DeVry UniversityCourse Project DescriptionBUSN278 Budgetin.docx

DeVry University
Course Project Description
BUSN278 Budgeting and Forecasting
BUSN278 Course Project
Deliverables Schedule and Points
Week
Deliverable
Points
1
Section 1.0 Executive Summary (Draft)
10
2
Section 2.0 Sales Forecast (Draft)
10
3
Section 3.0 Capital Expenditure Budget (Draft)
10
4
Section 4.0 Investment Analysis (Draft)
10
5
Section 5.1 Pro Forma Income Statement and 5.2 Balance Sheet
(Draft)
10
6
Section 5.3 Pro Forma Cash Budget (Draft)
10
7
Final Budget Proposal

90
7
Final Presentation with PowerPoint
30
Total project points
180
Week One:
Class, normally when preparing a business plan, the business
owner will complete the executive summary last. However, for
the purpose of this course, you shall complete the first
paragraph of the executive summary in week one. See below
for an example of what others have done, but don’t copy this,
just use it as a reference point.
Example:
Papa Geo’s Restaurant is a single-location, sit-down Italian
restaurant located in Orlando, Florida. Our objective is to
generate profits starting year two, while maximizing profits
years three through five. Papa Geo’s targets middle to lower-
middle class families with children, adults and seniors. Our
Italian food will be served in buffet style with salad bar, pizza,
and several different types of pasta. Our specialty pizza will
come with three types of optional sauces and to accompany your
main meal we will also offer soup, salad, a self-serve soda bar
and desserts. We also have a 500 square foot gaming area with
gaming machines for people of all ages to enjoy. On average a
customer can purchase a good, home cooked Italian meal at a
low price of $7, including drinks. We will be operating from
10:00 am through 9:00 pm 7 days a week, 365 days per year.

Copyright ®© 2010 by DeVry Educational Development
Corporation.
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or
used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, Web
distribution or information storage and retrieval systems—
without the prior consent of DeVry Educational Development
Corporation.
Page 1 of 1 BUSN278 Course Project Description.docx
Lesson Four: Leadership Behaviors and their Ethical
Implications
Lesson Three discussed three of the most prominent ethical
theories, as well as their application to The Trolley Problem in
order to assess relative consequences. Lesson Four will
introduce some of the most prominent behavioral theories
concerning leadership as well as their ethical implications.
Behavioral Theories
In Lesson Two, we discussed some of the early leadership
research, which attempted to identify qualities that were always
associated with effective leaders, and which were largely
unsuccessful. However, subsequent to these efforts, researchers
in the field then turned their focus to the types of behaviors that
leaders exhibit, hoping that this work might reveal some
patterns of successful perspectives, habits, etc. These studies
were conducted at some of the finest universities across the
country, and while there were some very general similarities in
the results of many of the major studies, the implications varied
from case to case. We will now examine each of these studies in

greater detail in order to understand their findings and
implications.
One brief preface is helpful here. The studies discussed below
each varied in their research parameters, methodology, and
findings. However, one factor that was fairly consistent
throughout was the way in which leadership efficacy was
defined. Generally, the studies discussed herein looked at
leadership effectiveness with respect to two metrics:
performance, or the productivity of the teams investigated in
terms of the work they do (quality and quantity), and
satisfaction, or the degree to which teams were happy
performing work under their respective leaders. This is not an
uncommon way of measuring efficacy (Judge, Thoresen, Bono,
& Patton, 2001), and it goes without saying that both of these
factors are quite relevant. Teams must be able to produce at an
acceptable level, but if they aren’t also content with the
circumstances of their work, then such teams aren’t likely to
sustain performance for any extended period of time.
· University of Iowa Studies: One set of studies were conducted
by researchers at the University of Iowa. The results of these
studies concluded that all leaders adopted one of three different
leadership styles: Autocratic, Democratic, and Laissez-Faire
(Rafiq Awan & Mahmood, 2010). Autocratic leaders, as the
name suggests, run their operations like dictators, making
decisions unilaterally and seeking very little input or
participation from followers. Democratic leaders, by contrast,
adopt a very participative style of leadership, involving
followers in all major decisions, either through a ‘notice and
comment’ style dialogue before decisions are rendered, or
through an informal voting-style procedure. Finally, “Laissez-
Faire” is a French term that means to “let do” or to “let be”. It
is commonly used in the phrase “Laissez-Faire Capitalism” to
describe the American-style economy where government
seldomly meddles in private sector affairs and generally leaves

business and industry alone. Accordingly, Laissez-Faire leaders
are those who are very “hands off” and do not typically involve
themselves in the affairs of their teams unless absolute
necessary. According to the University of Iowa studies,
Democratic leaders were most likely to render high levels of
both performance and satisfaction.
· University of Ohio Studies: Another set of studies was
conducted by researchers at the University of Ohio. Instead of
looking to classify leadership styles in terms of the Iowa
taxonomy, these scholars measured leaders on two dimensions
(Schriesheim & Bird, 1979). The first was “initiating structure”,
or the ability of a leader to define roles and work within a
group. The second was “consideration”, or the leader’s ability
to foster trust and respect among members of a group. Note, at
this juncture, that one of these dimensions is heavily-oriented
toward the jobs themselves (initiating structure), and the other
is just as heavily-oriented toward the people involved
(consideration); this is important because similar distinctions
can be observed in other studies discussed infra. Now, the Ohio
Studies generally indicated that leaders who were most effective
(i.e. generated positive levels of both performance and
satisfaction) were those who were very adept with both
initiating structure and consideration. In other words, both were
necessary. However, the authors of these studies did note that
situational factors had a significant influence on outcomes, and
this is a concept which will be discussed in more detail in
subsequent lessons.
· University of Michigan Studies: Yet another set of studies
came out of the University of Michigan. In Michigan,
researchers found a similar dichotomy of leadership abilities as
in Ohio (Gregory Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004). The
Michigan Studies referred to the first dimension as “production-
orientation”, or the extent to which the leaders display a focus
on task accomplishment. The second dimension was called
“employee-orientation”, or the extent to which leaders focus on
nurturing personal relationships with followers. Now, one can

see the obvious similarity mentioned earlier with respect to
Ohio and Michigan in terms of the dimensions evaluated, but
what was less similar between the two were the ultimate
conclusions. Whereas Ohio researchers concluded that leaders
who were highly talented in both dimensions were best at
driving performance and satisfaction, the Michigan studies
reported that leaders who were employee-focused and
determined to build strong relationships with followers were
most likely to achieve high levels of performance and
satisfaction. In Michigan, the quality of “production-
orientation” was benign insofar as leadership efficacy was
concerned.
· Blake, Mouton, & Bidwell’s Managerial Grid: One final
variety of the two-dimension job v. people framework came in
the form of the Managerial Grid by Blake, Mouton, and Bidwell
(1962). These authors took the two dimensions previously
established in the Ohio and Michigan studies---which they
relabeled “concern for production” and “concern for people”---
and plotted them on a 9-point X/Y access to illustrate the
implications of leaders who were either low in both, high in
both, or higher in one than the other. The authors then plotted
five points on this grid. Leaders who lack both dimensions (1,1)
are described as “impoverished” and are predicted by the grid to
fail in achieving performance or satisfaction. Leaders who are
high in task concern but low in people concern (9,1) are called
“task” managers and are predicted to achieve performance at the
expense of satisfaction. Inversely, leaders who are low in task
concern but high in people concern (1,9), are called “country
club” managers; under these leaders, relationships and
satisfaction are strong, but performance suffers. Then, there are
leaders who exhibit moderate level of both task and people
concern (5,5). These are called “middle-of-the-road” managers,
and generally performance and satisfaction under these leaders
are both acceptable, but not excelling. Finally, leaders who
excel at both task and people concern (9,9) are called “team”
managers, and the grid predicts these leaders will have the

