59185 04p

Chapter 4. Combating Evil
The Faces of Evil
 Recognizing the presence of evil is an important first step.
 Contemporary Western definitions of evil emphasize its
destructiveness.
 Evildoers do excessive harm, going well beyond what is
needed to achieve their objectives.
 Evil destroys self-esteem, physical and emotional well-
being, relationships, communities, and nations.
© 2015 SAGE Publications, Inc.

The Faces of Evil
Perspectives on Evil
 1. Evil as Dreadful Pleasure
 2. Evil as Exclusion
 3. Evil as Deception
 4. Evil as Bureaucracy
 5. Evil as a Choice
 6. Evil as Ordinary

The Faces of Evil
Evil as Dreadful Pleasure
 University of Maryland political science professor C. Fred
Alford defines evil as a combination of dread and pleasure.
 He discovered that people experience evil as a deep sense of
uneasiness, “the dread of being human, vulnerable, alone in
the universe and doomed to die.”
 Evil can also be a product of chronic boredom.
 Ordinary distractions such as television, movies, surfing the
Internet, shopping, and sports don’t fill the void, so people
turn to evil instead.

The Faces of Evil
Evil as Exclusion
 In moral exclusion, group members draw a mental circle.
 Those inside the circle (called the moral community or scope
of justice) are treated with respect
 Those outside the circle, on the other hand, are seen as
undeserving or expendable
 Mild forms of exclusion are part of daily life and include, for
example, making sexist comments, applying double standards
when judging the behavior of different groups, and making
unflattering comparisons to appear superior to others.
 In extreme forms of exclusion evils such as human rights
violations, torture, murder and genocide can occur.

Evil as Exclusion
Dispute resolution expert Susan Opotow believes that moral
exclusion progresses through five states or elements that
reinforce one another and can become a vicious cycle:
 1. Conflicts of interest are salient.
 2. Group categorizations are salient.
 3. Moral justifications are prominent.
 4. Unjust procedures are described as expedient.
 5. Harmful outcomes occur.

The Faces of Evil
Evil as Deception
 Psychiatrist Scott Peck identifies evil as a form of
narcissism or self-absorption.
 Evil people refuse to submit and try to control others
instead.
 Evil people are consumed with keeping up appearances.
 Peck believes that truly evil people are more likely to live
in our neighborhoods than in our jails.

The Faces of Evil
Evil as Bureaucracy
 According to public administration professors Guy
Adams and Danny Balfour, the combination of science
and technology made the 1900s so destructive.
 In administrative evil, organizational members commit
heinous crimes while carrying out their daily tasks.
 Balfour and Adams argue that the true nature of
administrative evil is masked or hidden from
participants.

The Faces of Evil
Evil as Sanctioned Destruction
 Social scientists Nevitt Sanford and Craig Comstock
believe that widespread evil occurs when victimizers are
given permission or sanction to attack groups that have
been devalued or dehumanized.
 Sanctions can be overt or disguised.
 After the sanction is given it opens the door to oppression
because targeted groups no longer enjoy the protections
given to the rest of society.

The Faces of Evil
Evil as a Choice
 A number of scholars argue that we become good or evil
through a series of small, incremental decisions.
 Throughout our lives we face many decisions where we need to
decide which path to choose.
 We cannot correct poor decisions by continuing on that path.
We must return to the fork in the road and choose the other
path.
 An illustration for what happens when a leader makes a series
of evil choices:
 Moses repeatedly asks Pharaoh to let his people go, but the
Egyptian ruler turns down every request. Eventually the king’s
heart is “hardened,” and he and his army are destroyed.

The Faces of Evil
Evil as Ordinary
 The evil-as-ordinary perspective focuses on the
situational factors that cause otherwise ordinary or
normal people to become evildoers.
 Case Example: Stanford Prison Experiment
 Evil is likely to continue when others fail to intervene to
stop it.

Leadership Ethics at the Movies: Beyond the Gates
Discussion Questions:
 What forms of evil do you see in the film?
 Evaluate the actions of the United Nations
commander. Should he have disobeyed orders
and fired upon the killers outside the gate? Refused
to withdraw? Shot the refugees as they
requested?
 Why was Father Christopher able to forgive his
killers?

