STEPS OF THE ETHICAL STEPS OF THE ETHICAL DECISIONDECISION--.docx

STEPS OF THE ETHICAL STEPS OF THE ETHICAL
DECISIONDECISION--MAKING PROCESSMAKING
PROCESS
EESE Faculty Development Workshop
Douglas R. May, Professor and Co-Director
International Center for Ethics in Business
SUMMARY OF THE STEPS OF THE
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING PROCESS
1.
Gather the facts
2.
Define the ethical issues
3.
Identify the affected parties (stakeholders)
4.
Identify the consequences
5.

Identify the obligations (principles, rights, justice)
6.
Consider your character and integrity
7.
Think creatively about potential actions
8.
Check your gut
9.
Decide on the proper ethical action and be prepared to
deal with opposing arguments.
1 -
GATHER THE FACTS
Don’t jump to conclusions without the facts
Questions to ask: Who, what, where, when, how, and
why.

However, facts may be difficult to find because of the
uncertainty often found around ethical issues
Some facts are not available
Assemble as many facts as possible before proceeding
Clarify what assumptions
you are making!
2 –
DEFINE THE ETHICAL ISSUE(S)
Don’t jump to solutions without first identifying the ethical
issue(s)

in the situation.
Define the ethical basis for the issue you want to focus on.
There may be multiple
ethical issues –
focus on one
major
one at a time.
3 –
IDENTIFY THE AFFECTED PARTIES
Identify all of the stakeholders

Who are the primary
or direct stakeholders?
Who are the secondary
or indirect stakeholders?
Why are they stakeholders for the issue?
Perspective-taking
--
Try to see things through the eyes
of those individuals affected
4 –
IDENTIFY THE CONSEQUENCES

Think about potential positive
and negative
consequences for affected
parties by the decision (Focus on primary stakeholders to
simplify
analysis until you become comfortable with the process).
What are the magnitude
of the consequences and the probability
that
the consequences will happen.
Short term vs. Long term consequences –
will decision be valid over
time.

Broader systemic
consequences –
tied to symbolic
and secrecy
Symbolic
consequences –
Each decision sends a message.
Secrecy
consequences –
What are the consequences if the decision
or action becomes public?
Did you consider relevant cognitive barriers/biases?

Consider what your decision
would be based only on consequences
–
then move on and see if it is similar given other considerations.
5 –
IDENTIFY THE RELEVANT PRINCIPLES,
RIGHTS, AND JUSTICE ISSUES
Obligations should be thought of in terms of principles and
rights involved
A) What obligations are created because of particular ethical
principles
you might use in the situation?

Examples: Do no harm; Do unto others as you would have them
do
unto you; Do what you would have anyone in your shoes do in
the
given context.
B) What obligations are created because of the specific rights of
the
stakeholders?
What rights are more basic vs. secondary
in nature? Which help protect
an individual’s basic autonomy?
What types of rights are involved –
negative or positive?
C) What concepts of justice (fairness) are relevant –

distributive or
procedural justice?
Did you consider any relevant cognitive barriers/biases?
Formulate the appropriate decision or action
based solely on the above
analysis of these obligations.
6 –
CONSIDER YOUR CHARACTER &
INTEGRITY
Consider what your relevant community members would
consider to be the kind of decision that an individual of
integrity
would make in this situation.

What specific virtues
are relevant in the situation?
Disclosure rule
–
what would you do if the New York Times
reported your action and everyone was to read it.
Think about how your decision will be remembered when
you are gone.
Did you consider any relevant cognitive biases/barriers?
What decision
would you come to based solely on
character

considerations?
7 –
THINK CREATIVELY ABOUT POTENTIAL
ACTIONS
Be sure you have not been unnecessarily forced into a
corner
You may have some choices or alternatives that have not
been considered
If you have come up with solutions “a”
and “b,”
try to
brainstorm and come up with a “c”

solution that might
satisfy the interests of the primary parties
involved in the
situation.
8 –
CHECK YOUR GUT
Even though the prior steps have argued for a highly
rational process, it is always good to “check your gut.”
Intuition
is gaining credibility as a source for good
decision making –
knowing something is not “right.”
• Particularly relevant if you have a lot of experience in

the area –
expert
decision-making.
9 –
DECIDE ON YOUR COURSE OF ACTION AND PREPARE
RESPONSES TO THOSE WHO MAY OPPOSE YOUR
POSITION
Consider potential actions based on the consequences,
obligations, and character approaches.
Do you come up with similar answers from the different
perspectives?
Do the obligation and character help you “check”

the
consequentialist preferred action?
How can you protect the rights of those involved (or your
own character) while still maximizing the overall good for
all of the stakeholders?
What arguments are most compelling to you to justify the
action ethically? How will you respond to those with
opposing viewpoints?
STEPS OF THE ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
PROCESSSUMMARY OF THE STEPS OF THE ETHICAL
DECISION MAKING PROCESS1 - GATHER THE FACTS2 –
DEFINE THE ETHICAL ISSUE(S)3 – IDENTIFY THE
AFFECTED PARTIES4 – IDENTIFY THE CONSEQUENCES5
– IDENTIFY THE RELEVANT PRINCIPLES, RIGHTS, AND
JUSTICE ISSUES6 – CONSIDER YOUR CHARACTER &
INTEGRITY7 – THINK CREATIVELY ABOUT POTENTIAL
ACTIONS8 – CHECK YOUR GUT9 – DECIDE ON YOUR
COURSE OF ACTION AND PREPARE RESPONSES TO
THOSE WHO MAY OPPOSE YOUR POSITION