highest levels of both performance and satisfaction. In this
sense, the authors of the Managerial Grid agree with the
findings of the Ohio Studies; it takes a focus on both the job
and the people in order to maximize results.
Ethical Implications
As with leadership qualities, while these various behavioral
leadership theories make significant implications about the
types of leader which will be most successful, they also raise
questions about the ethics of leaders based on their leadership
philosophies.
· University of Iowa Studies: The Iowa Studies say quite a bit
about leaders with different dispositions concerning their own
roles. Autocratic leaders may be effective, but if their conduct
results in low employee morale and low levels of perceived
respect or appreciation, then some ethics doctrines would
suggest that this renders such a philosophy flawed. Democratic
leaders may benefit from the good favor of employees who
appreciate being included in team affairs, but what if such
elaborate participatory paradigms stall the business to the point
of threatening viability. Would it still be wise to afford
employees a voice in everything if it means certain bankruptcy?
Finally, do Laissez-Faire leaders shirk a duty of oversight and
effort when they abstain from involvement in group affairs? If
so, does this shortcoming render such leaders unethical? As
usual, we wrestle with difficult questions.
· University of Ohio Studies, University of Michigan Studies,
and Blake, Mouton, & Bidwell’s Managerial Grid: When
considering the ethics of the theories from Ohio, Michigan, and
the authors of the Managerial Grid, one must address the
question of whether leaders who focus on the people they lead
are any more or less ethical than those who focus on the job to
be accomplished. If we reflect on our discussion in Lesson One
supra and concede that morality is about promoting the

wellbeing of humans and other living things, then the intuitive
answer might be that leaders who focus more on people are
more ethical. However, again, things are rarely this simple. As
we’ve discussed more than once already, there are cases in
which a focus on the job may actually render more benefit to
followers than appeasing followers’ shortsighted desires. What
people want is not always what they need, and so leaders must
confront the difficult task of doing that which is best, and not
necessarily that which is most popular.
Conclusion
In this lesson, we discussed some of the most prominent
behavioral theories concerning leadership as well as their
ethical implications. In Lesson Five we will discuss some
modern concepts of ethics for businesses, including socially
responsible investing, corporate social responsibility, and
environmentalism.
References
Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., & Bidwell, A. C. (1962).
Managerial grid. Advanced Management-Office Executive.
Gregory Stone, A., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004).
Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in
leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
25(4), 349-361.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K.
(2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological bulletin,
127(3), 376.
Rafiq Awan, M., & Mahmood, K. (2010). Relationship among
leadership style, organizational culture and employee

commitment in university libraries. Library management,
31(4/5), 253-266.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Bird, B. J. (1979). Contributions of the
Ohio State studies to the field of leadership. Journal of
Management, 5(2), 135-145.
Implications
theories, as well as their application
to The Trolley Problem in order to assess relative consequences.
Lesson Four will introduce
some of the most prominent behavioral theories concerning
leadersh
ip as well as their ethical
implications.
Behavioral Theories
research, which attempted to identify
qualities that were always associated with effective leaders, and
which were largely unsuccessful.
However, subsequent to these efforts, researchers in the field
then turned their focus to the types
of

behaviors
that leaders exhibit, hoping that this work might reveal some
patterns of successful
perspectives, habits, etc. These studies were conducted at some
of the finest universities across
the country, and while
there were some very general similarities in the results of many
of the
major studies, the implications varied from case to case. We
will now examine each of these
studies in greater detail in order to understand their findings
and implications.
One bri
ef preface is helpful here. The studies discussed below each
varied in their research
parameters, methodology, and findings. However, one factor
that was fairly consistent
defined. Generally, the stud
ies
discussed herein looked at leadership effectiveness with respect
to two metrics: performance, or
the productivity of the teams investigated in terms of the work
they do (quality and quantity),
and satisfaction, or the degree to which teams were happy p
erforming work under their
respective leaders. This is not an uncommon way of measuring
efficacy (Judge, Thoresen, Bono,
factors are quite relevant. Teams
must be able to produce at an acceptab

le level, but if they aren’t also content with the
sustain performance for any
extended period of time.
·
University of Iowa Studies:
One set of studies were conducted by researchers at
the Univ
ersity of Iowa. The results of these studies concluded that all
leaders
adopted one of three different leadership styles: Autocratic,
Democratic, and Laissez
-
Faire (Rafiq Awan & Mahmood, 2010). Autocratic leaders, as
the name suggests, run
their operations
like dictators, making decisions unilaterally and seeking very
little
input or participation from followers. Democratic leaders, by
contrast, adopt a very
participative style of leadership, involving followers in all
major decisions, either
through a ‘not
ice and comment’ style dialogue before decisions are rendered,
or
through an informal voting
-
style procedure. Finally, “Laissez
-
Faire” is a French term
that means to “let do” or to “let be”. It is commonly used in the

phrase “Laissez
-
Faire Capitalism” to d
escribe the American
-
style economy where government
business and industry
alone. Accordingly, Laissez
-
Faire leaders are those who are very “hands off” and do
not typically involve themselves i
n the affairs of their teams unless absolute
Democratic leaders were
most likely to render high levels of both performance and
satisfaction.
·
University of Ohio Studies:
Another set of studies was cond
ucted by researchers
at the University of Ohio. Instead of looking to classify
leadership styles in terms of
the Iowa taxonomy, these scholars measured leaders on two
dimensions
Implications
theories, as well as their application
to The Trolley Problem in order to assess relative consequences.
Lesson Four will introduce
some of the most prominent behavioral theories concerning
leadership as well as their ethical

implications.
Behavioral Theories
research, which attempted to identify
qualities that were always associated with effective leaders, and
which were largely unsuccessful.
However, subsequent to these efforts, researchers in the field
then turned their focus to the types
of behaviors that leaders exhibit, hoping that this work might
reveal some patterns of successful
perspectives, habits, etc. These studies were conducted at some
of the finest universities across
the country, and while there were some very general similarities
in the results of many of the
major studies, the implications varied from case to case. We
will now examine each of these
studies in greater detail in order to understand their findings
and implications.
One brief preface is helpful here. The studies discussed below
each varied in their research
parameters, methodology, and findings. However, one factor
that was fairly consistent
defined. Generally, the studies
discussed herein looked at leadership effectiveness with respect
to two metrics: performance, or
the productivity of the teams investigated in terms of the work
they do (quality and quantity),
and satisfaction, or the degree to which teams were happy
performing work under their
respective leaders. This is not an uncommon way of measuring
efficacy (Judge, Thoresen, Bono,

factors are quite relevant. Teams
must be able to produce at an acceptable level, but if they aren’t
also content with the
sustain performance for any
extended period of time.
conducted by researchers at
the University of Iowa. The results of these studies concluded
that all leaders
adopted one of three different leadership styles: Autocratic,
Democratic, and Laissez-
Faire (Rafiq Awan & Mahmood, 2010). Autocratic leaders, as
the name suggests, run
their operations like dictators, making decisions unilaterally and
seeking very little
input or participation from followers. Democratic leaders, by
contrast, adopt a very
participative style of leadership, involving followers in all
major decisions, either
through a ‘notice and comment’ style dialogue before decisions
are rendered, or
through an informal voting-style procedure. Finally, “Laissez-
Faire” is a French term
that means to “let do” or to “let be”. It is commonly used in the
phrase “Laissez-
Faire Capitalism” to describe the American-style economy
where government
business and industry
alone. Accordingly, Laissez-Faire leaders are those who are
very “hands off” and do
not typically involve themselves in the affairs of their teams
unless absolute

