The article explores the concept of value-based leadership (VBL) and its importance in fostering organizational success and adaptability in today’s dynamic environment. Organizations face significant challenges in managing diverse workforces characterized by varied values, cultures, and experiences. Leaders must balance creating a unified organizational culture with respecting individual differences, emphasizing the need for shared values to promote cohesion and productivity. Core leadership values such as truthfulness, justice, commitment, communication, creativity, and meaningful work are central to this approach. Leaders must effectively communicate and act in alignment with these values to build trust and guide behavior across their organizations. The article introduces the idea of an organizational “value covenant,” a framework to align different groups within an organization toward shared goals and ideals, promoting unity over division. In light of rapid changes driven by globalization, technological advancements, and shifting social and economic pressures, the article argues that traditional management methods are inadequate. The demands of the modern era call for adaptable leadership styles rooted in shared values. To address these challenges, the researchers propose a five-part model of VBL, consisting of philosophy, principles, conceptual frameworks, processes, and appraisal systems, validated by university faculty members. This discussion of VBL is especially relevant today, as organizations increasingly focus on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) initiatives. Stakeholders demand transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct, making value-based leadership essential for navigating these expectations. For example, companies like Google and Microsoft emphasize inclusivity, equitable workplaces, and sustainability, reflecting VBL principles in their strategies. However, challenges arise when actions, such as employee layoffs, appear misaligned with espoused values. Similarly, the shift to remote and hybrid workforces post-pandemic underscores the importance of shared values in maintaining cohesion and collaboration across geographically dispersed teams.

This research examines how managerial value orientations (MVOs) have evolved over time, highlighting a shift in mid- to upper-level managers’ values over the past 20+ years. The study, using the Rokeach Value Survey, contrasts managers’ priorities from the late 1980s to early 2010s and finds a significant trend: managers today are more likely to prioritize moral values over competence-based values. The findings underscore the critical role of values in shaping managerial behavior, organizational culture, and ethical climates, reinforcing their importance in decision-making processes, especially during times of global and organizational turbulence. This shift toward moral values in managerial decision-making can be directly tied to contemporary trends in the business world, such as the increasing emphasis on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria. Companies like BlackRock and other global firms are doubling down on ESG initiatives, reflecting a broader cultural and generational shift toward values-driven leadership. Similarly, the rise of stakeholder capitalism—where businesses are judged not just by profits but by their contributions to society, employees, and the environment—aligns with the study’s findings of managers valuing ethics and moral responsibility more today than in the past. The study’s implications are particularly relevant in the wake of corporate scandals, where leadership’s moral failings have often been at the center of controversy. For example, the recent focus on ethical leadership in the aftermath of the FTX collapse highlights the need for leaders who prioritize integrity over purely technical competence. It also sheds light on how organizations are rethinking their leadership development programs to ensure alignment with modern ethical and cultural expectations.

The Principles of Managment article explores the decision-making process, emphasizing its importance in management and identifying different decision-making models used within organizations. Although decision-making is essential to management, studies reveal that about half of managers’ decisions ultimately fail, underscoring the need for improved decision-making strategies (Ireland & Miller, 2004). The article differentiates between programmed and nonprogrammed decisions: Programmed Decisions: Routine decisions that recur frequently, leading to “decision rules” (e.g., giving a free dessert to dissatisfied customers). Nonprogrammed Decisions: Unique, complex decisions that require careful thought and information gathering (e.g., McDonald’s offering healthier menu options). Decision-making is further divided into strategic, tactical, and operational levels. Strategic decisions set the organization’s overall direction, tactical decisions focus on implementing strategies, and operational decisions manage daily functions. The article integrates ethical questions as a crucial part of decision-making. It suggests assessing decisions by asking if they are fair, align with organizational rules, and lead to positive self-reflection (Blanchard & Peale, 1988). The relevance of these frameworks today is evident in complex, high-stakes decisions, such as those involving corporate responsibility, data privacy, and crisis management. This article’s insights on decision-making underscore the importance of balancing efficiency with ethics, a priority for today’s managers in an increasingly complex business environment.

