DigitalArticleLeadership & ManagingPeopleDon’t Try

Digital
Article
Leadership & Managing
People
Don’t Try to Be the “Fun
Boss” — and Other Lessons
in Ethical Leadership
by Kimberly Nei and Darin Nei
This document is authorized for use only by Tylecia Westbrook
in WMBA-6010B-1/WMBA-6010-1/MSPM-6010-1/COMM-
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
Term-wks-9-thru-16-(11/01/2021-12/26/2021)-PT4 at Laureate
Education - Walden University, 2021.
Don’t Try to Be the “Fun
Boss” — and Other Lessons in
Ethical Leadership
by Kimberly Nei and Darin Nei
Published on HBR.org / September 10, 2018 / Reprint
H04HHY
Juj Winn/Getty Images
Just becoming a leader is enough to exacerbate some people’s

unethical tendencies. But power does not corrupt everyone. Our
research suggests that key personality characteristics predict
unethical
leadership behavior.
We collected personality data and supervisor ratings of ethical
behavior
(e.g., integrity, accountability) on 3,500 leaders across 30
organizations
we had worked with. The organizations included in our study
were
HBR / Digital Article / Don’t Try to Be the “Fun Boss” —
and Other Lessons in Ethical Leadership…
Copyright © 2018 Harvard Business School Publishing. All
rights reserved. 1
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
https://hbr.org/2018/09/dont-try-to-be-the-fun-boss-and-other-
lessons-in-ethical-leadership
https://www.fastcompany.com/3068385/why-becoming-a-leader-
makes-some-people-more-unethical
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijsa.12201
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijsa.12201

largely multinational, represented several industries, and varied
in size
from medium to large. We combined data across these 30
independent
studies to examine the relationship between personality and
ethical
leadership across a range of different settings and situations.
We found
that characteristics related to certain traits have stronger
relationships
with unethical behavior.
So, what should today’s leaders do to build trust with their
teams and
the public? Here are a few tips, based on our findings:
1. Be humble; not charismatic. It is natural that we are attracted
to
people whom we perceive to be inspiring, fun, and engaging. It
makes sense that you need a little charisma or pizzazz to stand
out
from others and get noticed. Charisma can also be useful for
engaging and inspiring others towards the organizational
mission.

However, too much of this may be a bad thing in the eyes of
your
team members. Unchecked charisma will lead to a reputation of
self-
absorption and self-promotion. When team members get the
sense
that you are focused on your own concerns and ideas, they feel
unsupported. The team may start to worry that you will no
longer do
what is best for the team or organization, and that you will
instead do
what is best for your own agenda.
2. Be steady and dependable; it will get you further. While you
may
have been noticed and promoted based on your charisma, being
reliable, rule-following, and responsible is more important for
your
team. As a leader, you have a tremendous amount of autonomy
and
decision-making power. If we are to entrust our leaders with
such
power, we need to be confident in their ability to remain true to
their

word and to do what’s right for the organization. Showing your
team
that you exercise caution, take calculated risks, and will adhere
to
rights reserved. 2
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
https://hbr.org/2012/11/the-dark-side-of-charisma
organizational principles will go a long way toward gaining
their
trust.
3. Remember that modesty is the best policy. At times, we may
all
enjoy working in an environment that is less formal, or working
for a
boss who knows how to keep things light-hearted. However,
there is

still a degree of responsibility and professionalism that people
come
to expect from those in charge. Trying to be liked and known as
“the
fun boss” can tarnish your reputation in the long run. It’s OK to
stay
out of the limelight and keep some space between you and your
team. It sends signals that you are there for their professional
benefit
and that they can rely on you when needed.
4. Balance analysis with action. Although people appreciate a
degree
of logic and rationality in the decision-making process, be
careful to
not get so focused on data and analysis that you forget the
larger
context or the impact of your decisions. Spending too much
time
analyzing data can hold you back from making important
decisions,
especially in high-pressure situations that call for quick action.
The
data may indicate the best course of action for the bottom line,

but
this may not be the best decision for the broader team or
relevant
stakeholders. Leadership must be able to make a decision and
take
corrective action quickly, even if it initially hurts the bottom
line.
5. Be vigilant; vulnerability increases over time. Learning and
adjusting to a new role, especially a high-visibility leadership
role,
can take some time. It’s during the first few months in a new
role that
we usually spend more time observing what’s going on around
us. We
also tend to be more mindful of our interactions with others and
may
spend more time managing the impressions we make on others.
Over
time, we become more comfortable in our surroundings and we
stop
paying attention to our reputations. It’s usually after the six-
month

rights reserved. 3
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
mark where we see an increased risk of our dark-side tendencies
impeding our success or derailing our careers. Keep your guard
up,
stay vigilant, and continually seek feedback.
The personality characteristics that will get you chosen as a
leader are
not always the same as the ones that will make you effective in
that role.
Spending too much time trying to get noticed or having a “win
at all
costs” mentality to get ahead can put you (and your team) at a
higher
risk of engaging in unethical behavior. Having awareness of
your
surroundings and an understanding of the ways you influence

your
team will help to keep yourself (and your team) on track.
KN
Kimberly Nei is a manager of client research at Hogan
Assessments
where she manages the design and implementation of legally
defensible assessment-based selection and development
solutions.
DN
Darin Nei is a senior consultant with Hogan Assessment’s
Global
Alliances team where he works closely with international
consulting
partners to deliver science-based solutions and ensure
assessment
quality across a variety of cultures and languages.
rights reserved. 4
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
https://www.hoganassessments.com/about/
https://www.hoganassessments.com/about/

REPRINT R2001L
PUBLISHED IN HBR
JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2020
ARTICLE
MANAGING YOURSELF
Building an
Ethical Career
A three-stage approach to navigating moral challenges at work
by Maryam Kouchaki and Isaac H. Smith
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
http://hbr.org/search/R2001L
Illustrations by NISHANT CHOKSI
A d v i c e a n d I n s p i ra t i o n
MANAGING YOURSELF
BUILDING AN
ETHICAL CAREER
A three-stage approach
to navigating moral
challenges at work
by Maryam Kouchaki and Isaac H. Smith