Copyright © 1993 by M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in
any form without written
permission from the publisher, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 80 Business
Park Drive, Armonk, New York
10504.
Reproduced with permission of M.E. Sharpe, Inc. in the format
electronic usage via Copyright
Clearance Center.
__________ 11
The Impact of Demographic,
Professional, and Organizational
Variables and Domain on the Moral
Reasoning of Public Administrators
Debra W. Stewart and Norman A. Sprinthall
Most studies of managerial ethics focus on the attitudes and
values of the respon-
dents, and the lion's share of the empirical work has looked at
American busi-
ness managers rather than at public administrators. This chapter
reports on a

study of moral reasoning rather than simply on ethical attitudes
or values, and
explores empirically that reasoning in samples of public
administrators and pub-
lic administration graduate students. Variables thought to
explain variation in
aspects of ethics include age, gender, seniority (Hodgkinson
1971); education
(Purcell 1977); function and level of responsibili
and 1984), an
et aJ. 1989; Trevino 1
ch of these variables
ty (Hunt, Wood, and Chonko
1989; Harris 1989; Posner d organizational context (Con-
ner and Becker 1975; Hunt 986). In this study we explore
the relationship between ea and levels of moral reasoning
among public administrators. Our research allows us to look at
these relation-
ships in three ethical domains and to consider the aggregate
relationships as well.
This study represents an effort to move beyond case study and
admonition to-
ward understanding the way moral reasoning and ethical
behavior are influenced
in organizations.
Assumptions and Background
This essay assumes that the public administrator is a moral
agent. While we
recognize that the development of individual agency is not a
simple process
(McDonald and Victor 1988), we assume that it is an essential
feature of life in

205
206 DEBRA W. STEWART AND NORMAN A. SPRINTHALL
public-sector organizations (Stewart 1985; Denhardt 1988). But
to agree with
Denhardt (1988) that the ethical administrator has a
responsibility to utilize
moral assessments is to leave unanswered the question of how
to conduct that
moral assessment.. In an earlier essay we argued for the need to
conduct more
research on the systems of ethical reasoning that public
administrators may em-
ploy in resolving ethical dilemmas. We also presented a new
instrument to assess
stages of moral reasoning exhibited by public administrators
(Stewart and
SprinthalI 1991). It was based on the Kohlberg (1984) theory
that moral develop-
ment occurs in a specific sequence of stages, and that ethical or
moral judgment
is neither fixed nor relativistic but rather forms a sequence of
ethical models. We
argued previously that the higher order models are more
democratic and just in
their comprehensiveness and thus are compatible with the ideals
of public ser-
vice (Stewart and Sprinthall 1991). The instrument we
developed assesses levels
of moral reasoning among individuals in a public administration
context.

Data and Methods
Detailed information on the development of the instrument, the
Stewart
Sprinthall Management Survey (SSMS), is reported elsewhere
(Stewart and
Sprinthall 1991). The survey is based on Lawrence Kohlberg's
finding that
moral development occurs in a specific series of stages across
cultures. By
studying empirically the system of thinking that people employ
to deal with
moral questions, Kohlberg identified an invariant sequence of
stages of moral
growth that ranges from a straightforward concern about self to
a stage focused
on the application of universal moral principles such as those
that relate to justice
and equality (Kohlberg 1984). James Rest developed the
Defining Issues Test
(DIT) as an objective adaptation of Kohlberg's interview (Rest
1986). Like the
Kohlberg instrument, the DIT presents general moral dilemmas
and classifies
individuals according to the arguments they invoke to solve
these dilemmas. The
SSMS parallels the DIT but is designed to assess nloral
reasoning evoked in a
public-sector management context. The dilemmas provided in
the SSMS deal
with the actual ethical quandaries individuals encounter in
public administration.
In that context the SSMS reflects reasoning across five stages of
moral develop-
ment. The stages are as follows:

Stage 1: Concern for Obedience and Punishment. To avoid
punishment one must
be obedient-fear of punishment is a major motivator.
Stage 2: Concern for Cooperation and Reciprocity in a Single
Instance. Cooper-
ative interactions are entered because each party has something
to gain. "Let's
make a deal." It is the exchange that makes it fair. Bargains are
struck to
achieve self-interest. Materialism predominates.
Stage 3: Concern for Enduring Personal Relationships.
Maintaining of good
relationships over time is valued; approval of others is
important. Be kind and
MORAL REASONING OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 207
considerate and you will get along with others. Engage in
reciprocal role
taking; social conformity is the highest value.
Stage 4: Concern for Law and Duty. Authority maintains
morality; everyone in
society is obligated and protected by the law; respect for the
authority of law
is part of one's obligation to society.
Stage 5: (P): Principled Reasoning.. This mode of reasoning
envisions the mind
of a hypothetical rational person-what agreement would a
hypothetical
group of rational people accept? Impartiality is central.