This article discusses the growing focus on ethics within organizations, spurred by scandals like insider trading, defense contractor issues, and high-profile resignations. In response, many corporations have adopted codes of ethics, while academic interest in ethics has led to expanded research and courses, notably in business ethics journals and textbooks. Despite this, theoretical and empirical studies on ethical decision-making within organizations remain limited. The few existing models come primarily from psychology and marketing, with scholars like Trevino (1986), Rest (1986), and Ferrell & Gresham (1985) each offering distinct frameworks. For example: Rest’s Model (1986): A four-component process that includes recognizing a moral issue, making a judgment, setting moral intent, and acting accordingly. This model focuses on individual moral development. Trevino’s Person-Situation Model: Emphasizes that ethical decisions are influenced by a person’s moral reasoning and situational factors, like workplace culture. Ferrell & Gresham’s Marketing Model: Considers how individual factors (values, knowledge) and organizational factors (peer influence, corporate policies) affect ethical decision-making in marketing contexts. The article also introduces an “issue-contingent” model that suggests moral issues vary in intensity, influencing the decision-making process. It posits that moral intensity—the impact a decision has on others—is a significant component in understanding ethical behavior. This discussion is particularly relevant today as organizations and society grapple with complex ethical issues, like corporate accountability, privacy, and social responsibility. With increased public scrutiny, this model underscores the importance of building both ethical awareness and robust ethical frameworks within organizations.

LuLaRoe, a direct-selling clothing company, is facing a lawsuit in Washington State for allegedly operating a pyramid scheme. The Washington State Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, claims the company enticed consultants with deceptive promises of high profits and easy returns on unsold inventory. Instead, many consultants accumulated debt and unsellable stock. LuLaRoe’s business model targeted stay-at-home mothers and others seeking supplemental income, requiring an “onboarding” fee up to $9,000 to become consultants. A primary ethical issue lies in LuLaRoe’s sales strategy. The company allegedly focused more on recruiting new consultants, each paying a substantial onboarding fee, than on supporting existing sellers with a marketable inventory. Consultants reportedly had limited choice over the styles and sizes of items they purchased after their initial investment, receiving only pre-selected bundles. Prior to July 2017, LuLaRoe’s compensation model awarded bonuses based on the recruitment of new sellers, violating Washington’s Antipyramid Promotional Scheme law. The ethical framework violated here includes principles of honesty, transparency, and fairness in business practices. LuLaRoe’s misleading promises and recruitment-focused model undermined consultants’ trust and left many financially burdened. Such practices highlight the ethical concerns in multilevel marketing models where profit depends on continuous recruitment, often at the expense of those involved. By promoting these deceptive strategies, LuLaRoe’s approach raises significant questions about corporate responsibility and the exploitation of individuals seeking entrepreneurship. The lawsuit aims to hold LuLaRoe accountable and prevent further harm to vulnerable sellers.

Covid 19 was an unprecedented experience for everyone around the world. With unprecedented experiences come hard decisions. In the playing favorites article, we see first-hand difficult decisions at play with the ever-so-coveted and scarce COVID-19 vaccine. In this case, hospitals were pricking favorites and allowing early access for board members and large donors to get the vaccine. This decision by the hospital poses all sorts of ethical questions. Why should people who have lots of money be able to get the vaccine before patients who actually need it in order to survive the pandemic? This directly clashes with most ethical frameworks I have learned about. The two that come to mind right away are duty-based and utilitarianism.  Utilitarianism is choosing the path or outcome that leads to the most overall satisfaction or good. Choosing the board members to get the first doses does the exact opposite. There were other patients that were more at risk for infection and possible long-term effects than most of the board members. For duty, the whole point of a hospital and the health system is to treat the sick and vulnerable. By offering donors and board members the vaccine first the hospital neglected its duty to look after the sick and vulnerable. Yes, Covid was unpredictable and a hard time for everyone which led to this poor decision in the end but when you take a step back the hospital should have realized they were violating their own ethical code of conduct. 