Experience
M O S T O F U S T H I N K of ourselves as good people. We
set out to
be ethical, and we hope that in pivotal moments we will rise to
the occasion. But when it comes to building an ethical career,
good intentions are insufficient. Decades’ worth of research has
identified social and psychological processes and biases that
cloud
people’s moral judgment, leading them to violate their own
values
and often to create contorted, post hoc justifications for their
behavior. So how can you ensure that from day to day and
decade
to decade you will do the right thing in your professional life?
The first step requires shifting to a mindset we term moral
humility—the recognition that we all have the capacity to trans-
gress if we’re not vigilant. Moral humility pushes people to
admit
FOR ARTICLE REPRINTS CALL 800-988-0886 OR 617-783-
7500, OR VISIT HBR.ORG
Harvard Business Review
January–February 2020 2
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
http://hbr.org

that temptations, rationalizations, and
situations can lead even the best of us to
misbehave, and it encourages them to
think of ethics as not only avoiding the
bad but also pursuing the good. It helps
them see this sort of character develop-
ment as a lifelong pursuit. We’ve been
conducting research on morality and
ethics in the workplace for more than a
decade, and on the basis of our own and
others’ findings, we suggest that people
who want to develop ethical careers
should consider a three-stage approach:
(1) Prepare in advance for moral chal-
lenges; (2) make good decisions in the
moment; and (3) reflect on and learn
from moral successes and failures.
PLANNING TO BE GOOD
Preparing for ethical challenges is impor-
tant, because people are often well aware
of what they should do when thinking
about the future but tend to focus on
what they want to do in the present. This
tendency to overestimate the virtuous-
ness of our future selves is part of what
Ann Tenbrunsel of Notre Dame and
colleagues call the ethical mirage.
Counteracting this bias begins with
understanding your personal strengths
and weaknesses. What are your values?
When are you most likely to violate
them? In his book The Road to Character,
David Brooks distinguishes between

résumé virtues (skills, abilities, and
accomplishments that you can put on
your résumé, such as “increased ROI by
10% on a multimillion-dollar project”)
and eulogy virtues (things people praise
you for after you’ve died, such as being
a loyal friend, kind, and a hard worker).
Although the two categories may
overlap, résumé virtues often relate to
what you’ve done for yourself, whereas
eulogy virtues relate to the person you
are and what you’ve done for others—
that is, your character.
So ask yourself: What eulogy virtues
am I trying to develop? Or, as the manage-
ment guru Peter Drucker asked, “What
do you want to be remembered for?”
and “What do you want to contribute?”
Framing your professional life as a quest
for contribution rather than achieve-
ment can fundamentally change the
way you approach your career. And it’s
helpful to consider those questions early,
before you develop mindsets, habits,
and routines that are resistant to change.
Goal setting can also lay the ground-
work for ethical behavior. Professionals
regularly set targets for many aspects of
their work and personal lives, yet few
think to approach ethics in this way.
Benjamin Franklin famously wrote in his
autobiography about trying to master
13 traits he identified as essential for a

virtuous life (including industry, justice,
and humility). He even created a chart to
track his daily progress. We don’t suggest
that everyone engage in similarly rigid
documentation, but we do suggest that
you sit down and write out eulogy-virtue
goals that are challenging but attain-
able. That is similar to what Clayton
Christensen of Harvard Business School
advocated in his HBR article “How Will
You Measure Your Life?” After battling
cancer, Christensen decided that the
metric that mattered most to him was
“the individual people whose lives I’ve
touched.”
Even the most carefully constructed
goals, however, are still just good
intentions. They must be fortified by
personal safeguards—that is, habits
and tendencies that have been shown
to bring out people’s better angels. For
instance, studies suggest that quality
sleep, personal prayer (for the religious),
and mindfulness can help people man-
age and strengthen their self-control and
resist temptation at work.
We also recommend “if-then
planning”—what the psychologist Peter
Gollwitzer calls implementation inten-
tions. Dozens of research studies have
shown that this practice (“If X happens,
then I will do Y”) can be effective in
changing people’s behavior, especially

when such plans are voiced aloud. They
can be simple but must also be specific,
tying a situational cue (a trigger) to a
desired behavior. For example: If my
boss asks me to do something potentially
unethical, then I will turn to a friend or
a mentor outside the organization for
advice before acting. If I am solicited for
a bribe, then I will consult my compa-
ny’s legal team and formal policies for
guidance. If I witness sexual harassment
or racial prejudice, then I will immedi-
ately stand up for the victim. Making
if-then plans tailored to your strengths,
weaknesses, values, and circumstances
can help protect you against lapses in
self-control, or inaction when action
is required. But be sure to make your
if-then plans before you encounter the
situation—preparation is key.
Mentors, too, can help you avoid
ethical missteps. When expanding your
professional network and developing
relationships with advisers, don’t look
only for those who can hasten your
climb up the career ladder; also con-
sider who might be able to support you
when it comes to moral decisions. Build
Experience
C
O
PY

R
IG
H
T
©
2
0
19
H
A
RV
A
R
D
B
U
SI
N
ES
S
SC
H
O
O

L
PU
BL
IS
H
IN
G
C
O
R
PO
R
AT
IO
N
.
A
LL
R
IG
H
TS
R
ES

ER
VE
D
.
3 Harvard Business ReviewJanuary–February 2020
This document is authorized for use only by Tylecia Westbr ook
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
connections with people inside and
outside your organization whose values
are similar to yours and whom you can
ask for ethics-related advice. Both of us
have reached out to mentors for advice
on ethical issues, and we teach our
MBA students to do the same. Having a
supportive network—and particularly
a trusted ethical mentor—may also bring
you opportunities to make a positive
impact in your career.
Once you’ve made a commitment to
living an ethical life, don’t be shy about
letting people know it. No one likes a
holier-than-thou attitude, but subtle
moral signaling can be helpful, partic-
ularly when it’s directed at colleagues.