Democratic principles
of justice and fairness are the core values.
In the SSMS the individual dilemmas deal with three domains of
administra-
tive decision making: promotion, with the attendant issues of
affirmative action
and patronage; procurement, with the ever-present concerns of
conflict of inter-
est; and data base management, with the related issues of data
file integrity. In
each domain the SSMS provides opportunity for the respondent
to reflect upon
the mode of reasoning employed. The total SSMS scores
represent averages
across all three administrative domains. For an individual
respondent the stage
scores reflect the tendency for that individual to select reasons
that correspond to
different levels of moral development.
Analysis
The instrument was administered to three separate samples in
North Carolina:
graduate students in public administration (N = 75), local
government managers
attending a series of executive training programs (N = 136), and
city and county
managers and assistant managers (N = 190). Across all three
samples the pattern
of distribution is similar, with the most commonly selected
reasons falling in
stage 4 and the principled stage. There was a clear pulling
toward "law and duty"
reasoning with almost 40 percent of the respondents in each

sample, reflecting
principled reasoning. This figure corresponds to the level of
moral reasoning
found in the U.S. population as a whole for individuals who
have completed
college. However, it is significantly higher than that reported
for the southern
region (Sapp 1985).
As shown in Table 11.1, the percentages indicate the number of
persons
whose reasoning could be classified according to stage type.
Thus, 40 percent of
the graduate student sample, or thirty subjects, employed
principled reasons in
resolution of the administrative dilemmas. Thirty-five of these
subjects used
stage 4, or the legal code, as their means of resolving the issues.
The number of
subjects according to stage in the other two groups is similar.
Since the survey
measure is a recognition test, the percentages reflect the
subjects' ability to
identify stage type reasons from a list of choices. It has been
shown in other
research on moral reasoning that such an approach actually
overestimates by one
stage the level of reasons that the subject can produce de novo
or can actually
Table 11.1

Total SSMS Stage Score Comparison across All Groups
Students Local Gov't Mgr. (%) City/County Mgr. (%)
Stage Scores (N=136)
1+2 5 6 7
3 5 7 10
4 46 45 42
5 40 39 38
Note: The percentages vary due to rounding and a few
unclassified subjects.
employ in real dilemma situations (Rest 1986; Koh1berg 1984).
Thus, a person
who identifies a preference for principled solutions may
actually employ stage 4,
or the legal code, in a real situation. Similarly, a preference for
stage 4 would
likely shift closer to stage 3, social conformity, in an actual
administrative di-
lemma. The base rate for our sample is similar to college
educated adults in
general and is higher than adults in general from the South and
Southeast. The
actual level of reasoning, however, is probably one stage lower
than the level
obtained by a recognition test. We will now tum to an analysis
of possible
differences within our sample according to demography,
organizational responsi-
bilities, and context.
Demographic Factors
In this analysis we look at the impact of a set of demographic

factors that have
been thought to influence the kinds of ethical choices
individuals are likely to
make and the factors they are likely to consider important in
this decision-mak-
ing process. As Tables 11.2 through 11.5 suggest, there are no
significant differ-
ences that can be attributed to gender, race or education level
across any of the
three samples.
Carol Gilligan (1982) has speculated specifically on the
importance of gender
differences and level of ethical reasoning.. She has argued that
women tend to
reason about moral conflict based on a notion of morality as
care, while men
reason through such conflicts based on morality as justice. Our
results, however,
show quite clearly that males and females are virtually the same
in the numbers
who identify principled or justice-based reasoning. These
results are also in line
with recent meta-analyses indicating that gender is irrelevant as
a factor in moral
reasoning (Walker 1988). With all four demographic factors,
only age turned out
to be significant, and that for only one of the three groups, the
graduate student
sample. This finding may be an artifact of graduate school
admission and a small
n in that category. Usually, age after college does not bear a
significant relation-
ship to ethical reasoning (Rest

Table 11.2
Comparison of Principled Reasoning by Gender for Each Group
Gender Students (%) Local Gov't. Mgr. (%) City/County Mgr.
(%)
(N=136) (N=190)
Male 39 39 (N=95) 38 (N= 174)
Female 42 39 (N=41) 39 (N=16)
Table 11.3
Comparison of Principled Reasoning by Race for Each Group
Students (%) Local Gov't. Mgr. (%) City/County Mgr.
(%)
Race (N=O) (N=136)
Black 35 40
White 40 38 (N=186)
*Race information was not available for the graduate student
group.
Table 11.4
Comparison of Principled Reasoning by Education for Each
Group
Students (%) Local Gov't. Mgr. (%) City/County Mgr. (%)