Democratic leaders were
most likely to render high levels of both performance and
satisfaction.
conducted by researchers
at the University of Ohio. Instead of looking to classify
leadership styles in terms of
the Iowa taxonomy, these scholars measured leaders on two
dimensions
Lesson Three: Ethical Theories
Lesson Two introduced leadership, some of the qualities that
are generally associated with successful leadership, and some of
the types of power that leaders wield. Lesson Three will
introduce three of the most prominent ethical theories in
philosophical debate today, and apply a famous ethical problem
for analysis.
As a helpful refresher, Lesson One supra established that ethics
encompass the behaviors and perspectives that maximize
morality---that is to say, those behaviors and perspectives which
have the most positive impact on well-being for those involved.
Although seems to be fairly straight-forward, one thing you
should be beginning to notice is that insofar as philosophy on
right and wrong or good and bad is concerned, nothing is as
simple as it may at first seem. Understanding that the goal of
ethics is to maximize well-being, questions immediately arise as
to the best ways to maximize well-being. When sacrifices must
be made, whose well-being matters most, and why? These are
difficult questions, and through rigorous philosophical inquiry,
some of the greatest thinkers on the subject have reduced their
perspectives to some basic ethical theories upon which most
points of view can at some level be mapped. In this lesson, we
will discuss three of the most well-established of these theories.
Egoism

Egoism is the idea that the optimal response to any moral
quandary is that which maximizes well-being for the person
responding. Egoism, ergo, is premised on the basis of self-
interest, and in its purest form, it argues that those actions
which are most in furtherance of a person’s self-interest are
inherently the best choices.
Immediately we can notice an obvious selfish bias to the
concept of pure egoism. In its unqualified form, egoism would
embrace human qualities like greed, and assert that one’s own
gains are the only variables that matter within the context of
personal ethics. However, it is only fair to note that some
philosophers advocate a modified version of egoism called
enlightened egoism. The basic premise of enlightened egoism is
that individuals serve their own self-interest when they act in
ways that serve the interests of others. Put another way, the
motivation is still selfish (one’s own self-interest), but by
helping others it is purported that mutual cooperation will
ultimately benefit the actor more than if he or she had pursued a
line of behavior consistent with pure greed and selfishness (The
Basics of Philosophy, n.d.-b).
As one simple example, if it is agreed that self-preservation is
the ultimate self-interest, then under egoist theory there would
perhaps be no circumstances under which the individual should
be persuaded to sacrifice his or her own life for the benefit of
others.
One of the most famous proponents of egoism was Adam Smith,
the father of modern-day capitalism. Capitalism itself is
primarily based on the principle that if players in an economic
environment act in a way that promotes their own individual
self-interests, the resulting competition will force those players
to maximize efficiency and productivity, players and consumers
will benefit as a result. This is also the foundation for the

Reagan administration’s philosophy of trickle-down economics,
which suggested that if government made it easier for the
private sector to do business (cut regulations, lower taxes, etc.),
everyone would ultimately benefit from the prosperity,
businesses included (Welch, 2006).
Utilitarianism
A second ethical theory is that of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism
contrasts with egoism in that it asserts that the most ethical
conduct is measured by taking a simple inventory of well-being
accomplished (or, alternatively, suffering avoided) for all those
involved, without any special consideration for the individual
actor. In this sense, utilitarianism is perhaps the most
mathematically sound basis for ethical conduct. Under
utilitarianism, in order to maximize morality all one need do is
measure the total amount of well-being produced (or suffering
relieved) for all parties involved in each alternative option, and
then choose the option with the best net yield. As a result of
this simple logic, utilitarianism can be starkly distinguished
from egoism in that under utilitarianism the most ethical
behavior may be one in which the actor enjoys no well-bring
whatsoever. In fact, the most ethical behavior may be one which
brings suffering (or a decrease in well-being) to the actor. If
other people involved would derive more benefit than the harm
attributed, then such behaviors are preferable under a utilitarian
theory (The Basics of Philosophy, n.d.-c).
In the example of self-sacrifice, utilitarianism would support
the general idea of sacrificing one’s own life so long as such an
act serves to save at least two other lives. This example, of
course, assumes all other things to be equal. It is worth noting
that a distinction is made in utilitarian theory between
quantitative well-being and qualitative well-being. In other
words, utilitarian theory permits an argument that all lives are
not equally valuable.

Jeremy Bentham, an 18th century English jurist and
philosopher, was one of the biggest advocates of utilitarianism.
Bentham adamantly opposed the death penalty, slavery, physical
punishment, and the subjugation of basic freedoms and rights
(he also advocated then-extreme views like decriminalization of
homosexuality). All such positions were based on the idea that
offenses in these areas violated the utilitarian premise of
maximizing well-being for all stakeholders.
Deontology
Deontology is yet another ethical theory. Deontology essentially
asserts that the morality of behavior is informed by the duties
that human beings have to themselves and to others. Thus, from
a deontological perspective individuals should do only that
which conforms with their duties. The challenge in
deontological perspectives is rather obvious: establishing a
reasoned, objective derivation of duty for the individual (The
Basics of Philosophy, n.d.-a).
The two biggest proponents of deontology, Immanuel Kant and
W.D. Ross, shared different perspectives on this problem of
duty. Kant suggested that reasoning should be the basis of
establishing duty. This, of course, precariously presupposes that
reasoning would lead to universal conclusions, notwithstanding
culture, religion, etc. Ross, on the other hand, believed that
“common sense intuition” is that which should inform duty.
Although it can be argued that this notion is about as ambiguous
as it gets, Ross at least provided some of his own “common
sense” as objective premise for this point of view. For example,
according to Ross, not causing harm to others was to be the
highest priority, followed by lesser duties such as fidelity,
justice, beneficence, etc. Sufficeth to say that deontology leaves
the individual awash in sometimes-irreconcilable subjective
interpretations of “duty”.

The Trolley Problem
In order to help illustrate the differences between these
theories, we can apply a famous hypothetical ethics quandary
introduced by Philippa Foot in the mid-20th century. The
quandary was coined “The Trolley Problem” and is set up as
follows:
Barreling down a track is a trolley, and tied to the track ahead
of the trolley are five individuals who will be killed by the
trolley unless something is done. You (the observer) had
nothing to do with the circumstances in which these five people
are currently situated, but you are standing next to a lever that
would switch the track and divert the trolley away from the five
people, effectively rescuing them from certain death. However,
you observe that there is one individual standing on the
alternate track to which the trolley would be diverted if you pull
the lever, and this individual would be killed were you to do so.
The problem is to deliberate as to the most ethical conduct here:
let the five people die, or pull the lever and kill the one on the
alternate track? (Philosopher’s Toolkit, n.d.).
This problem was originally created to emphasize the
distinction between taking action and omitting action. Is there
an ethical difference between permitting the death of five
people that you could easily save, and orchestrating the death of
one person who was not otherwise in peril? Feel free to conduct
this thought experiment in your own head and analyze the
implications (What would you choose? And more importantly,
why?). However, for the purposes of our discussion, we can also
apply the three ethical theories we’ve discussed in this lesson to
the problem, in order to evaluate differences in consequences:
· Egoism: In an egoist paradigm, the question at hand would be:
which of the two choices would bring about better well-being

for the observer? If the observer had a personal attachment to
any of the individuals in peril in the scenario, then the decision
might be determined by one’s prerogative to save those people
that are of greatest personal value to the observer. For example,
if the one person on the alternate track is the observer’s mother,
then this might persuade a choice not to pull the lever.
However, absent such facts, if all those individuals involved
were complete strangers to the observer, then there might not be
a strong investment in the decision either way. Alternatively,
though, one might also consider the weight of accountability on
the observer afterward (e.g. how guilty would the observer feel
about his or her decision?), and as a result, this might compel
more thorough consideration.
· Utilitarianism: Under utilitarian ethics theory, it is fairly
obvious that flipping the lever would maximize the well-being
involved here (saving the lives of five people at the cost of
one). However, as discussed supra, this conclusion might be
complicated a bit when one considers quantitative versus
qualitative well-being. In either case, one wrestling with The
Trolley Problem isn’t given enough information to begin to
assess the qualitative value of each life involved, so the
numbers are all one has to work with here. (As an aside, it is
fascinating that while the condition of psychopathy is often
synonymized in horror movies with crazed, homicidal
tendencies, some psychopaths simply lack a capacity for
empathy, and while this would normally be regarded as an
impairment, such a psychopath would have no problem
weighing the cold, hard math of the problem and switching the
tracks...notwithstanding personal connections to any of those
involved. This might sound like a heartless disposition, but such
a perspective might be advantageous when emotions cloud
otherwise rational judgment).
· Deontology: Based on a deontological position, one would
assess the choices here based on perceptions of one’s duties to
themselves and to the individuals involved. The problem is that
with both Kant’s and Ross’s views on deontology, we are left