You can do this by openly discussing
potential moral challenges and how
you would want to react or by building
a reputation for doing things the right
way. For example, in a study one of us
(Maryam) conducted, participants were
much less likely to ask an online partner
to engage in unethical behavior after
receiving an email from that partner with
a virtuous quotation in the signature line
(such as “Success without honor is worse
than fraud”).
Direct conversation can be tricky,
given that people are often hesitant to
discuss ethically charged issues. But if
you think it’s possible, we recommend
engaging your coworkers, because
ambiguity is a breeding ground for
self-interested rationalization. Tactfully
ask clarifying questions and make your
own expectations clear: for example,
“I think it’s important that we don’t cross
any ethical lines here.”
We are all shaped more by our
environment than we realize, so it’s also
critical to choose a workplace that will
allow if not encourage you to behave
ethically. Not surprisingly, employees
who feel that their needs, abilities, and
values fit well with their organization
tend to be more satisfied and moti-
vated than their misaligned peers, and
they perform better. Of course, many

factors go into choosing a job—but in
general people tend to overemphasize
traditional metrics such as compensa-
tion and promotion opportunities and
underemphasize the importance of the
right moral fit. Our work and that of
others has shown that ethical stress is
a strong predictor of employee fatigue,
decreased job satisfaction, lower moti-
vation, and increased turnover.
Some industries seem to have
cultural norms that are more or less
amenable to dishonesty. In one study,
when employees of a large interna-
tional bank were reminded of their
professional identity, they tended to
cheat more, on average, than non-
banker counterparts given the same
reminder. This is not to say, of course,
that all bankers are unethical, or that
only unethical people should pursue
careers in banking (although it does
highlight how important it is for banks
to prioritize hiring morally upstanding
employees). We do suggest, however,
that anyone starting a new job should
learn about the organization and the
relevant industry so as to prepare for
morally compromising situations. Job
interviews often conclude with the can-
didate’s being asked, “Do you have any
questions for me?” A possible response
is “What types of ethical dilemmas

6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
http://hbr.org
Note, however, that the human mind
is skilled at justifying morally ques-
tionable behavior when enticed by its
benefits. We often tell ourselves things
such as “Everyone does this,” “I’m just
following my boss’s orders,” “It’s for the
greater good,” “It’s not like I’m robbing
a bank,” and “It’s their own fault—they
deserve it.” Three tests can help you
avoid self-deceptive rationalizations.
1. The publicity test. Would you be
comfortable having this choice, and your
reasoning behind it, published on the
front page of the local newspaper?
2. The generalizability test. Would you be
comfortable having your decision serve
as a precedent for all people facing a
similar situation?
3. The mirror test. Would you like the
person you saw in the mirror after mak-

ing this decision—is that the person you
truly want to be?
If the answer to any of these ques-
tions is no, think carefully before
proceeding.
Studies also show that people are
more likely to act unethically if they
feel rushed. Very few decisions must be
made in the moment. Taking some time
for contemplation can help put things in
perspective. In a classic social psychol-
ogy experiment, students at Princeton
Theological Seminary were much less
likely to stop and help a stranger lying
helpless on the ground if they were
rushing to get to a lecture they were
scheduled to give—on, ironically, the
biblical parable of the Good Samari-
tan, which is about stopping to help a
stranger lying helpless on the ground. So
be aware of time pressures. Minding the
old adage “Sleep on it” can often help
you make better moral decisions. And
Experience
them using multiple philosophical
perspectives. For instance, from the
rule-based perspective of deontology (the
study of moral obligation), ask yourself
what rules or principles are relevant.
Will a certain course of action lead you to
violate the principle of being honest or of
respecting others? From the consequence-

based perspective of utilitarianism,
identify potential outcomes for all parties
involved or affected either directly or
indirectly. What is the greatest good for
the greatest number of people? And from
the Aristotelian perspective of virtue eth-
ics, ask yourself, Which course of action
would best reflect a virtuous person?
Each of these philosophies has advan-
tages and disadvantages, but addressing
the fundamental decision criteria of
all three—rules, consequences, and
virtues—will make you less likely to over-
look important ethical considerations.
might be faced in this job?” or “What
does this company do to promote
ethical business practices?”
Research also shows that elements
of a work environment can enhance or
diminish self-control, regardless of cul-
tural norms: High uncertainty, excessive
cognitive demands, long days and late
nights, and consecutive stretch goals all
correlate with increased rates of uneth-
ical behavior. Such pressures may wax
and wane over time in your workplace,
but during periods of intensity you
should be extra vigilant.
MAKING GOOD DECISIONS
Even if you’ve planned for an ethical
career and established safeguards, it
can be difficult to face moral challenges
in the moment. Sometimes people

overlook the implications of their
decisions—or they find fanciful ways of
rationalizing immoral, self-interested
behavior. In other instances, they face
quandaries in which the right decision
isn’t obvious—for example, a choice
between loyalty to one’s coworkers and
loyalty to a customer, or a proposed
solution that will produce both positive
and negative externalities, such as good
jobs but also environmental damage.
There are several ways to manage
moments of truth like these.
First, step back from traditional
calculations such as cost-benefit analysis
and ROI. Develop a habit of searching for
the moral issues and ethical implications
at stake in a given decision and analyze
5 Harvard Business ReviewJanuary–February 2020
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
delaying a decision may give you time
to consult your ethical mentors. If they
are unavailable, practice a variation on
the mirror and publicity tests: Imagine
explaining your actions to those advis-

ers. If that would make you uncomfort-
able, be warned.
But taking an ethical stand often
requires challenging coworkers or even
superiors, which can be excruciatingly
difficult. The now infamous Milgram
experiments (wherein study participants
administered potentially lethal shocks
to innocent volunteers when they were
instructed to do so by an experimenter)
demonstrated how susceptible people
can be to pressure from others—espe-
cially those in positions of power. How
can you avoid succumbing to social
pressure? The authors of The Business
Ethics Field Guide offer a few questions
to ask yourself in such situations: Do
they have a right to request that I do this?
Would others in the organization feel the
same way I do about this? What are the
requesters trying to accomplish? Could it
be accomplished in a different way? Can
I refuse to comply in a manner that helps
them save face? In general, be wary of
doing anything just because “everybody
else is doing it” or your boss told you to.
Take ownership of your actions.
And don’t forget that many ethical
challenges people face at work have
previously been confronted by others.
As a result, companies often develop
specific guidelines, protocols, and value
statements. If in doubt about a certain
situation, try consulting the formal pol-