1. Less than BA
(N=136)
40 39
2. BA or more 40 39 36
3. MA or more 40 40
Table 11.5
Comparison of Principled Reasoning by Age for Each Group
Gender Students (%) Local Gov't. Mgr. (%) City/County Mgr.
(%)
(N=136)
25-30 35 37 38
37 39 38
41-50 44 40 37
51+ 57 39 41
*Difference significant at 0.0002
Eta 0.49
Table 11.6
Comparison of Stage Score by Level of Responsibility for Local
Government Manager Sample and County/City Manager
Sample Combined on Total SSMS

Stage
Score
1+2
3
4
5
Manager (%)
7
9
43
38
Ass't Mgr. (%
6
11
41
39
Level of Positio
) Dept. Head
(N=52)
7
7
46
40
n

Div. Head (%)
(N=31)
6
7
46
36
Supervisor (%)
6
6
44
40
Note: Co
option.
lumns do not total 100 percent due to rounding error and
meaningless response
Table 11.7
Comparison of Mean Principled Reasoning Scores by Line vs.
Staff for
. Local Government Managers, City/County Managers, and All
Managers
Line Staff
Local City/County Local City/County
Gov't. Mgr. Mgr. All Mgrs. Gov't. Mgr. Mgr. All Mgrs.
(N=150) (N=72) (N=40) (N=112)

SSMS
Level P
Reasoning
Functional and Organizational Responsibilities
A second set of factors that were found to affectthe ethical
thinking in organiza-
tions may be grouped under the rubric of functional and
organizational responsi-
bility. While these variables may be operationalized in a variety
of ways, this
study looked at level of responsibility, line versus staff, and
functional task as
factors that might explain variation. Tables 11.6 and 11.7
display the findings for
level of responsibility and line vs. staff.
Table 11.6 indicates that across levels of responsibility within
organizations, a
combination of the local government manager and the
city/county manager sam-
ples, there is no expression of principled reasoning that can be
attributed to level
of responsibility in position. The modest differences that do
appear seem unre-
lated to level of position.
MORAL REASONING OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
211
Table 11.7 suggests that there is no relationship between
principled reasoning

and line versus staff position in either of the sample groups of
local government
managers or city/county managers.
In a third exercise we simply reviewed the job titles of all
respondents who
indicated a propensity to select principled reasons (p = 50 or
more). This inspec-
tion revealed no pattern that might be attributed to functional
responsibility; that
in making their decisions city managers, their assistants,
planners, budget
directors, and personnel managers appeared equally likely or
unlikely to consider
stage 5 reasons.
Organizational Context
Finally, we considered whether the context within which the
decision maker was
located would affect the likelihood of identifying principled
reasons in resolving
ethical dilemmas. The context factors that we considered
relevant to local-level
managers were the type of jurisdiction where they are located,
the size of their
jurisdiction, and whether or not their organization has a code of
ethics. First we
combined the two samples and considered all managers
together.
As Table 11.8 the simple context of city vs. county vs. region
clearly
has no impact on the likelihood of selecting principled reasons
in decision mak-

ing. The mean response is roughly equivalent across cities,
counties, and regions.
Table 11.9 displays stage score response across small, medium,
and large
cities and counties. There are no significant differences that can
be attributed to
size of jurisdiction, whether city or county. The final context
factor was the
existence of a code of ethics the jurisdiction.. The city/county
manager survey
provided data on that question.
Table 11.10 reports no significant difference in the mean
response scores that
can be attributed to whether or not a jurisdiction has a code of
ethics.
Difference in Ethical Domains
The analysis thus far reveals no differences that can be
attributed to commonly
cited demographic, organizational, or contextual factors as the
reasons selected
by public managers for resolution of ethical quandaries. The
data do reveal
differences across ethical domains. Since statistically
significant positive rela-
tionships hold between each of three stories and the total SSMS
scores, the total
SSMS score measures overall capacity to function at a
particular stage or level.
However the strength of one's capacity to function at the
principled reasoning
level appears to vary across domains. A few recent empirical
studies provide

background on this point.
In the measurement of moral judgment there are often
differences in levels of
reasoning according to the actual dilemma content.
Developmental psychologists
usually refer to such differences as examples of cognitive
décalage-systematic
212 DEBRA STEWART AND NORMAN A. SPRINTHALL
Table 11.8
Comparison of Mean Principled Reasoning across Cities,
Counties,
and Regions
City County Region
SSMS (N=117) (N=4)
Mean Principled
39% 38% 42%
Reasoning
Table 11.9
Comparison of Stage Scores across Size of Jurisdiction for
Cities
and Counties
County City
Greater
Greater than