with the question of whether or not allowing someone to die is
ethically equivalent to killing someone. If the two are
equivalent, then there isn’t any deontological argument for one
choice over the other, although it could be argued that duties to
five people might outweigh duties to one, regardless of what
those duties are construed to be. However, if they are not
equivalent, then one must decide which holds a higher priority
in terms of the hierarchy of duties. Most scholars who suggest a
difference suggest that killing is the greater of the two wrongs,
and if that is the case such that a higher deontological duty
would be placed on not killing than on not allowing death, then
an observer following this view would presumably not throw the
switch.
Conclusion
In this lesson, we discussed three of the most prominent ethical
theories, as well as their application to The Trolley Problem in
order to assess relative consequences. In Lesson Four, we will
discuss some seminal theories on leadership efficacy, and the
difference between transactional and transformational
leadership.
References
Philosopher’s Toolkit (n.d.). The Trolley Problem.
http://www.philosopherstoolkit.com/the-trolley-problem.php
The Basics of Philosophy (n.d.-a). Deontology. Retrieved from
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_deontology.html
The Basics of Philosophy (n.d.-b). Egoism. Retrieved from
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_egoism.html
The Basics of Philosophy (n.d.-c). Utilitarianism. Retrieved
from

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_utilitarianism.html
Welch, W. (2006). Adam Smith: Capitalism’s founding father.
Vision. Retrieved from
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/biography-adam-
smith/868.aspx
are generally associated with
successful leadership, and some of
the types of power that leaders wield. Lesson Three will
philosophical debate today, and apply a
famous ethical problem for analysis.
As a helpful refresher, Lesson One
supra
established that eth
ics encompass the behaviors and
perspectives that maximize morality
---
that is to say, those behaviors and perspectives which
have the most positive impact on well
-
being for those involved. Although seems to be fairly
straight
-
forward, one thing you should
be beginning to notice is that insofar as philosophy on

simple as it may at first seem.
Understanding that the goal of ethics is to maximize well
-
being, questions immediately arise as
to the
best
ways to maximize well
-
being. When sacrifices must be made, whose well
-
being
matters most, and why? These are difficult questions, and
through rigorous philosophical inquiry,
perspectives to so
me basic ethical
theories upon which most points of view can at some level be
mapped. In this lesson, we will
discuss three of the most well
-
established of these theories.
Egoism
quandary is that which maximizes
well
-
being for the person responding. Egoism, ergo, is premised on
the basis of self
-

interest, and
in its purest form, it argues that those actions which are
most
in
furtherance of a person’s self
-
interest are inherently the best choices.
concept of pure egoism. In its
unqualified form, egoism would embrace human qualities like
greed, and assert that one’s own
personal ethics. However, it is only
fair to note that some philosophers advocate a modified version
of egoism called
enlightened
egoism
. The basic premise of enlightened egoism is that indivi
duals serve their own self
-
interest
when they act in ways that serve the interests of others. Put
another way, the motivation is still
selfish (one’s own self
-
interest), but by helping others it is purported that mutual
cooperation
will ultimately benefit
the actor more than if he or she had pursued a line of behavior
consistent

with pure greed and selfishness (The Basics of Philosophy, n.d.
-
b).
As one simple example, if it is agreed that self
-
preservation is the ultimate self
-
interest, then
under egoist
theory there would perhaps be no circumstances under which
the individual should
others.
the father of modern
-
day
capitalism. Cap
italism itself is primarily based on the principle that if players
in an economic
self
-
interests, the resulting
competition will force those players to maximize efficiency and
productivity, player
s and
consumers will benefit as a result. This is also the foundation
for the Reagan administration’s
philosophy of trickle

-
down economics, which suggested that if government made it
easier for the
are generally associated with
successful leadership, and some of the types of power that
leaders wield. Lesson Three will
philosophical debate today, and apply a
famous ethical problem for analysis.
As a helpful refresher, Lesson One supra established that ethics
encompass the behaviors and
perspectives that maximize morality---that is to say, those
behaviors and perspectives which
have the most positive impact on well-being for those involved.
Although seems to be fairly
straight-forward, one thing you should be beginning to notice is
that insofar as philosophy on
simple as it may at first seem.
Understanding that the goal of ethics is to maximize well-being,
questions immediately arise as
to the best ways to maximize well-being. When sacrifices must
be made, whose well-being
matters most, and why? These are difficult questions, and
through rigorous philosophical inquiry,
perspectives to some basic ethical
theories upon which most points of view can at some level be
mapped. In this lesson, we will
discuss three of the most well-established of these theories.
Egoism

quandary is that which maximizes
well-being for the person responding. Egoism, ergo, is premised
on the basis of self-interest, and
in its purest form, it argues that those actions which are most in
furtherance of a person’s self-
interest are inherently the best choices.
concept of pure egoism. In its
unqualified form, egoism would embrace human qualities like
greed, and assert that one’s own
personal ethics. However, it is only
fair to note that some philosophers advocate a modified version
of egoism called enlightened
egoism. The basic premise of enlightened egoism is that
individuals serve their own self-interest
when they act in ways that serve the interests of others. Put
another way, the motivation is still
selfish (one’s own self-interest), but by helping others it is
purported that mutual cooperation
will ultimately benefit the actor more than if he or she had
pursued a line of behavior consistent
with pure greed and selfishness (The Basics of Philosophy, n.d.-
b).
As one simple example, if it is agreed that self-preservation is
the ultimate self-interest, then
under egoist theory there would perhaps be no circumstances
under which the individual should
others.
the father of modern-day

capitalism. Capitalism itself is primarily based on the principle
that if players in an economic
self-interests, the resulting
competition will force those players to maximize efficiency and
productivity, players and
consumers will benefit as a result. This is also the foundation
for the Reagan administration’s
philosophy of trickle-down economics, which suggested that if
government made it easier for the
Lesson Two: Leadership Qualities and their Ethical Implications
Lesson One discussed and introduced the topics of ethics and
morality as they are understood from the perspective of the
individual and society in general. Lesson Two will introduce the
concept of leadership as well as leadership qualities and their
ethical implications.
Leadership and Management
First, it is important to note that, within the context of business
organizations of all types and sizes, leadership is thought of as
an aspect of management. In fact, leadership is considered one
of the well-established four functions of management, along
with planning, coordinating, and controlling (Norman, n.d.).
The other important thing to understand on this concept is that
not all managers are good leaders, and conversely, not all
leaders are good managers. Some managers excel in technical
areas of management but fail to effectively motivate and control
the work of subordinates. And likewise, some leaders can do an
excellent job of inspiring their followers but lack other skills
such as accounting, asset management, and budgeting.
Regardless, the key takeaway from this concept is that all of
these functions are necessary to the proper operation of a
business.
No Such Thing as a Leadership Recipe
Formal management and leadership research began in the early
20th century. And some of the first work in this field was