icies of your organization. Does it have
an established code of ethics? If not, ask
your ethical mentor for guidance. And
if you’re dealing with something you
view as clearly unethical but fear reprisal
from a superior, check to see whether
your organization has an ombudsman
program or a whistle-blowing hotline.
REFLECTING AFTER THE FACT
Learning from experience is an iterative,
lifelong pursuit: A lot of growth happens
after decisions are made and actions
taken. Ethical people aren’t perfect, but
when they make mistakes, they review
and reflect on them so that they can
do better in the future. Indeed, a wide
array of research—in fields as diverse as
psychology, computer science, nursing,
and education—suggests that reflection
is a critical first step in learning from past
personal experiences. Reflecting on both
successes and failures helps people avoid
not only repeated transgressions but also
“identity segmentation,” wherein they
compartmentalize their personal and
professional lives and perhaps live by
a very different moral code in each.
But self-reflection has limitations.
Sometimes ethical lapses are obvious;
other times the choice is ambiguous.
What’s more, people can be hemmed
in by their own perspectives as well as
by their personal histories and biases.

That’s why we should seek the counsel
of people we trust. You can approach this
as you would job performance feedback:
by asking specific questions, avoiding
defensiveness, and expressing gratitude.
Finally, you can engage in what Amy
Wrzesniewski of Yale calls job crafting:
shaping your work experiences by proac-
tively adapting the tasks you undertake,
your workplace relationships, and even
how you perceive your job, such that
work becomes more meaningful and
helps you fulfill your potential. You can
apply job crafting to your ethical career by
making bottom-up changes to your work
and the way you approach it that will help
you be more virtuous. For example, in
some of the earliest studies on job craft-
ing, Wrzesniewski and colleagues found
that many hospital housekeepers viewed
their work in a way that made them feel
like healers, not janitors. They didn’t just
clean rooms; they helped create a peace-
ful healing environment. One custodian
used her smile and humor to help cancer
patients relax and feel more comfort-
able. She looked for opportunities to
interact with them, believing that she
could be a momentary bright spot in the
darkness of their ongoing chemotherapy.
She crafted her job to help her develop
and cultivate eulogy virtues such as love,
compassion, kindness, and loyalty.

Y O U M AY F E E L that it isn’t all that diffi-
cult to be an ethical professional. As your
parents may have told you, just do the
right thing. But the evidence suggests
that out in the real world it becomes
increasingly difficult to remain on the
moral high ground. So take control of
your ethical career by cultivating moral
humility, preparing for challenging
situations, maintaining your calm in
the moment, and reflecting on how
well you’ve lived up to your values and
aspirations. HBR Reprint R2001L
MARYAM KOUCHAKI is an associate
professor of management and
organizations at Northwestern University’s
Kellogg School of Management. ISAAC H.
SMITH is an assistant professor of organi-
zational behavior and human resources at
BYU Marriott School of Business.
A wide array of research—in psychology, computer science,
nursing, education—
suggests that reflection is a critical first step in learning from
past personal experiences.

6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
http://hbr.org/search/R2001L
http://hbr.org
REPRINT R2003H
PUBLISHED IN HBR
MAY–JUNE 2020
ARTICLE
MANAGING PEOPLE
Begin with Trust
The first step to becoming a genuinely empowering leader
by Frances Frei and Anne Morriss
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
http://hbr.org/search/R2003H
BEGIN
WITH
TRUST
Frances Frei

Professor,
Harvard Business
School
Anne Morriss
Executive founder,
The Leadership
ConsortiumM A N A G I N G
P E O P L E
A U T H O R S
2 Harvard Business ReviewMay–June 2020
The first step to
becoming a genuinely
empowering leader
P H OTO G R A P H E R HOLLY ANDRES
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
May–June 2020 3

6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
http://hbr.org
On a spring afternoon in 2017, Travis Kalanick, then the CEO
of Uber, walked
into a conference room at the company’s Bay Area
headquarters. One
of us, Frances, was waiting for him. Meghan Joyce, the
company’s general
manager for the United States and Canada, had reached out to
us, hoping
that we could guide the company as it sought to heal from a
series of deep,
self-inflicted wounds. We had a track record of helping
organizations,
many of them founder-led, tackle messy leadership and culture
challenges.
I D E A I N B R I E F
THE STARTING POINT
The traditional
leadership narrative is all
about you: your talents,
charisma, and moments
of courage and instinct.
But real leadership is
about your people and
creating the conditions

for them to fully realize
their own capacity and
power. To do this, you
have to develop stores
of trust.
THE CHALLENGE
How do leaders build
trust? By focusing on its
core drivers: authenticity,
logic, and empathy.
People tend to trust you
when they think they’re
interacting with the real
you, when they have faith
in your judgment and
competence, and when
they believe you care
about them.
THE WAY FORWARD
When leaders have
trouble with trust, it’s
usually because they’re
weak on one of those
three drivers. To develop
or restore trust, identify
which driver you’re
“wobbly” on, and then
work on strengthening it.
C
O
PY
R

IG
H
T
©
2
0
20
H
A
RV
A
R
D
B
U
SI
N
ES
S
SC
H
O
O
L

PU
BL
IS
H
IN
G
C
O
R
PO
R
AT
IO
N
.
A
LL
R
IG
H
TS
R
ES
ER

VE
D
.
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
We were skeptical about Uber. Everything we’d read about
the company suggested it had little hope of redemption. At
the time, the company was an astonishingly disruptive and
successful start-up, but its success seemed to have come at
the price of basic decency. In early 2017, for example, when
taxi drivers went on strike in New York City to protest Presi -
dent Trump’s travel ban, Uber appeared to have used tactics
to profit from the situation—a move that prompted wide-
spread outrage and a #deleteUber campaign. A month later,
not long before the meeting, an Uber engineer named Susan
Fowler had blogged courageously about her experiences of
harassment and discrimination at the company, which caused
more outrage. Footage of Kalanick had then emerged, in a
video that went viral, of his interaction with an Uber driver,
where he appeared dismissive of the pain of earning a living in
a post-Uber world. Additional charges leveled at the company
in this period reinforced Uber’s reputation as a cold-blooded
operator that would do almost anything to win.