Facing Evil
We need to be aware of how our activities contribute
to good or evil.
Language is one of the evildoers’ most powerful
tools.
Evil as a choice puts the ethical burden squarely on
our shoulders.
Every moral decision, no matter how insignificant it
seems at the time, has lasting consequences.
The perspective of evil as ordinary reminds us that
we all have the potential to be evildoers.

Making a Case for Forgiveness
Breaking the Cycle of Evil
 A growing number of social scientists believe that forgiving
instead of retaliating can prevent or break cycles of evil.
 In a cycle of evil, aggressive acts provoke retaliation followed by
more aggression.
 Forgiving evildoers is controversial. Because of this skeptics
worry about the following:
 1. That guilty parties will get off without acknowledging they have
done wrong or paying for their crimes
 2. Forgiveness will be a sign of weakness
 3. Forgiveness is impossible in some situations
 4. Forgiveness cannot be offered until the offender asks for it
 5. No leader has the right to offer forgiveness on behalf of the victim

The Forgiveness Process
 According to Robert Enright, professor of educational psychology
and president of the International Forgiveness Institute at the
University of Wisconsin, forgiveness is not the following:
 Forgetting past wrongs to “move on”
 Excusing or condoning bad, damaging behavior
 Reconciliation or coming together again (forgiveness opens the way to
reconciliation, but the other person must change or desire to
reconcile)
 Reducing the severity of offenses
 Offering a legal pardon
 Pretending to forgive in order to wield power over another person
 Ignoring the offender
 Dropping our anger and becoming emotionally neutral

4 Stage Model of Forgiveness
 1. Uncovering: the victim may deny the problem exists; the
person does acknowledge the hurt, and may experience intense
feelings of anger, shame and betrayal
 2. Decision: the injured party realizes that he/she is paying a
high price for dwelling on the injury considers the possibility of
forgiveness and commits to forgiving
 3. Work: forgiveness is accomplished in this stage; attempts to
understand the victim’s background; may experience empathy;
absorbing the pain is the key in this stage
 4. Deepening: this stage describes the outcomes of forgiveness;
the person offering the forgiveness may develop a new purpose
in life and find peace

4 strands to explain how warring groups can
overcome their mutual hatred and bind together to
restore fractured relationships
 1. Moral Truth: forgiveness starts with recalling the past and
rendering a moral judgment
 2. Forbearance: forbearance means rejecting revenge in
favor of restraint
 3. Empathy: empathy doesn’t excuse wrongs but
acknowledges that offender and offended share much in
common
 4. Commitment: to restore the broken relationship

Seeking Forgiveness
Just as we need to offer forgiveness, we need to seek
forgiveness; some call this the “Age of Apology”
Nearly every week there seems to be a prominent
figure offering an apology for his or her misdeeds.
Political apologies appear to be more common
Businesses and religious groups, too, are officially
apologizing for past wrongs.
 Apologies can be highly beneficial. They help restore
the dignity of victims and promote healing.

Seeking Forgiveness
Apologies
 Many apologies (pseudo- on inauthentic apologies) come up
short.
 Inauthentic apologies are frequently vague (“I apologize for
whatever I did.. .”),
 use the passive voice (“Mistakes have been made. . . ”);
 make the offense conditional (“If mistakes were made.. .”);
 question whether the victim was damaged (“If anyone was
hurt.. . .); or
 minimize the damage (“There’s really nothing (or very little) to
apologize for. . . “).

Seeking Forgiveness
5 R model for evaluating the apologies of others:
 Recognition: identifying the specific offenses committed
 Responsibility: take personal responsibility for the
offenses; avoid blaming others
 Remorse: “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” or “I regret” should
be part of admission of responsibility
 Restitution: take concrete steps to aid the victim; may be
pay, or intangibles like community service
 Repetition: signal your commitment to not repeat the
offensive behavior

Spirituality and Leadership
A great number of leaders turn to spirituality to
equip themselves as they make choices and attempt
to forgive by reshaping our thoughts, emotions and
behaviors.
More and more academics are studying the link
between spiritual values and practices and
organizational performance.
Downsizing, restructuring, rapid change, and
information overload have generated fear and
uncertainty in the workplace, which prompts us to
seek stability and to reexamine our lives.