Less than 25,000- than Less than 10,000- 25,000-
25,000 100,000 100,000 10,000 25,000 25,000
Stage % % % % % %
Score (N-35)
1+2 6 8 7 6 5 7
3 13 8 8 7 7 11
4 42 42 43 45 45 41
5 37 38 38 40 39 38
Table 11.10
Mean Stage Scores on SSMS Comparing Jurisdictions with and
without
Codes of Ethics
Yes Code (%) No Code (%)
Stage Scores On SSMS (N=58) (N=30)
1+2 6 8
3 11 9
4 42 43
5 37 39
gaps in reasoning levels by problem areas (Kohlberg 1980). An
important deter-
mining factor appears to be how close to real experience is the
dilemma content
as well the extent to which there are known and articulated
positions. Thus,
MORAL REASONING OF PUBUC ADMINISTRATION 213

when adult subjects were confronted with real-life issues as
opposed to third-
party hypothetical problems, the reasoning level declined
(Walker, deVries,
and Trevethan 1987). Similarly, in a study with adolescents the
reasoning
level declined when the content of the dilemmas shifted from
abstract ques-
tions such as, Should a person in a foreign country steal a drug
to save his
spouse? to everyday issues such as obedience to one's parents
versus loyalty
to one's own peer group (Gilligan et al. 1971). In the latter case,
the level of
reasoning declined by almost one stage for both male and
female subjects.
Rest (1986) has noted that the ability to identify principled
reasons involves a
complex process of conlprehension, awareness of consequences,
selection of
courses of action that are consistent with such principles, and
enough per-
sonal strength to withstand criticism. Such factors develop as a
result of
experience in dealing with controversial issues and in taking
action. This
means experience dealing with issues that have not been
rehearsed or hashed
out and that are personally invol ving-that is, close to real life-
and that
levels employed will be lower than with experiences assessed
through stan-
dard or more familiar dilemmas.
There is another source of possible domain discrepancy.

Jennifer Hochschild
(1981) found that different beliefs about distributive justice
prevail in different
domains of life. Her in-depth interviews with a sample of rich
and poor respon-
dents in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area of New
Haven showed that
people may use egalitarian norms when they address issues in
the-socializing or
political domain, but they shift to differentiating norms in the
economic domain
(Hochschild 1981, 48,49, 82). Thus they come to different
conclusions in differ-
ent domains because they are applying different principles of
justice (Hochschild
1981). This type of discrepancy could only be assessed in our
case through the
creation of an additional set of principled reasons based on
different justice
concepts. Thus far, the enormous number of studies in the moral
development
distributive justice format does provide us with a ready source
of comparison in
that general moral domain. That data base (Kuhmerker 1991)
continues to grow
both within this country and cross-culturally. This means that
the differences we
find in levels of moral development on the specific issues faced
by professionals
in the field of public administration can be compared to general
levels in the
adult population and with appropriate cultural translations to
public administra-
tors in other countries as well. 1
In the study reported in this paper we can say that there appears

to be a shift
in the preference for a principled mode of reasoning across the
three stories
posed in the SSMS instrument, from over 50 percent stage
scores for principled
reasoning across all three samples for the first story, to less
than 30 percent
selection of principled responses across each of the three
samples for the third
story. Table 11.11 displays these data. We believe this suggests
that there are
different ethical decision domains and that some domains are
more likely to
elicit principled reasoning than others.
Table11.11
Comparison within Stories and across Groups on Stage Score
Students Local Gov't Mgr. (%) City/County Mgr. (%)
(N=136) (N=190)
Stage
Scores Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story 1
Story 2 Sto ry 3
1+2 2 7 7 2 6 9 2 6 10
3 8 7 3 5 12 2 8 17 2
4 36 45 58 39 39 62 35 33 59
5 52 42 28 52 43 22 51 42 20
The three stories are as follows:

Story 1: Promotion
Bob was hired to revitalize a somewhat lackluster division in a
state agency.
Soon after becoming division he held a meeting with all
division
personnel and announced that all future promotions would be
based on demon-
strated merit and affirmative action. The patronage practice of
the former
director would be discontinued. Bob issued a written statement
to confirm this
new policy.
About a month later Bob ~ s boss told him that he expected Joe
J an
individual on Bob's staff, to be promoted. Joe was a marginally
effective white
male and there were several other employees in the division
much more de-
serving of promotion. Bob pointed out his boss all of the
reasons for not
wanting to promote Joe Jones at that time. But the boss
responded that he
really would like to see Joe promoted and that Bob's ability to
create more
promotional opportunities for his staff in the future (new
positions, successful
job reclassification, etc.) depended on his cooperation in this
situation.
Story 2: Friends in Government
In our agency, as in many others, private vendors are hired
provide goods

and services. I deal directly with these representatives and have
become good
friends with one representative. Our wives have become friends
and our fami-
lies enjoy one another. I occasionally join him for lunch and he
picks up the
check as a company expense. This has always been acceptable
in our organiza-
tion.
However, a dilemma arose recently when my friend invited my
family and
me to join his family and other friends at his beach cottage for a
week. He was
going to pay for the food and drink, and since the others were
private
uld be a great trip an
en by the press as a p
to my compa
his firm was going to write it pff. We knew it wo d we
really wanted to go. I also knew that it could be se ayoff
for a large contract that my agency had just awarded ny.
Story 3: Data Re-creation
Jack heads the Management Information System section for his
agency.
Through no fault of Jack's some benefit payment data were
accidentally de-
leted from the agency computer file. There was no way to