Despite our skepticism, Frances had gone to California to
hear Kalanick out. (Anne was building her own company at the
time, so she took a back seat on the project.) As Frances waited
for him to make his entrance, she braced herself for the smug
CEO she’d read about. But that wasn’t who walked in. Kalanick
arrived humbled and introspective. He had thought a lot about
how the cultural values he’d instilled in the company—the
very values that had fueled Uber’s success—had also been mis-
used and distorted on his watch. He expressed deep respect
for what his team had achieved but also acknowledged that
he’d put some people in leadership roles without giving them
the training or mentorship to be effective. Whatever mistakes
Kalanick had made up to that point, he revealed a sincere
desire to do the right thing as a leader.
We regrouped back in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and
debated whether to take on the project. There were lots of
reasons to stay far away from it. The work would be hard
and its outcome uncertain, to say nothing of the brutal
commute. Uber’s workforce was frustrated, and the brand
was becoming toxic. But we realized that if we could help get
Uber back on the right path, then we could offer a road map
to countless others trying to restore humanity to organiza-
tions that had lost their way. So we signed on.
After making that decision, we knew exactly where to
start. With trust.
EMPOWERMENT LEADERSHIP
We think of trust as precious, and yet it’s the basis for almost
everything we do as civilized people. Trust is the reason
we’re willing to exchange our hard-earned paychecks for
goods and services, pledge our lives to another person in
marriage, cast a ballot for someone who will represent our
interests. We rely on laws and contracts as safety nets, but
even they are ultimately built on trust in the institutions

that enforce them. We don’t know that justice will be served
if something goes wrong, but we have enough faith in the
system that we’re willing to make high-stakes deals with
relative strangers.
Trust is also one of the most essential forms of capital a
leader has. Building trust, however, often requires thinking
about leadership from a new perspective. The traditional
leadership narrative is all about you: your vision and strat-
egy; your ability to make the tough calls and rally the troops;
your talents, your charisma, your heroic moments of courage
and instinct. But leadership really isn’t about you. It’s about
empowering other people as a result of your presence, and
about making sure that the impact of your leadership contin-
ues into your absence.
That’s the fundamental principle we’ve learned in the
course of dedicating our careers to making leaders and orga-
nizations better. Your job as a leader is to create the condi -
tions for your people to fully realize their own capacity and
power. And that’s true not only when you’re in the trenches
with them but also when you’re not around and even—this
is the cleanest test—when you’ve permanently moved on
from the team. We call it empowerment leadership. The
more trust you build, the more possible it is to practi ce this
kind of leadership.
THE CORE DRIVERS OF TRUST
So how do you build up stores of this foundational leader -
ship capital? In our experience, trust has three core drivers:
authenticity, logic, and empathy. People tend to trust you
M A N A G I N G
P E O P L E

May–June 2020 5
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
http://hbr.org
when they believe they are interacting with the real you
(authenticity), when they have faith in your judgment and
competence (logic), and when they feel that you care about
them (empathy). When trust is lost, it can almost always be
traced back to a breakdown in one of these three drivers.
People don’t always realize how the information (or
more often, the misinformation) that they’re broadcasting
may undermine their own trustworthiness. What’s worse,
stress tends to amplify the problem, causing people to
double down on behaviors that make others skeptical. For
example, they might unconsciously mask their true selves
in a job interview, even though that’s precisely the type of
less-than-fully-authentic behavior that reduces their chance
of being hired.
The good news is that most of us generate a stable pattern
of trust signals, which means a small change in behavior can
go a long way. In moments when trust is broken, or fails to get
any real traction, it’s usually the same driver that has gone
wobbly on us—authenticity, empathy, or logic. We call this

driver your “trust wobble.” In simple terms, it’s the driver
that’s most likely to fail you.
Everybody, it turns out, has a trust wobble. To build trust
as a leader, you first need to figure out what yours is.
BUILD IT, AND THEY WILL COME
To identify your wobble, think of a recent moment when
you were not trusted as much as you wanted to be. Maybe
you lost an important sale or didn’t get a stretch assignment.
Maybe someone simply doubted your ability to execute.
With that moment in mind, do something hard: Give the
other person in your story the benefit of the doubt. Let’s
call that person your “skeptic.” Assume that your skeptic’s
reservations were valid and that you were the one respon-
sible for the breakdown in trust. This exercise only works if
you own it.
If you had to choose from our three trust drivers, which
would you say went wobbly on you in this situation? Did your
skeptic feel you were misrepresenting some part of yourself
or your story? If so, that’s an authenticity problem. Did your
skeptic feel you might be putting your own interests first?
Authenticity
I experience the real you.
Empathy
I believe you
care about
me and my
success.
Logic
I know you

can do it; your
reasoning
and judgment
are sound.
The Trust Triangle
Trust has three drivers: authenticity, logic, and empathy. When
trust
is lost, it can almost always be traced back to a breakdown in
one
of them. To build trust as a leader, you first need to figure out
which
driver you “wobble” on.
If so, that’s an empathy problem. Did your skeptic question
the rigor of your analysis or your ability to execute on an
ambitious plan? If so, that’s a logic problem.
Now stand back and try to look at your pattern of
wobbles across multiple incidents. Pick three or four
interactions that stand out to you, for whatever reason, and
do a quick trust diagnostic for each one. What does your
typical wobble seem to be? Does the pattern change under
stress or with different kinds of stakeholders? For example,
do you wobble on one trait with your direct reports but on
a different one with people who have authority over you?
That’s not uncommon.
This exercise works best if you bring at least one person
along for your diagnostic ride, ideally someone who knows
you well. Sharing your analysis can be clarifying—even liber-
ating—and will help you test and refine your hypothesis. In
our experience, about 20% of self-assessments need a round
of revision, so choose a partner who can keep you honest.
Consider going back and testing your analysis directly by