My favorite article from this module was Tom Huddletons article on Fyre Festivle. The reason for this is I watched the documentary on Netlfix about Fyre Festvile. This article also is a prime example of a poor CEO and his affect on a company and his employees, For context the Fyre Festivle was branded as an exclusive and luxurious music festival located on a private island in the Bahamas. Festival goers paid thousands of dollars for this festival with the hopes of having a once in a lifetime experience. However, once they landed in the Bahamas they soon came to realize that there dream had quickly turned into a nightmare. Everything that was promised when they purchased tickets was all a lie. This incident is one of the largest public scams in recent history. The CEO Billy McFarland was the mastermind behind this festival. He is a perfect example of what not to do when you are a CEO. He lured in festival goers promising them things that were not even remotely accurate to the actual event. Instead of being upfront he tried to cover his tracks but social media exposed him for the crook that he is. He walked away from the festival with millions of dollars in his pocket due to his con. However, it would later come back to haunt him because he got charged and spent six years in prison. This article provides a great example of poor leadership and how it is more common than people think in todays world.

In today’s world, I believe that a company is as only as strong and successful as its CEO. The CEO of a company is an extremely difficult job to have due to the fact that every decision you possibly make can have either a positive or negative impact on a company that employs thousands of people and is trying to make a profit. These decisions can alter the company, affect the workforce’s livelihoods, and alter the surrounding environment. This can be a lot so most companies would want to hire a CEO that they believe would lead the company down the best path. In the article, I read by Forbes on the most reputable CEOs of 2019 many of the candidates shared very similar traits. One of these traits is having a strong moral compass. In my opinion, having a strong moral compass is necessary for someone if they want to lead a company that can greatly impact the surrounding community. Too often we see articles in the news of companies taking advantage or breaking the law in order to boost profits.  Having a leader who is able to steer his employees away from these decisions is key to running a successful company. By having someone at the very top who has a moral compass the company will experience a trickle-down effect directly from the top. This will show managers and normal employees that it is not ok to act in a non-moral way when working for said company. 

In the second part of this module, I took my previous knowledge and what I learned through the readings and got to apply it in a comparative analysis between two business ethics blogs. For me this was a fairly new concept analyzing ethics within the business world. When ethics has been brought up in past classes it is usually surrounding more over-encompassing moral issues in the world such as famine and war. This exercise was interesting because I got to dissect different ethical issues within the business world using different ethical lenses. I found it very interesting that most of these ethical issues I read about in the blogs can be interpreted in very different ways depending on the ethical approach you take. For example, utilitarianism paints a drastically different lens for most ethical issues in the business world. Utilitarianism is picking the outcome that will bring good to the most amount of people. For example, sometimes a business may have to do things like lay off workers or outsource work overseas. This may look bad and unethical to most people at first glance but if you dig deeper it may not be the worst thing. A utilitarian mindset would say maybe the layoffs and outsourcing are keeping the company afloat which means at the end of the day it is bringing good to all the employees at the company except for the ones that lost their jobs. Using these different ethical lenses helps paint a picture of the situation that may have not been there before allowing outside people to better comprehend the full situation. 

This module based on ethics and ethical decision making was a glimpse back into the past for me which I found interesting. Last fall I took contemporary moral issues with Dr. Krylow. The first half of this philosophy course was focused on the foundation and building blocks that made up philosophy. A large chunk of the foundation and building blocks we learned delt with different ethical lenses such as utilitarianism, Kantianism, and other ethical philosophies. In this class as the title of the class states we looked at moral issues that were happening in the world and dissected them through the different ethical lenses that we learned. However, in this module I got the opportunity to take my prior knowledge and new knowledge I learned through reading the articles and apply it to more relevant topics in my life such as the business world and ongoing ethical issues it faces. The business world is littered with ethical dilemmas at all points. Most people see these dilemmas as being either right or wrong. However, when we look at these dilemmas through different ethical lenses it may shed some light on the through process that went into the decision made. For example, Cisco, a leader in the tech industry, has repeated mass layoffs of its workforce multiple times a year. Most people on the outside, see it as highly unethical to fire a large amount of employess frequently. However, if we look at this situation from a utilitarian perspective it may make more sense. What if firing a couple of thousand employees here and there keeps the company at a profitable margin and allows all the other employees to reap the benefits and keep a stable job? This would benefit the majority in this situation.