retrieve these data
the system. The local governments charged with inputting these
data
originally complained bitterly about the burden of this task, so
the agency's
top management wanted to keep the recent data loss quiet. Top
management
told Jack to devise a scheme to recreate the data based on the
assumption that
certain relationships existed between the data elements. But
Jack argued that
this would result in some people receiving more benefits than
they should and
others receiving fewer. Top management in the agency felt that
to meet pay-
ment deadlines of local government, there was no choice. Jack
was told to
re-create the file as best he could.
Respondents are asked to read the stories and decide what plan
of action they
would follow. Then they are asked to review a list of possible
considerations and
indicate which they would consider most important in the
situation.
Clearly, the domain does make a difference across all three
samples. While
our conclusions on this point are preliminary, we suggest that
the difference can
be explained in terms of familiarity with the domain and depth
of individual
experience in resolving ethical quandaries in the area.. The
promotion story raises
issues that have been under intensive discussion in public

administration over the
past twenty years. The competition between "merit" and
"equity" claims is a
standard topic in all public-sector arenas from the formal
classroom or training
session to the office coffee klatsch. More important, it has been
a topic on the
agenda of society at large for more than two decades.
Accordingly, we find mean
principled scores above 50 percent for all three groups.
The "Friends in Government" dilemma is by contrast a less
intensively dis-
cussed social issue for the general public. There has been
significant public
media attention focused on conflict-of-interest issues regarding
governmental
procurement and other practices; however, the intensity of the
public debate
pales by comparison with the affirmative action-merit
controversy. Still, within
public agencies serious attention is given to the issue of conflict
of interest
through agency training programs, written policies, and simple
admonitions from
agency officials. It is reasonable to expect that respondents in
this study have
strong familiarity with the issue and have had opportunities to
discuss and to
reflect on a dilemma similar to the one raised in "Friends in
Government.." Their
scores on principled reasoning of 47 percent, 43 percent, and 42
percent, respec-
tively, across the three groups support this assumption.
The third story, "Data Re-creation," is the least familiar of the

three. The
problem posed, that of simulating a large and lost data set, is a
relatively new
problem in the annals of public administration. The problem is
occasioned by a
technology known, but probably not well understood, by most
respondents.
Clearly this is not a topic discussed by the broader society.
Rarely would such a
dilemma be encountered by public managers. The specialized
character of this
problem makes the attendant ethics an unlikely topic for
discussion in agency
training seminars. In short, in identifying issues in this story,
respondents are left
without the benefit of discussions, either within the agency or
in society, that
would provide the background for reflection and decision.
Hence we find across
all three groups that the mean score on principled reasoning was
at the highest
(28 percent) in the student group, followed by 22 percent and 20
percent for the
other groups. It may be unsettling to note that the average
percentage of princi-
pled reasoning on this dilemma is only slightly higher than the
average reasoning
of junior high school students on hypothetical dilemmas (Rest
1986).
At the construct validity level, we can say that all the groups,

regardless of
position, comprehended the sets of reasons in a similar manner
across all three
situations. The rank order by principled level was always the
same, with Story 1
receiving the highest percent of principled responses and Story
3 the lowest
percent across nine comparisons. This means that the subjects
were reading the
story choices in a consistent manner according to level of
understanding and
familiarity. At a theory construct level it is noteworthy that the
second modal
stage was always in juxtaposition to the first modal stage. Thus
in Story 1, stage
5 was the predominant stage selected, over 50 percent of the
time. For the same
story, stage 4 was always the second most common choice.
Similarly in Story 3,
stage 4 was the predominant mode while stage 5 was second.
These findings also indicate that the subjects remained
consistent in their
ability to select theoretically coherent levels as opposed to
random choices.
Behavioral science research in moral/ethical development has
shown that a
base-line criterion is the ability of an instrument to assess levels
of reasoning
in an invariant sequence (Kohlberg 1980). The subjects should
select reasons
that represent their general mode at one particular level and the
next level
will always be at plus or minus one. The only exception to the
overall in vari-
ant sequence in our study is with the lowest stages, for example

the combined
stage 1 and stage 2 responses, for specific stories. On an overall
basis how-
ever, for all subjects on all three stories, the sequence is
invariant (Table
11. 1) with the peak at stage 4. These results do support the
theoretical valid-
ity of stage and sequence concepts with empirical outcomes
from our sam-
ples. The reliability of the instrument can be supported by the
fact that the
measure has been used with four different samples (two separate
administra-
tions for graduate students and two for the groups of public
administrators) ..
In each case the rank order of story choice for the combined
stories has
always been the same, which indicates that the concurrent
reliability is strong.
We have not yet estimated the stability of the instrument over
time. Other re-
search with the general objective measure of moral/ethical
judgment, upon
which our instrument was based, has shown test/retest
correlations in the +0.70
range (Rest 1986).
Conclusions
It should be noted that surveys such as ours measure the ability
to identify levels
of ethical reasons and do not assess actual moral behavior in