speaking openly about it with your skeptic. This conversa-
tion alone can be a powerful way to rebuild trust. When you
TRUST
M A N A G I N G
P E O P L E
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
take responsibility for a wobble, you reveal your humanity
(authenticity) and analytic chops (logic) while communicat-
ing your commitment to the relationship (empathy).
OVERCOMING YOUR WOBBLE
Over the past decade we’ve helped all kinds of leaders—
from seasoned politicians to Millennial entrepreneurs to
the heads of multibillion-dollar companies—wrestle with
trust issues. In doing so, we’ve learned a lot about strategies
you can deploy to overcome your own trust wobbles. Let’s
explore what’s most effective for each of the drivers in our
trust triangle.
Empathy. Most high-achieving leaders struggle with this
one. Signaling a lack of empathy is a major barrier to empow -
erment leadership. If people think you care more about
yourself than about others, they won’t trust you enough to

lead them.
Empathy wobbles are common among people who are
analytical and driven to learn. They often get impatient with
those who aren’t similarly motivated or who take longer than
they do to understand something. Additionally, the tools and
experience of the modern workplace continually distract
or prevent us from demonstrating empathy, by imposing
24-hour demands on our time and putting at our disposal all
sorts of technologies that compete for our attention at any
given moment. Our beeping and buzzing devices constantly
assert our self-importance, sometimes smack in the middle
of interactions with the very people we’re working to
empower and lead.
We advise empathy wobblers to pay close attention to
their behavior in group settings, particularly when other
people have the floor. Consider what often happens in a
meeting: When it kicks off, most people feel very engaged.
But as soon as empathy wobblers understand the concepts
under discussion and have contributed their ideas, they
lose interest. Their engagement plummets and remains
low until the gathering (mercifully) comes to an end.
Instead of paying attention, they often multitask, check
their phones, engage in flamboyant displays of boredom—
anything to make clear that this meeting is beneath them.
Unfortunately, the cost of these indulgences is trust. If you
signal that you matter more than everyone else, why should
anyone trust the direction you’re going in? What’s in it for
the rest of us to come along?
There’s a basic solution to this problem. Instead of focus-
ing on what you need in that meeting, work to ensure that
everyone else gets what they need. Take radical responsibility
for the others in the room. Share the burden of moving the

dialogue forward, even if it’s not your meeting. Search for the
resonant examples that will bring the concepts to life, and
don’t disengage until everyone else in the room understands.
This is almost impossible to do if texting or checking email is
an option, so put away your devices. Everyone knows you’re
not taking notes on their good ideas.
Indeed, the last thing we’ll say on empathy is this: If you
do nothing else to change your behavior, put away your
phone more frequently. Put it truly away, out of sight and
out of reach, not just flipped over for a few minutes at a time.
You’ll be amazed at the change in the quality of your interac-
tions and your ability to build trust.
Logic. If people don’t always have confidence in the rigor
of your ideas, or if they don’t have full faith in your ability
to deliver on them, then logic is probably your wobble. If
they don’t trust your judgment, why would they want you
at the wheel?
When logic is the problem, we advise going back to the
data. Root the case you’re making in sound evidence, speak
about the things you know to be true beyond a reasonable
doubt, and then—this is the hard part—stop there. One rea-
son Larry Bird was such an extraordinary basketball player
was that he only took shots he knew he could reliably make.
That choice made him different from other great players
who let ego and adrenaline cloud their shooting judgment.
Bird studied and practiced so relentlessly that by the time
the ball left his hands in the heat of competition, he knew
exactly where it was going. If logic is your wobble, take Bird’s
example and learn to “play within yourself.”
Once you get comfortable with how that feels, start
expanding what you know. Along the way, make an effort to
learn from other people. Their insight is among your most

valuable resources, but to access it, you must be willing
to reveal that you don’t have all the answers—something
leaders often resist. Engaging people about their experience
Your job as a leader is to help your people fully realize their
own capacity and power.
The more trust you build, the more possible it is to practice this
kind of leadership.
May–June 2020 7
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
http://hbr.org
has the additional benefit of communicating who you are and
what energizes you professionally—an authenticity boost.
For most logic wobblers, however, rigor isn’t the issue.
Much of the time, the problem is the perception of wobbly
logic rather than the reality of it. Why does this happen?
Because they’re not communicating their ideas effectively.
There are generally two ways to communicate complex
thoughts. The first takes your audience on a journey, with
twists and turns and context and dramatic tension, until

they eventually get to the payoff. Many of the world’s
best storytellers use this technique. You can visualize this
approach by imagining an inverted triangle. The journeying
storyteller starts at the top, at the inverted base of the tri -
angle, and traces an enchantingly meandering route down
to its point.
If logic is your wobble, however, that’s a risky path to
take. With all that circuitous journeying, you’re likely to lose
your audience along the way rather than build trust in your
judgment. Listeners may even abandon you at one of your
narrative turns.
To avoid that, try flipping the imaginary triangle upright.
Start with your main point, or headline, at the top of the
triangle, and then work your way down, building a base of
reinforcing evidence. This approach signals a clarity of vision
and a full command of the facts. Everyone has a much better
chance of following your logic. Even if you get interrupted
along the way, you’ll at least have had a chance to communi -
cate your key idea.
Authenticity. If people feel they’re not getting access
to the “real” you—to a full and complete accounting of
what you know, think, and feel—then you probably have
an authenticity wobble.
A quick test: How different is your professional persona
from the one that shows up around family and friends? If
there’s a sharp difference, what are you getting in return
for masking or minimizing certain parts of yourself ? What’s
the payoff ?
Being your “real self” sounds nice in theory, but there
can be powerful reasons for holding back certain truths. The
calculation can be highly practical at times, if wrenching—

as in deciding to stay closeted in a workplace that’s hostile to
queer identities. There may also be times when expressing
your authentic feelings may risk harmful consequences:
Women, for example, are disproportionately penalized for
displaying negative emotions in the workplace, and black
men are burdened by the false stereotype that they are pre-
disposed to anger. We’re not talking here about moments of
prudent self-censorship, which sometimes can’t be divorced
from a larger context of bias or low psychological safety.
Instead, we’re talking about inauthenticity as a strategy, a
way of navigating the workplace. If this is how you operate,
you’re dealing with an authenticity wobble.
In our experience, although withholding your true self
may sometimes help you solve problems in the short term,
it puts an artificial cap on trust and, by extension, on your
ability to lead. When people sense that you’re concealing the
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
truth or being less than authentic, they’re far less willing to
make themselves vulnerable to you in the ways that leader-
ship demands.
We’ve observed the cost of inauthenticity up close in the
performance of diverse teams. Diversity can be a tremendous
asset in today’s marketplace, and the companies that get it