directed at trying to determine whether or not there were
characteristics (physical and psychological) of human beings
that were sufficiently correlated with successful leadership so
as to infer causation (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). In other
words, were there any attributes that all successful leaders
possessed, and which would inform a “recipe” for successful
leaders?
The answer, predominantly, was no. The research was largely
unsuccessful at finding any qualities which correlated perfectly
with successful leadership. In terms of physical characteristics,
there were none that even looked generally promising. Indeed,
leaders come in all different shapes, sizes, races, ethnicities,
genders, abilities, etc. However, in terms of psycho-social
elements, while there were no qualities that were consistently
present among all the successful leaders of recorded human
history, the researchers did find eight qualities which could be
loosely associated with leadership success (Judge, Bono, Ilies,
& Gerhardt, 2002):
Drive: Generally speaking, successful leaders usually have high
levels of energy, ambition, and drive for success. They are
typically highly-motivated and very persistent with respect to
their goals. Considering the level of effort which would
ordinarily be necessary to achieve levels of greatness sufficient
to earn one’s self a prominent place in the annals of history,
this quality is not surprising.
Desire to Lead: In addition to possessing a high level of drive,
successful leaders often have a strong desire to lead others,
rather than follow from behind. They enjoy the influence that
they can exercise over others in pursuit of goals, and are not
afraid to take responsibility for other people.
Honesty and Integrity: Most successful leaders are honest with
their followers and consequently develop very high levels of
trust and credibility among the people they lead. There is also a
high degree of consistency between words and actions.
Naturally, this is not to say that all successful leaders have been
so honest and consistent, as there are obviously plenty of cases

that would disprove such a hypothesis.
Self-Confidence: Generally, leaders who are successful portray
a high level of self-confidence, and minimal self-doubt. This
translates directly to followers, so that they are not concerned
as to the ability of their leaders to accomplish stated goals.
Note, here, that such appearances of self-confidence may not in
fact be genuine, but so long as the leader is perceived to be
genuine, follower commitment and loyalty will be the same.
Intelligence: Most successful leaders need to possess a fair
degree of intelligence, and a commensurate ability to process
large amounts of complex data and make important decisions
from an informed perspective. In today’s organizations, such
data is far too voluminous and complicated for any one leader to
manage it all. Instead, he or she will rely on a team of
supporting experts to provide the most relevant macro-level
conclusions from data, and recommend courses of action. Thus,
in this sense, even intelligence may not be a barrier to
successful leadership, so long as the leader can a) appear
intelligent, so as to maintain credibility, and b) surround him or
her self with adequate help.
Job-Relevant Knowledge: In addition to the ability to process
information (intelligence, discussed immediately supra),
successful leaders must also have a sufficient level of
knowledge about the nature of the position they occupy, and the
challenges that exist therewith. In the business world, this may
equate to a history of adequate experience in one’s field.
However, as with intelligence, this too may be essentially faked
so long as a leader has good help.
Extraversion: It is true that most leaders are highly energetic,
outgoing, gregarious people who thrive in environments that
involve a lot of social interaction (Van Vugt, 2006). They are
also generally assertive with their positions and influence.
However, a strong caveat is warranted with respect to this
quality, as history has shown that some of the very best leaders
are far from extraverted. Perhaps the quintessential example is
President Abraham Lincoln, who is well-documented as having

been someone who abhorred the spotlight, and preferred quiet
seclusion to the constant interaction that accompanied the
presidency. Yet, Lincoln managed to repress his preferences and
lead the country through one of the most difficult periods in its
200+ year history. Additionally, he is hardly remembered for
his quiet and reserved persona, save for historians and their
readership. Thus, Lincoln serves as an example that introversion
mustn’t always inhibit a leader from achieving even the very
highest levels of success and notoriety.
Accountability: Finally, most successful leaders have a strong
sense of accountability for the results of not only their own
efforts, but also those of their followers. In this sense, they are
happy to share credit when things go well, but also to accept
blame when things don’t. When asked about how to reconcile
successes and failures as a leader, former U.S. Secretary of
State Colin Powell once said “Share the credit, take the blame,
and quietly find out and fix things that went wrong. Whenever
you place the cause of one of your actions outside yourself, it’s
an excuse and not a reason.” (Executive Leadership, 2013).
Ethical Implications of Leadership Qualities
Now that we’ve listed and discussed these eight leadership
qualities, and explained that none are strictly dispositive insofar
as success is concerned, we can examine the ethics of leaders
exhibiting these attributes in different contexts.
Drive: Drive might be considered an admirable quality, but what
if a leader’s drive for success is placed in higher priority than
ethical conduct? In other words, what if goals are considered to
be more important than altruism? Additionally, what if goals
don’t align with ethical conduct? This is not an uncommon
situation, as professionals who are paid for performance (e.g.
commission positions, etc.) are frequently pushed to deliver
results without much regard for the means by which it is
accomplished.
Desire to Lead: Desire to Lead is usually a prerequisite for
successful leadership, but one should consider the motivations

behind such a desire to lead. If the purpose is to help followers
achieve more together, this is arguably a more ethical
motivation than, say, a desire to control others and wield power.
Honesty and Integrity: Provided that these qualities are genuine,
they are, on their faces, objectively ethical. However, are there
ever cases where lying is a superior ethical choice to honesty?
For example, if embellishing the truth about the state of a
business’s financial solvency is necessary to keep employees
comfortable, motivated, and productive, is such dishonesty truly
unethical if it serves to benefit employees by preventing such a
company from going under? These are difficult questions to be
sure, but absolute rules of conduct are rare in the world of
ethics.
Self-Confidence: Confidence may be a powerful force of
persuasion for followers, but over-confidence can lead to
dangerous positions of underestimating threats and rendering a
team vulnerable to failure. Additionally, creating false
impressions of confidence may give followers an imprudent
sense of trust in their leader.
Intelligence: Intelligence can hardly be described as an
unethical quality for leaders to possess. However, as discussed
supra, intelligence is something that may be effectively feigned
by a talented charlatan, and this always presents a unique
danger to the stability of teams. In another way, intelligence
possessed by a leader which is genuine but vastly superior to
that possessed by the typical follower may be used to take
advantage of followers and manipulate them for personal gain,
so exceptionally talented leaders must self-regulate their own
conduct in this respect.
Job-Relevant Knowledge: Like intelligence, job-relevant
knowledge is something that may be faked for personal gain at
the expense of a team, or used in a way that takes advantage of
those who are less knowledgeable. For example, financial
experts who grow to understand accounting procedures at a
level that no other employees do (or can) may be tempted to use
this knowledge to commit undetectable theft. Cases of such

behavior are not uncommon.
Extraversion: As discussed previously, extraversion is a typical
quality among successful leaders, but not all successful leaders.
Extravert leaders must be conscious of the way in which their
personalities may be perceived as overly-assertive, aggressive,
or even overbearing by more introverted followers. This kind of
leadership dynamic can sometimes lead to a culture of
resentment or fear within teams.
Accountability: Accountability is perhaps the one quality which
is unlikely to lead to unethical behavior, regardless of its degree
of influence over an individual’s behavior. Accountability is
essentially the very embodiment of ethics, and so long as one’s
own perceptions about right and wrong, good and bad, etc. are
reasonable and appropriate, an emphasis on personal
responsibility and even guilt-proneness is unlikely to lead such
a leader to unethical conduct.
Conclusion
In this lesson, we discussed leadership as well as some qualities
that are generally associated with successful leadership and
their ethical implications. In Lesson Three, we will discuss the
most prominent theories of ethics applied to philosophical
debate today, and apply a famous ethical problem for analysis.
References
Executive Leadership (2013, June 26). Colin Powell’s rules to
live by. Business Management Daily. Retrieved from
http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/32161/colin-powells-
rules-to-live-by
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002).
Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), pp. 765-780.
Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits
really matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), pp. 48-
60.
Norman, L. (n.d.) What are the four basic functions that make
up the management process? Chron. Retrieved from
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/four-basic-functions-make-up-