real-world situa-
tions. Other research (Blasi 1980), however, has shown a
consistent behavioral
relationship between thought and action. It is certainly clear
that if persons
cannot process issues at a principled level or cannot recognize
democratic princi-
ples, such persons are much less likely to act in accord with
ethical principles ..
The ability to recognize such issues is a necessary first step in
the process of
ethical behavior (Rest 1986). In this sense, a first conclusion
from our study
indicates that the greatest variability in level of reasoning is
derived from the
content of the problem situation. If the content is familiar and
there has been
considerable discussion and analysis of the issues, there is a
greater likelihood of
higher stage reasoning. The opposite is also true. In unfamiliar
situations where
little has been discussed or processed, individuals are highly
likely to employ
less democratic and more self-serving reasons.
A second conclusion is that the usual factors of demography and
organiza-
tional context have almost no influence on the level of moral
reasoning. Not-
withstanding the need for public executives to manifest a
broader ethical vision
that recognizes interconnectedness and that operates on a longer
time horizon
(Luke 1991), public executives in this study are no more able to
identify princi-
pled reasoning than mid-level or first-line managers. Perhaps

more ironically, the
existence of ethical codes provides no influence on the ability
to identify ethical
reasons. These findings indicate that ethical reasoning and
public administration
are dynamic and interactive. The levels are independent of
status and organiza-
tion context. Those variables obviously play an important role
in many areas of
administration but not when focused on issues of ethics.
A third conclusion is that there may be a need to reexamine
both graduate and
professional in-service education. Development of extensive
codes of ethics ap-
pears to be a sterile enterprise. It may be more profitable to
consider dialogue on
issues of ethical controversy both during graduate school and
throughout profes-
sional practice. Certainly it is no easy task to learn to identify
the ethical prem-
ises in difficult situations, and clearly it cannot be learned
through the lecture
method. Open discussion and challenge, on the other hand, can
facilitate the
growth process even in such a complex area as ethical reasoning
(Thoma 1984).
A fourth conclusion points to future research. all respondents in
the
three studies were drawn from North Carolina, and since we
know there may be
regional differences associated with levels of moral reasoning,
more research
needs to be done across regions to identify possible differences.
In addition, it is

important to understand more about the relationship between
stage score re-
sponses and actual behavior in public administrator roles.
Finally, more research
is needed to understand the most effective methods of ethics
training. With the
use of SSMS as our starting point, this will form our continuing
research agenda.
Note
1. We are currently piloting the SSMS with a small group of
public administrators in
several districts in Warsaw, Poland. The project ultimately
entails comparison of local-
level public administrators in the United States and Poland.
References
Blasi, A. 1980. "Bridging Moral Cognition and Moral Action."
Psychological Bulletin
88: 1-45.
Conner, P.E., and Becker, B.W. 1975. "Values and the
Organization: Suggestions for
Research." Academy of Management Journal 18: 550-61.
Denhardt, K.G. 1988. The Ethics of the Public Services:
Resolving Moral Dilemmas in
Public Organizations. New York: Greenwood.
Gilligan C. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge MA: Harvard

University Press.
Gilligan, C.; Kohlberg, L.; Lerner, M.; and Belenky, M. 1971.
"Moral Reasoning about
Sexual Dilemmas." U.S. Commission on Obscenity and
Pornography. Washington,
DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Harris, J. 1989. "Ethical Values and Decision Processes of
Business Students and Busi-
ness Practitioners: A Review and Extension." Unpublished
manuscript, cited in J.
Harris, 1990, "Ethical Values of Individuals at Different Levels
in the Organizational
Hierarchy of a Single Firm." Journal of Business Ethics 9: 741-
50.
Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1981. What's Fair? American Beliefs
about Distributive Justice.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hodgkinson, C. 1971. "Organizational Influence on Value
Systems." Educational Ad-
ministration Quarterly 7: 46-55.
Hunt, S.D.; Wood, V.R.; and Chonko, L.B. 1989. "Corporate
Ethical Values and Organi-
zational Commitment in Marketing." Journal of Marketing 53:
79-90.
Kohlberg, L. 1980. The Meaning and Measurement of Moral
Development. Worcester,
MA: Clark University Press.
---. 1984. Essays on Moral Development. Vol 2. New York:
Harper and Row.