right often enjoy powerful competitive tailwinds. But this
advantage isn’t automatic. Simply populating your team
with diverse perspectives and experiences doesn’t always
translate into better performance. In fact, the uncomfortable
truth is that diverse teams can underperform homogenous
teams if they’re not managed actively for differences among
members. That is due in part to a phenomenon called the
common information effect, which works like this: As human
beings, we tend to focus on the things we have in common
with other people. We tend to seek out and affirm our shared
knowledge, because it confirms our value and kinship with
the group. Diverse teams, by definition, have less common
information readily available to them to use in collective
decision-making.
Consider two teams of three people, one in which the
three members are different from one another, and the other
in which they’re similar. If both teams are managed in exactly
the same way—if they simply follow the same best practices
in group facilitation, for example—the homogenous team is
likely to perform better. No amount of feedback or number
of trust falls can overcome the strength of the common
information effect.
But the effect only holds if people wobble on authentic-
ity. When they choose to bring their unique selves to the
table—that is, the parts of themselves that are different from
other people—they can create an unbeatable advantage by
expanding the amount of information the team can access.
The result is an inclusive team that’s likely to outperform
(by a long shot) both homogenous teams and diverse teams
that aren’t actively managed for inclusion. (See the sidebar
“Trust, Diversity, and Team Performance.”)
This expansion of knowledge and its obvious benefits
rely on the courage of authenticity wobblers. We know how

difficult sharing who we really are can be, and we also know
that it’s sometimes too much to ask. But if we regularly give
in to the pressure to hold back our unique selves, then we
suppress the most valuable parts of ourselves. Not only do
we end up concealing the very thing the world needs most
from us—our differences—but we also make it harder for
people to trust us as leaders.
Here’s the reason to care, even if you don’t see yourself as
different: All of us pay the price of inauthentic interactions,
and all of us have a better chance of thriving in inclusive
environments where authenticity can flourish. Gender bias,
in other words, is not just a woman’s problem. Systemic
racism is not just an African-American or Latinx problem.
It’s our shared moral and organizati onal imperative to create
workplaces where the burdens of being different are shoul -
dered by all of us. After all, we will all benefit wildly from
eliminating them.
May–June 2020 9
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
http://hbr.org
One of the lessons we’ve learned in our work with

organizations is that creating spaces where authenticity can
thrive is not as hard as it may seem. It is an urgent, achievable
goal that requires far less audacity than disrupting indus-
tries or growing complex organizations —things leaders do
every day with deep conviction in the outcomes. If all of us
take responsibility for creating companies where difference
can thrive, and all of us take responsibility for showing up
in them authentically, then our chances of achieving true
inclusion—and building high levels of trust—start to look
pretty good.
So pay less attention to what you think people want to
hear and more attention to what you need to say to them.
Reveal your full humanity to the world, regardless of what
your critics say. And while you’re at it, take exquisite care of
people who are different from you, confident in the knowl -
edge that their difference is the very thing that could unleash
your potential and your organization’s.
IN MYSELF I TRUST
We’ve argued that the foundation of empowerment lead-
ership is getting other people to trust you. That’s certainly
true, but there’s one last thing you need to know. The path
to empowerment leadership doesn’t begin when other
people start to trust you. It begins when you start to trust
yourself.
To be a truly empowering leader, you need to take stock
of where you wobble not only in your relationships with
others but also in your relationship with yourself. Are you
being honest with yourself about your ambitions, or are you
ignoring what really excites and inspires you? If you’re hiding
something from yourself, you’ve got an authenticity problem
you need to address. Do you acknowledge your own needs
and attend properly to them? If not, you’ve got to adopt a
more empathetic posture toward yourself. Do you lack con-

viction in your own ideas and ability to perform? If so, you’ve
got some logic issues to work out.
Doing this work is important as a leader, for an arguably
obvious reason. If you don’t trust yourself, why should
anybody else trust you?
A CAMPAIGN TO REBUILD TRUST
Let’s now return to Uber. When we began working with the
company, it was certainly wobbling—so much so that we
diagnosed it as “a hot mess.”
What was going on?
Consider the basic trust-related facts. There’s no question
that Uber had empathy problems. The company’s focus
on growth at all costs meant that relationships with stake-
holders, particularly drivers and employees, needed real
attention. Riders also needed to be assured that their safety
wouldn’t come second to the company’s financial perfor-
mance. Additionally, despite its disruptive success, Uber
hadn’t answered questions about the long-term viability
of its business model or about whether its managers had
the skills to lead an organization of its expansive scale and
scope. These were unaddressed logic problems. Finally, the
company’s war-room mentality was undermining its authen-
ticity. In the “us versus them” culture at Uber, people were
skeptical that they were getting the full story.
By the time Frances began working with Kalanick, he
had already begun making changes to steady the company’s
trust wobbles. He had hired Eric Holder, for example, who
had served as U.S. attorney general under President Obama,
to lead a rigorous internal investigation into harassment
and discrimination—and when Holder made a sweeping set
of recommendations, Kalanick took action to implement

them. The company was also on the verge of rolling out new
driver-tipping functionality, which would go on to generate
$600 million in additional driver compensation in the first
year of its launch. New safety features were in development,
too, designed to give both drivers and riders additional tools
to protect themselves.
Kalanick didn’t get the chance to see most of these initia-
tives to completion, at least not from the CEO chair. In June
2017, he was forced out as CEO, although he retained his
board seat and an equity stake in the company until Decem-
ber 2019, when he gave both up. He was ultimately replaced
by Dara Khosrowshahi, the former Expedia CEO, who had
a track record of effective leadership at the helm of young
companies.
M A N A G I N G
P E O P L E
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
Frances soon began working with Khosrowshahi to
continue the campaign to rebuild trust internally. Together
they led an effort to rewrite the company’s cultural values,
one that invited input from all 15,000 employees on the
principles that they wanted Uber to live by. The new motto
they settled on was “We do the right thing. Period.” Other