management-process-23852.html
Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and
followership.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4),
354-371.
morality as they are understood from the
perspective of the individual and society in general. Lesson
Two will introduce the concept of leadership
as well as leadership qualities and their ethica
l implications.
organizations of all types and sizes,
leadership is thought of as an aspect of management. In fact,
leadership is considered one of the well
-
est
ablished four functions of management, along with planning,
coordinating, and controlling (Norman,
n.d.). The other important thing to understand on this concept is
that not all managers are good leaders,
and conversely, not all leaders are good managers.
Some managers excel in technical areas of
management but fail to effectively motivate and control the
work of subordinates. And likewise, some
leaders can do an excellent job of inspiring their followers but
lack other skills such as accounting, asset
mana
gement, and budgeting. Regardless, the key takeaway from this
concept is that all of these

functions are necessary to the proper operation of a business.
20
th century. And some of the first
work in this field was directed at trying to determine whether or
not there were characteristics (physical
and psychological) of human beings that were sufficiently
correlated with successful leadership so as to
infer caus
ation (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). In other words, were there
any attributes that all successful
leaders possessed, and which would inform a “recipe” for
successful leaders?
unsuccessful at findi
ng any qualities which
correlated perfectly with successful leadership. In terms of
physical characteristics, there were none that
even looked generally promising. Indeed, leaders come in all
different shapes, sizes, races, ethnicities,
genders, abilities,
etc. However, in terms of psycho
-
social elements, while there were no qualities that
were consistently present among all the successful leaders of
recorded human history, the researchers
did find eight qualities which could be loosely associated with
lead
ership success (Judge, Bono, Ilies, &
Gerhardt, 2002):

levels of energy, ambition, and drive for
success. They are typically highly
-
motivated and very persistent with respect to their goals.
Considering
the level of effort which would ordinarily be necessary to
achieve levels of greatness sufficient to earn
one’s self a prominent place in the annals of history, this
quality is not surprising.
Desire to Lead: In addition to possessing a high le
vel of drive, successful leaders often have a strong
desire to lead others, rather than follow from behind. They
enjoy the influence that they can exercise
over others in pursuit of goals, and are not afraid to take
responsibility for other people.
Honesty
and Integrity: Most successful leaders are honest with their
followers and consequently
develop very high levels of trust and credibility among the
people they lead. There is also a high degree
morality as they are understood from the
perspective of the individual and society in general. Lesson
Two will introduce the concept of leadership
as well as leadership qualities and their ethical implications.
organizations of all types and sizes,
leadership is thought of as an aspect of management. In fact,
leadership is considered one of the well-
established four functions of management, along with planning,

coordinating, and controlling (Norman,
n.d.). The other important thing to understand on this concept is
that not all managers are good leaders,
and conversely, not all leaders are good managers. Some
managers excel in technical areas of
management but fail to effectively motivate and control the
work of subordinates. And likewise, some
leaders can do an excellent job of inspiring their followers but
lack other skills such as accounting, asset
management, and budgeting. Regardless, the key takeaway from
this concept is that all of these
functions are necessary to the proper operation of a business.
20th century. And some of the first
work in this field was directed at trying to determine whether or
not there were characteristics (physical
and psychological) of human beings that were sufficiently
correlated with successful leadership so as to
infer causation (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). In other words,
were there any attributes that all successful
leaders possessed, and which would inform a “recipe” for
successful leaders?
unsuccessful at finding any qualities which
correlated perfectly with successful leadership. In terms of
physical characteristics, there were none that
even looked generally promising. Indeed, leaders come in all
different shapes, sizes, races, ethnicities,
genders, abilities, etc. However, in terms of psycho-social
elements, while there were no qualities that
were consistently present among all the successful leaders of
recorded human history, the researchers
did find eight qualities which could be loosely associated with
leadership success (Judge, Bono, Ilies, &
Gerhardt, 2002):

levels of energy, ambition, and drive for
success. They are typically highly-motivated and very persistent
with respect to their goals. Considering
the level of effort which would ordinarily be necessary to
achieve levels of greatness sufficient to earn
one’s self a prominent place in the annals of history, this
quality is not surprising.
Desire to Lead: In addition to possessing a high level of drive,
successful leaders often have a strong
desire to lead others, rather than follow from behind. They
enjoy the influence that they can exercise
over others in pursuit of goals, and are not afraid to take
responsibility for other people.
Honesty and Integrity: Most successful leaders are honest with
their followers and consequently
develop very high levels of trust and credibility among the
people they lead. There is also a high degree
Lesson One: Ethics Introduced
In this first lesson, we will discuss an introduction to the topic
of ethics, what they are and how they are derived within the
individual and the society.
According to Merriam-Webster, ethics are defined as “rules of
behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad”
(Merriam Webster, n.d.-b). This is a workable definition of
ethics for the purpose of our introduction in this lesson and our
future discussions. However, in order to truly understand what
it is that we’re talking about when we discuss ethics, we need to
dive a bit further and ask the next logical question: what does it
mean to be “moral”?
Merriam-Webster defines “morality” as “beliefs about what is
right behavior and what is wrong behavior” (Merriam Webster,
n.d.-c). The word “right” is defined as “morally or socially

correct or acceptable” (Merriam Webster, n.d.-d). “Correct” is
defined as being in conformance with “standard”, “fact”, or “a
set figure” (Merriam Webster, n.d.-a). I suspect you can see by
now that this line of attack proves unfruitful. We’ve arrived at a
rather nebulous conclusion that ethics are essentially a
codification of conduct which is in conformance with either a)
that which is factually accurate, or b) that which conforms with
social standards.
How do we reconcile all of this? It would appear that facts and
social norms belong to two different spheres of knowledge and
understanding. Is it possible to have an objectively factual
concept of morality, and if so, would such a morality be
compatible with what we know about current ethical
underpinnings? These are difficult questions with which
philosophers have wrestled since the earliest human records
(and possibly pre-historically as well). By no means do we have
all of the answers today. However, we have come a long way in
understanding the nature of human morality, and the ways in
which we can optimize righteous behavior. Yet, in almost every
facet of human affairs today, leaders have debased their own
ethical standards and succumbed to the temptations of greed,
corruption, and selfishness. For aspiring leaders today, a
working knowledge of ethical precepts, as well as the dynamics
that commonly lead to deviation from ethical conduct, is
critical.
Morality Demystified
As demonstrated supra, turning to a dictionary to explain what
“ethics” really means will do little good. Instead of relying on
the words themselves, it is necessary to look to the spirit of the
distinction between moral and immoral behavior. What do all
behaviors that might be considered to be “moral” have in
common? The answer: an improvement in well-being. Keep in
mind that the answer to the question does not depend on

whether such behaviors are objectively moral. All that is
necessary is that the believer genuinely believe the conduct to
be morally right (Harris, 2014).
For example, if a killer believes that taking a life results in a
better state of being, either for the killer him (or her) self, or
the victim, or some third party(ies), then such a belief conforms
with our proposition. Well-being is what is at stake here, and
while such a killer might in fact be tragically mistaken as to the
actual effects of taking a life on the well-being of those
involved, the act was predicated on the belief (correct or not)
that it would bring more good than harm.
Now, it is entirely possible that serious mental illness might
provoke someone to commit an act either a) knowing of its
immoral character, or b) with total disregard as to morality in
general. We know very well that such conditions exists (e.g.
psychopathy), and that at their extremes they can elicit
incomprehensibly horrific behavior. However, absent such
conditions it is generally agreed among sane and competent
human beings that killing people is an immoral thing to do.
Analyzing rationally, it lowers the well-being of the victim
(being dead is about as low as it gets), and absent other
information, there are no obvious benefits to be had.
However, that missing “other information” can dramatically
alter such an analysis. Take, for example, the case of a soldier
at war. Although most people---soldiers and otherwise---might
agree that killing is unfortunate and undesirable, history has
shown that we will gladly march into battle and spill blood on
the justification that killing in these contexts is a necessary
collateral cost to serve some greater good (Linker, 2014). For
example, it is estimated that roughly five million Germans were
killed in World War II, and any compassionate person should
find the idea of five million human murders to be atrociously
immoral, but few would argue that defeating the Nazi movement