Investigators have discovered that spirituality enhances the
following:
 Commitment to mission, core values, and ethical standards
 Organizational learning and creativity
 Morale
 Productivity and profitability
 Collaboration
 Loyalty
 Willingness to mentor others
 Job effort
 Job satisfaction
 Social support
 Sensitivity to ethical issues

Donde Ashmos Plowman and Dennis Duchon define
workplace spirituality as “the recognition that employees
have an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by
meaningful work that takes place in the context of
community.”
 The inner life refers to the fact that employees have spiritual needs
(their core identity and values) just as they have emotional, physical,
and intellectual wants, and they bring the whole person to work.
 Meaningful work describes the fact that workers typically are
motivated by more than material rewards.
 Community refers to the fact that organization members desire
connection to others.

Belief systems found in leaders who engage in
common spiritual practices:
 Demonstrating respect for others’ values
 Treating others fairly
 Expression of caring and concern
 Listening responsively
 Appreciating the contributions of others
 Engaging in reflective practice

Spiritual leadership begins with the inner life of the
leader. Leaders who engage in spiritual practices
develop:
 (1) hope and faith in a vision of service to others, and
 (2) a commitment to altruistic love.
After the initial excitement of discovering the
benefits of spirituality, individuals and organizations
will typically hit obstacles—frustration, financial
challenges, feelings of emptiness

Framework that can be used to measure the spiritual
climate of a workplace (to determine your
organization’s spiritual progress):
 Benevolence: kindness toward others; desire to promote the
happiness and prosperity of employees.
 Generativity: long-term focus; concern about future
consequences of actions for this and future generations.
 Humanism: policies and practices that respect the dignity and
worth of every employee; opportunity for personal growth
when working toward organizational goals.

Spiritual Framework (cont’d)
 Integrity: adherence to a code of conduct; honesty;
sincerity; candor.
 Justice: even-handed treatment of employees; impartiality;
unbiased rewards and punishments.
 Mutuality: employees feel interconnected and mutually
dependent; work together to complete projects and achieve
goals.
 Receptivity: flexible thinking; open-mindedness; take
calculated risks; reward creativity.

Spiritual Framework (cont’d)
 Respect: treat employees with esteem and value; show
consideration and concern.
 Responsibility: members independently follow through on
goals despite obstacles; are concerned with what is right.
 Trust: members and outsiders have confidence in the
character and truthfulness of the organization and its
representatives.

The Dark Side of Spiritual Leadership
 Some leaders view spirituality solely as a tool for
increasing follower commitment (obedience) and
productivity, losing sight of the fact that spirituality has
value in and of itself.
 Other leaders try to impose their particular religious and
spiritual views on followers.
 In the worst-case scenario, authoritarian leaders engage
in spiritual abuse.

Common spiritual abuse tactics:
 Overemphasizing spiritual authority and forbidding
challenges from followers
 Demanding unquestioning obedience as a sign of follower
loyalty, which takes away the right of subordinates to
make their own choices
 Keeping members apart from outsiders and dismissing
external critics while, at the same time, hiding character
flaws and unethical practices from the public

Common spiritual abuse tactics (cont’d)
 Insisting on rigid beliefs and behavior while demanding
conformity and perfection
 Suppressing follower dissent through humiliation,
deprivation, and other means
 Using nearly absolute power to engage in fraud, sexual
immorality, and other unethical practices

Case Study: Oppression in the Hermit State
 Should preventing North Korea from developing nuclear weapons
take priority over efforts to stop the country’s human rights
abuses?
 Should the international community provide food aid if it is
diverted to the military and government officials as it has been in
the past?
 What, if anything, can the international community do to stop the
abuses in North Korea?
 Should the United States risk its relationship with China to stop
the murder and human rights violations in North Korea?
 What faces of evil do you see reflected in this case?

Case Study: Evil in the Basement: The Attack on
Columbine High
 What, if anything, do you remember about the Columbine attack?
Why do you think it has inspired other school shooters?
 What forms of evil do you see reflected in the Columbine
murders?
 What steps could parents and authorities have taken to prevent
Harris and Klebold from evolving into killers?
 How do we keep from being deceived by evildoers?
 Should Harris and Klebold be forgiven for their assault on
Columbine High School? Should their parents be forgiven for not
stopping the attack?
 What leadership ethics lessons do you take from this case?

Case Study: Lance Armstrong
Comes Clean (or Does He?)
Discussion Question:
Did Lance Armstrong offer an effective
apology for his actions? Why or why not?

59185 04p

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to 59185 04p

Similar to 59185 04p (20)

More from Beulah Heights University

More from Beulah Heights University (20)

59185 04p