early trust wins for Khosrowshahi included strengthening
relationships with regulators and executing a logic-driven
focus on the services and markets that were most defensible.
Most of the work we did during this period was aimed
at rebuilding trust at the employee level. Some things were
easy to identify and fix, like ratcheting down the widespread,
empathy-pulverizing practice of texting during meetings
about the other people in the meeting, a tech-company norm
that shocked us when we first experienced it. We introduced
a new norm of turning off all personal technology and put-
ting it away during meetings, which forced people to start
making eye contact with their colleagues again.
Other challenges were harder to tackle, like the need to
upskill thousands of managers. Our take was that Uber had
underinvested in its people during its period of hypergrowth,
leaving many managers unprepared for the increasing
complexity of their jobs. We addressed this logic wobble with
a massive infusion of executive education, using a virtual
classroom to engage employees in live case discussions—our
pedagogy of choice—whether they were in San Francisco,
London, or Hyderabad. Although our pilot program was
voluntary and classes were sometimes scheduled at absurdly
inconvenient times, 6,000 Uber employees based in more
than 50 countries each participated in 24 hours of instruction
over the course of 60 days. It was an extraordinary pace,
scale, and absorption of management education.
The curriculum gave people tools and concepts to develop
quickly as leaders while flipping a whole lot of upside-down
communication triangles. Employees gained the skills not
only to listen better but also to talk in ways that made it
easier to collaborate across business units and geographies.
Frances went out in the field, visiting key global offi ces in her

first 30 days on the job, carving out protected spaces to listen
to employees and communicate leadership’s commitment
to building a company worthy of its people. At a time when
many employees were conflicted about their Uber affilia-
tions, Frances made it a point to wear an Uber T-shirt every
day until the entire company was proud to be on the payroll.
Within a year, Uber was less wobbly. There were still
problems to be solved, but indicators such as employee
sentiment, brand health, and driver compensation were all
heading in the right direction, and the march toward an IPO
began in earnest. Good people were deciding to stay with
the company, more good people were joining, and, in what
had become our favorite indicator of progress, an increasing
number of Uber T-shirts could now be spotted on city streets.
It was all a testament to the talent, creativity, and commit-
ment to learning at every level of the organization—and to
the new foundation of trust that Kalanick and Khosrowsha hi
had been able to build. HBR Reprint R2003H
FRANCES FREI is the UPS Foundation Professor of Service
Management at Harvard Business School. She received
shares in Uber as compensation for her work with the company,
which she continues to hold. ANNE MORRISS is an
entrepreneur
and the executive founder of the Leadership Consortium. They
are the authors of Unleashed: The Unapologetic Leader’s Guide
to Empowering Everyone Around You (Harvard Business
Review
Press, 2020), from which this article was adapted.
The path to empowerment leadership doesn’t begin when other
people
trust you. It begins when you trust yourself.

Diverse teams
A diverse store
of knowledge is
partly shared.
Trust, Diversity, and Team Performance
Diversity doesn’t automatically confer advantages in decision-
making.
In fact, if diverse teams aren’t managed actively for inclusion,
they
can underperform homogenous ones. That’s because shared
knowledge is key in decision-making, and diverse teams, by
definition,
start out with less of it. But if you create conditions of trust that
allow diverse team members to bring their unique perspectives
and
experiences to the table, you can expand the amount of
knowledge
your team can access—and create an unbeatable advantage.
Homogenous
teams
A common store
of knowledge is
fully shared.
Inclusive teams
A diverse store
of knowledge is
fully shared.

May–June 2020 11
6504-1/MGMT-6010-1/MMSL-6010-1/MHRM-6611-1-2021-
Fall-SEM-
http://hbr.org/search/R2003H
http://hbr.org
Discussion: Handling Tough Decisions in the Workplace
Managers make numerous decisions on a daily basis. For some,
the best choice is easy or straightforward to determine. If a
machine breaks down, you either need to repair it or replace it.
In an increasingly interconnected and complex world, however,
the best decisions can often be unclear. Consider where you
would stand on the following scenario:
A company has developed a new product for which there is a
great demand. The consensus of the leadership team is that the
company should capitalize on this opportunity and hike up the
price to generate a 300% return on each sale. They feel that, as
long as the marketplace is willing to pay for it, then there is no
problem, especially since this would help solve recent
discussions of layoffs due to declining sales. Only one person in
the leadership team voices disapproval of this approach, saying
that this is a greedy action that would rip off customers and go
against the company’s values. The person feels that—despite
what it would mean for the business—the product should be
priced to generate a 40% return, which is an average return for
the company’s products.
In this Discussion, you will examine a tough decision you have

had to make in the past. You will reflect on the factors you used
to make that decision and determine whether you would make
the same choice if faced with the same set of circumstances
again.
To prepare for this Discussion:
· Identify a time you had to make a tough decision related to
work. This should be a time when the right course of action was
not immediately apparent or clear-cut. There may have been
differing points of view, each with some validity, or perhaps
there were some special circumstances in the situation that
made the correct and ethical choice less obvious.
· Consider the values, guidelines, and rules that you used to
make that decision.
Assignment:
Post a synthesis of a difficult work-related decision you had to
make, including how you might approach the situation in the
future. Specifically:
· Describe the circumstances surrounding the difficult work-
related decision you had to make. In your description, include
details about the options you were weighing, why the decision
was difficult, et cetera.
· Explain the guidelines, rules, and values you used to make the
decision.
· Using the Learning Resources for support, explain how you
would approach the situation if it happened again. Would you
handle it differently or take a similar action, and why?
· 3 – 4 paragraphs
· No plagiarism
· APA citing

DigitalArticleLeadership & ManagingPeopleDon’t Try

DigitalArticleLeadership & ManagingPeopleDon’t Try

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from AlyciaGold776

More from AlyciaGold776 (20)

DigitalArticleLeadership & ManagingPeopleDon’t Try