wasn’t the right thing to do, even accounting for the necessary
killing involved. Self-defense, defense of allies, and liberation
of the Jewish people were among the biggest legitimate reasons
for doing so. Thus, we can conclude that even the least moral
actions may sometimes be justified by extenuating
circumstances; there will be exceptions to rules of morality (De
Dora, 2010). There are a variety of reasons put forth to attempt
to justify apparently immoral behavior, and not all are as
convincing as that which I just described, but we will discuss
the ways in which we as people rationalize immoral or unethical
behavior in subsequent lessons.
Morality and Animals
It’s also worth mentioning that this same concept of well-being
can be applied to non-human animals. However, in this context
we must ask even more difficult questions. For example,
consider the following: Would you be comfortable clubbing
baby seals in the Arctic? What about slaughtering dolphins in
Japan? How about poisoning someone’s pet dog? Or shooting an
endangered rhino? Now, before you answer, what is important
to notice here is that I have primed these examples with some
clever, extraneous information which will likely provoke a
strong emotional reaction to accompany your response.
However, the larger point is that these are all acts which are
committed by human beings with some degree of regularity, and
the extraneous information provided isn’t strictly necessary to
understand the valid application of well-being assessment with
animals. In the first example, I intentionally described a
notoriously cute animal. In the second, I referenced one of the
smartest animals on the planet (rivaling humans in some ways).
In the third example, I drew on the connection that most people
have with dogs as household pets (perhaps this may have had
less of an effect on you if you are not a “dog person”), and in
the final example I provided relevant context that the rhino
species in question is struggling to survive in the wild. As an

aside, although I said nothing about the causes of the rhino’s
endangerment, if your mind went to visions of rhinos being cut
down for their ivory horns by unscrupulous poachers, then this
in and of itself was part of your involuntary emotional “knee-
jerk” reaction.
But imagine that I provided no such example. Perhaps I was
instead to ask you how you would feel about ending the life of a
cow that is destined for slaughter anyway. Cows are not
particularly intelligent, not extraordinarily cute (by most
standards), not commonly kept as pets, and nowhere near
endangerment. Yet, if you’re like most people, then even this
proposition would evoke a strong negative response. As goes
the old adage, many people are OK with “eating the burger” so
long as they don’t have to “meet the cow”. However, if we truly
seek answers and are willing to approach these questions
introspectively, we have to ask ourselves why. This particular
example has to do with distance from harm, and we will be
talking about this in more detail in subsequent lessons as well.
Now comes the summit of our thought exercise. Reflecting on
your feelings toward the cow in our last hypothetical, ask
yourself why you don’t feel the same sense of shock and awe at
the notion of killing an ant or a fly. Unless you are the Dalai
Lama, you probably don’t lose much sleep thinking about the
endless scores of insects that you kill on a daily basis,
intentional or otherwise (as it turns out, even the Dalai Lama
can get over this) (Moyers, 2013). Why such a difference
though? Ultimately, what we find at the end of this trail is that
our predispositions toward the value of other life---just as with
human life---is based on our presumptions concerning the
degree to which we believe that such life can experience
suffering or happiness (i.e. potential degrees of well-being). We
simply don’t ascribe the same range of potential good and bad
emotions to the ant that we do to the cow, and therefore we
rationalize our ethical priorities around stepping on ants and

slaughtering cows. As an aside, I should note that while our
presumptions about these potential degrees of well-being are
largely based upon sensory intuition (e.g. our built-in empathy
wiring can detect emotions in the face, eyes, movements, and
sounds of a cow, but we generally can do no such things with
ants), our scientific understanding of the relationship between
biological complexity and exposure to emotions would also
support the proposition that cows can “feel” more than ants.
Thus, we know from analysis of our own emotions and
behaviors that those choices which are labelled “moral” are
generally those which are expected to increase the well-being of
subjects involved. Yet, we can point today to examples of
leaders in politics, religion, business, and elsewhere who appear
to demonstrate behavior which could not be remotely tied to
improved well-being. As we will discuss in this course, much of
the apparent discord among individuals within a society is
explained by the fact that the views of the individual are
dependent upon the individual’s experiences and the values that
he or she has learned throughout his or her life. This does not
necessarily mean that there is no such thing as objective
morality, as it is possible to arrive at a single moral
determination on a given issue notwithstanding a variety of
opinions. However, what it does mean is that convincing people
that morality is not strictly subjective---and consequently
avoiding the propensity for such drastic deviations from rational
norms----is an uphill battle.
Conclusion
In this lesson, we discussed the definition and explanation of
ethics, within the context of morality and its implications. In
Lesson Two, we will introduce the concept of leadership and
some of the leadership dynamics which may be predictive of
ethical conduct.

References
De Dora, M. (2010, May 25). The concerns of morality: Well-
being and flourishing. Center for Inquiry. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/the_concerns_of_m
orality_well-being_and_flourishing
Harris, S. (2014). Clarifying the moral landscape: A response to
Ryan Born. Sam Harris. Retrieved from
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/clarifying-the-landscape
Linker, D. (2014, March 19). Is war ever morally justified? The
Week. Retrieved from http://theweek.com/articles/449193/war-
ever-morally-justified
Merriam-Webster (n.d.-a). Correct. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correct
Merriam-Webster (n.d.-b). Ethic. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethics
Merriam-Webster (n.d.-c). Morality. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
Merriam-Webster (n.d.-a). Right. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right
Moyers, B. (2013, January 4). The Dalai Lama on respecting our
environment. Moyers & Company. Retrieved from
http://billmoyers.com/2013/01/04/moyers-moment-1991-the-
dalai-lama-on-respecting-our-environment/
Lesson One: E
thics Introduced

of ethics, what they are and how
they are derived within the individual and the society.
According to Merriam
-
Webster, ethics are defined as “rules of behavior based on ideas
about
what is morally good and bad” (Merriam Webster, n.d.
-
b). This is a workable definition of ethics
for the purpose of our introduction in this lesson and our future
d
iscussions. However, in order to
truly understand what it is that we’re talking about when we
discuss ethics, we need to dive a bit
further and ask the next logical question: what does it mean to
be “moral”?
Merriam
-
Webster defines “morality” as “beliefs
about what is right behavior and what is wrong
behavior” (Merriam Webster, n.d.
-
c). The word “right” is defined as “morally or socially correct
or acceptable” (Merriam Webster, n.d.
-
d). “Correct” is defined as being in conformance with
“standard”, “fact”,

or “a set figure” (Merriam Webster, n.d.
-
a). I suspect you can see by now that
this line of attack proves unfruitful. We’ve arrived at a rather
nebulous conclusion that ethics are
essentially a codification of conduct which is in conformance
with either a
) that which is
factually accurate, or b) that which conforms with social
standards.
social norms belong to two
different spheres of knowledge and understanding. Is it possible
to have an ob
jectively factual
compatible with what we know about
current ethical underpinnings? These are difficult questions
with which philosophers have
wrestled since the earliest human records (and possibly
pre
-
historically as well). By no means do
we have all of the answers today. However, we have come a
long way in understanding the
nature of human morality, and the ways in which we can
optimize righteous behavior. Yet, in
almost every facet of human affair
s today, leaders have debased their own ethical standards and
succumbed to the temptations of greed, corruption, and
selfishness. For aspiring leaders today, a

