked a shift, with growing public concern over issues like child labor, working hours, and safety, leading to laws and regulations. I hypothesize that this shift in societal values was driven by the increasing number of people working, regardless of their class, and by the more dangerous working conditions. Despite these changes, many industries still resisted adopting these new standards, revealing the gap between evolving societal values and leadership practices. 

As mentioned in the article, historically leadership has been a “my way or the highway” approach, while in modern times there is a focus on team goals and commitments. Many of the tycoons of the industrial era were hesitant to move from a leader based workplace to an employee one. Giving employees rights slowed down production and applied rules to the way employers lead their employees. While today, we do not often think about how these laws and regulations revolutionized leadership styles, during the industrial revolution this was a prevalent concept. The focus shift from employer comfort to employee comfort is an important aspect to analyze when we look at leadership throughout history. 

Published by: Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society

Ethical Decision-Making Framework (Cavanagh) vs. “Thinking Ethically”

By Maggie Pohl

In the article “Ethical Role of the Manager” they cite Gerald Cavanagh’s ethical framework as a method that leaders should take when analyzing moral conflicts. Gerald Cavanagh’s framework outlines four key methods of ethical reasoning: rights and duties, utilitarianism, justice, and care ethics. The main difference that I found was that Cavanagh’s interpretation of care ethics suggests prioritizing long-term employees because of their deeper organizational ties, which can lead to decisions favoring some groups over others. The approach from “Thinking Ethically”, however, emphasizes an equal standard of care across all employees, avoiding bias based on personal relationships. I feel as if this can be misleading in Cavanagh’s framework and potentially open the door to favoritism.

I feel that a solution to this issue, found not only in Cavanagh’s framework but also in “Thinking Ethically,” would be solved with a more participative ethical decision-making process. This would be where managers actively engage and have their teams participate in the moral reasoning behind decisions. I value the ethical framework presented by Cavanagh but want to emphasize the need for constant analysis and reflection to ensure fair and inclusive outcomes. While I feel that Cavanagh’s framework is comprehensive, it may benefit from a broader application or additional team input more closely aligned with the approach discussed in “Thinking Ethically”.

By Maggie Pohl

When I was reading “A Framework for Ethical Thinking” I was immediately reminded of the article “Thinking Ethically.”

“A Framework for Ethical Thinking” outlines the six ethical lenses and defines them as the rights lens, the justice lens, the utilitarian lens, the common good lens, the virtue lens, and the care ethics lens. This directly correlates to the five approaches discussed in “Thinking Ethically” consisting of the rights approach, the common good approach, the virtue approach, the utilitarian approach, and the fairness or justice approach. The only lens that differs from the approaches laid out in “Thinking Ethically” is the cares ethics lens, which prioritizes the need to listen and respond to individuals in their specific circumstances. This is a lens that I feel should be included when making an ethical decision. This is the only lens that I see that allows for a user to take into consideration the specific circumstances. My biggest concern with the approach laid out in “Thinking Ethically” was the reality of the environments that these approaches are being used. By including the care ethics lens to an ethical discussion it allows for managers to analysis the impact of their decision in terms of humanity and care for the people affected.

Sources:

Thinking Ethically. Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Aug. 1, 2015. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/thinking-ethically/

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Nov 8, 2021. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/

Thinking Ethically by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer. Aug. 1, 2015

When reading “Thinking Ethically”, I found myself remembering times in which I was in a team environment and used some of these methods to analyze our own beliefs. Within this experience it felt very personal and like we covered a lot of moral issues. However, I found that in my opinion, a lot of the approaches on their own are not sufficient. In particular, the common good approach sounds really nice however, without clear definitions on what “the community” is as well as the social policies, systems, institutions, and environments that are considered “good for the community” there could be many ways in which this could be abused. In addition to this the Utilitarian approach which says that the most ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the largest number of people. I feel as if this approach increases discrimination. Minorities exist and should not be ignored when making ethical decisions. I would suggest that other methods and approaches be used in conjunction with this approach to insure the most long-term success. That is why I appreciate that the article concludes that all of these approaches should be used when analyzing a moral decision. The five key questions that are posed at the end of the article summarizes all of the approaches. The main problem that I encountered with these key five questions is the reality of where they are being asked and in what environments. I imagine these questions seem to appear within a meeting room with a set team of people. The people who are at the table get to answer these questions. But how do we decide who gets to sit at the table and answer these questions? 

Source: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/thinking-ethically/

40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development By Denise A. Bonebright

This article brings to mind the many advancements and studies in group development by naval officers and/or military departments. The need for consistent and repeatable processes within the military is crucial, as a result in the realm of group development is quite extensive when observing military operations. I have found that military studies and developmental models have served as key fundamental research on grpup processes and development.

In the article it is the widespread use of Tuckman’s model in HRD and management is mentioned and is used to show hows how foundational models can become pillars in fields. This reminds me of similar industries adopting early frameworks simply because they are the only available references at the time. I would be interested in learning more about other models that have been developed after the Tuckman model and how common and accurate they are within teams.

Group dynamics are more complex in the real world than Tuckman’s suggest. The idea of moving linearly from one stage to the next is overly simplistic and ignores external pressures. In reality, teams are deeply influenced by external factors like organizational culture, market conditions, or even global events that dramatically affect team functioning. These external pressures can disrupt group development in ways Tuckman’s model doesn’t account for.

How to Link Personal Values with Team Values by Jaffe, Dennis T. and Scott, Cynthia D.

In this article the focus on aligning personal and team values reminds me of real-world workplace conflicts where misaligned values often cause misunderstandings. This creates tension, leading to conflict, especially when the company’s values aren’t clearly communicated or open to discussion.

This article brings up an interesting point about expectations of values within the workplace. So often have employees entered a workplace and just assumed that the other employees and managers would have similar values. On the opposing side, workplaces often assume employees are aligned with the company’s values, without taking the time to explore individuals’ values. This assumption is detrimental as it allows employees go off of assumptions rather than clearly defined values. Lulling companies and employees into a false sense of security. By not having clear expectations of values including standards on how work should be done, what goals are prioritized, or how success is measured conflicts arise. Additionally, when conflicts arise, team set values can serve as a non-judgmental reference point to resolve them.

The main difference that I could find between this article and the real world is companies focus on understanding individual employees’ values. In the real world companies are much more focused on defining and enforcing corporate values. The text describes organizations that leverage and discuss personal values. Many times corporations will not even speak about corporate or personal values unless a conflict arises. Using the discussion of values as a fire extinguisher instead of a prevention mechanism. In short, the real world often leans more toward reactive conflict resolution based on assumed shared values.