that commonly lead to deviation
f
rom ethical conduct, is critical.
As demonstrated
supra
, turning to a dictionary to explain what “ethics” really means
will do
little good. Instead of relying on the words themselves, it is
necessary to look to the spirit of the
di
stinction between moral and immoral behavior. What do all
behaviors that might be considered
to be “moral” have in common? The answer: an improvement in
well
-
being. Keep in mind that
the answer to the question does
not
depend on whether such behaviors are
objectively moral. All
that is necessary is that the believer genuinely believe the
conduct to be morally right (Harris,
2014).
better state of being, either for the

killer him (or her) s
elf, or the victim, or some third party(ies), then such a belief
conforms with
our proposition. Well
-
being is what is at stake here, and while such a killer might in
fact be
tragically mistaken as to the actual effects of taking a life on
the well
-
being of
those involved,
the act was predicated on the belief (correct or not) that it
would bring more good than harm.
Lesson One: Ethics Introduced
of ethics, what they are and how
they are derived within the individual and the society.
According to Merriam-Webster, ethics are defined as “rules of
behavior based on ideas about
what is morally good and bad” (Merriam Webster, n.d.-b). This
is a workable definition of ethics
for the purpose of our introduction in this lesson and our future
discussions. However, in order to
truly understand what it is that we’re talking about when we
discuss ethics, we need to dive a bit
further and ask the next logical question: what does it mean to
be “moral”?
Merriam-Webster defines “morality” as “beliefs about what is
right behavior and what is wrong

behavior” (Merriam Webster, n.d.-c). The word “right” is
defined as “morally or socially correct
or acceptable” (Merriam Webster, n.d.-d). “Correct” is defined
as being in conformance with
“standard”, “fact”, or “a set figure” (Merriam Webster, n.d.-a). I
suspect you can see by now that
this line of attack proves unfruitful. We’ve arrived at a rather
nebulous conclusion that ethics are
essentially a codification of conduct which is in conformance
with either a) that which is
factually accurate, or b) that which conforms with social
standards.
social norms belong to two
different spheres of knowledge and understanding. Is it possible
to have an objectively factual
compatible with what we know about
current ethical underpinnings? These are difficult questions
with which philosophers have
wrestled since the earliest human records (and possibly pre-
historically as well). By no means do
we have all of the answers today. However, we have come a
long way in understanding the
nature of human morality, and the ways in which we can
optimize righteous behavior. Yet, in
almost every facet of human affairs today, leaders have debased
their own ethical standards and
succumbed to the temptations of greed, corruption, and
selfishness. For aspiring leaders today, a
that commonly lead to deviation
from ethical conduct, is critical.

As demonstrated supra, turning to a dictionary to explain what
“ethics” really means will do
little good. Instead of relying on the words themselves, it is
necessary to look to the spirit of the
distinction between moral and immoral behavior. What do all
behaviors that might be considered
to be “moral” have in common? The answer: an improvement in
well-being. Keep in mind that
the answer to the question does not depend on whether such
behaviors are objectively moral. All
that is necessary is that the believer genuinely believe the
conduct to be morally right (Harris,
2014).
better state of being, either for the
killer him (or her) self, or the victim, or some third party(ies),
then such a belief conforms with
our proposition. Well-being is what is at stake here, and while
such a killer might in fact be
tragically mistaken as to the actual effects of taking a life on
the well-being of those involved,
the act was predicated on the belief (correct or not) that it
would bring more good than harm.
DeVry University
Course Project Description
BUSN278 Budgeting and Forecasting
BUSN278 Course Project

Project Overview
This is an individual project where you will be acting as an
entrepreneur who wants to start a new business. As an
entrepreneur, you’ll create a 5-year budget that supports your
vision and strategy, as well as the needs for equipment, labor,
and other start-up costs.
The project requires you to create a written budget proposal, a
supporting Excel workbook showing your calculations, and a
PowerPoint presentation summarizing the key elements of the
budget proposal, which you assume will be presented to a
management team.
This is an individual project. Each week you will complete a
section of the project in draft form. In Week 7, you will submit
the final version of the project’s budget proposal, budget
workbook, and budget presentation in PowerPoint.
Deliverables Schedule and Points
Week
Deliverable
Points
1
Section 1.0 Executive Summary (Draft)
10
2
Section 2.0 Sales Forecast (Draft)
10
3
Section 3.0 Capital Expenditure Budget (Draft)
10
4
Section 4.0 Investment Analysis (Draft)
10

5
Section 5.1 Pro Forma Income Statement and 5.2 Balance Sheet
(Draft)
10
6
Section 5.3 Pro Forma Cash Budget (Draft)
10
7
Final Budget Proposal
90
7
Final Presentation with PowerPoint
30
Total project points
180
Business Profile: Papa Geo’s—Restaurant
Vision
The vision of the entrepreneur is to create a single-location, sit-
down Italian restaurant called Papa Geo’s. The goal is maximize
profits over a five year period.
Strategy
a) Market Focus and Analysis
The restaurant targets middle- to lower middle-class families
with children, as well as adults and seniors, located in Orlando,
Florida. The area within 15 minutes of the store has 10,000
families, mostly from lower to middle-class neighborhoods.
Average family size is four people per household. There is no
direct competition; however, there are fast food restaurants like
McDonald’s, Taco Bell, and Wendy’s in the geographical target
market. The lower to middle-class population is growing at

about 6% per year so your sales should go up by at least 6% per
year plus a growth from word of mouth (Happy Customers).
b) Product
The product is Italian food served buffet style, in an all-you-
can-eat format, with a salad bar, pizza, several different types
of pasta with three or four types of sauces, soup, desserts, and a
self-serve soda bar. The restaurant is also to have a 500 square
foot gaming area that has game machines that children would be
interested in using.
c) Basis of Competition
Customers come to this restaurant because of the good Italian
food at a low price—you can get a meal for $7, including
drinks. Customers also eat at Papa Geo’s due to the cleanliness
of the facility, the speed of getting seated and served, and the
game machines that keep the children busy while adults enjoy
their meal.
Costs you should estimate through research, experience, or
other methods
· Soda fountain bar
· Two pizza ovens
· Salad and pizza/dessert bar
· Approximately 100 square foot commercial refrigerator
· Two cash registers
· Six video game machines
· Management office with desk and lower priced laptop
computer
· Staff lunchroom equipment such as microwave, sink,
cupboards, and refrigerator
· 20 four-seat tables with chairs
· Busing cart for transporting dirty dishes from the dining area
to the dishwashing area
· 140 sets of dishes, including cutlery and drinking cups
· Commercial dishwasher

· Miscellaneous cooking and food handling equipment like
trays, lifters, spoons, pots, and so on
· The cost of an average of seven employees on the payroll
· All operating costs, such as advertising, rent for a 3,500
square foot facility with male and female washrooms (already
installed), utilities, maintenance, and annual depreciation
*If you have questions about start-up requirements, or think that
other start-up costs necessary for the business are missing, then
make an assumption and state it in the relevant section of the
report.
Given Financial Assumptions*
· The owner will be granted a loan for the initial start-up,
repayable over 10 years at current interest rates for small
business loans.
· The owner will use personal funds to operate the business
until it generates enough cash flow to fund itself.
· See updated Excel Workbook that the professor has emailed
you.
· Professor will email you and post announcements each week
on how to complete the weekly assignments.
Copyright ®© 2010 by DeVry Educational Development
Corporation.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or
used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, Web
distribution or information storage and retrieval systems—
without the prior consent of DeVry Educational Development
Corporation.
Page 1 of 3 BUSN278 Course Project Description.docx

DeVry UniversityCourse Project DescriptionBUSN278 Budgetin.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to DeVry UniversityCourse Project DescriptionBUSN278 Budgetin.docx

Similar to DeVry UniversityCourse Project DescriptionBUSN278 Budgetin.docx (20)

More from lynettearnold46882

More from lynettearnold46882 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

DeVry UniversityCourse Project DescriptionBUSN278 Budgetin.docx