Kuhmerker, L. 1991. The Kohlberg Legacy. Birmingham, AL:
REP Books.
Luke, J.S. 1991. "New Leadership Requirements for Public
Managers: From Managerial
to Policy Ethics." In Ethical Frontiers in Public Management,
edited by J. S. Bowman,
158-82. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McDonald, R.A., and Victor, B. 1988. "Towards the Integration
of Individual and Moral
Agencies." Business and Professional Ethics Journal 7: 103-18.
Posner, B.2., and Schmidt, W.H. 1984. "Values of the American
Manager: An Update."
California Management Review 16: 202-16.
Purcell, T.V. 1977. "Do Courses in Business Ethics Pay Off?"
California Management
Review 19: 50-58.
Rest, J. 1986. Moral Development: Advances in Research and
Theory, 2d edition. New
York: Praeger.
Sapp, G.L. 1985. Moral Development: Modes, Processes and
Techniques. Birmingham,
AL: REP Books.
D. 1985. "Ethics and the Profession of Public Administration:
The Moral Responsi-
bility of Individuals in Public Sector Organizations." Public
Administration Quarterly 8: 4.
Stewart, D., and Sprinthall, N. 1991. "Strengthening Ethical
Judgement in Public Ad-

ministration." In Ethical Frontiers in Public Management, edited
by J. S. Bowman,
243-60. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thoma, S. 1984. "Do Moral Education Programs Facilitate
Moral Judgement?" Moral
Education Forum 9 (4): 20-25.
Trevino, L. K. 1986. "Ethical Decision Making in
Organizations: A Person-Situation
Interactionist Model." Academy of Management Review 11:
601-17.
Walker L. 1988. "The Development of Moral Reasoning."
Annals of Child Development
5: 33-78.
Walker, L.J.; deVries, B.; and Trevethan, S.D. 1987. "Moral
Stages and Moral Orienta-
tions in Real-Life and Hypothetical Dilemmas." Child
Development 58: 842-59.
Doctoral Student
UNIT 8 – Assignment 1
U8A1 – Theory Bases for Ethical Dilemmas

Create a mind map on ethics and add to it the theories and
practices that you learn about this
week.
Each week throughout this course, you will add what you have
learned in the unit to your
mindmap. You will use your mindmap in a variety of ways and
it will inform the content
of your course project
In Unit 5, you began the exploration of theory bases for your
ethical dilemma. In
this unit, you will expand on this, presenting a more complete
view of the theory
bases on ethics in public administration and how they help you
to decide about a
course of action.
For this assessment:
o Submit your mindmap of ethical theories as an attachment.
o In a separate 1-page Word document, discuss how your
thinking has
evolved since Unit 5 on the theory bases that apply to your
ethical
dilemma.
o In about 5 pages of this same paper, analyze the three to four
specific
theory bases that you believe will help you the most in finding a
solution
to your ethical dilemma.

Remember to use at least 15 peer-reviewed sources overall
(other additional sources as
required), cite all sources appropriately, and use the approved
APA format for the
paper portion of this assignment.
1. Evaluates the evolution of own thinking on the application of
theory to ethical
practice.
2. Synthesizes the appropriateness of a variety of databases to a
specific ethical
dilemma scenario
3. Demonstrates exemplary professional critical thinking and
communication
skills.
U5A1 – DPA8408
Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism in Solving Ethical
Dilemmas
The consequentialism theory states that moral action is one that
produces a positive
outcome, and an immoral action creates a negative outcome. A
common way to

express the end justifies the means, so if something will
ultimately be beneficial, the
action is moral. In consequentialism, the morality of an action
is based on its
consequences, but how do you define a consequence as negative
or positive? There
are a few basic divisions here. The first is personal. If an
action is personally financial,
some say that makes it moral. But what if that action hurts
others? More commonly,
consequentialism is judged by a larger consequence, sometimes
by the impact on
society, or the state, or the greater good in general (Jacques P.
Thiurox,
Consequentialism Theory, 2014). The common belief is in
utilitarianism, that is the
greatest good for the greatest number of people. This idea
recognizes that no action is
universally beneficial, so the most moral action benefits the
most number of individuals.
On the other hand, Non-Consequentialism, it can also be labeled
as deontological
ethics. The theory states that morality of an action is based on
its adherence to

accepted rules. So, the outcome of the action doesn’t matter;
what matters is essentially
the intention. The society is left to determine what is moral and
immoral and up to an
individual to obey that morality. It assumes that society itself is
moral which is a different
question entirely and still, requires an individual to take
actions. This theory judges the
action directly and not the consequences of that action (Jacques
P. Thiurox,
Consequentialism Theory, 2014).
Most ethical dilemmas can solve either apply the
consequentialism, and non-
consequentialism theories and the outcomes for whatever theory
chosen are different
and affect the people involved differently (Allen, 2015). In
ethics, consequentialism
theories tend to pay more attention while solving a dilemma if
the consequences are for
the common then the action is justifiable. While non-
consequentialism while solving any
dilemma judges the dilemma based on the action, not the
consequences. An example

to illustrate the way these two theories work, supposing that
killing an individual X an
entirely innocent person, will save the lives of 10 other
innocent people, in
consequentialism, it is justified to kill the people and save the
lives of the other ten
individuals. On the other non-consequentialism, it is inherently
wrong to murder people
and to refuse to kill X, even though that will result in the death
of 10 people.
Abortion is a serious ethical issue, and over the years they have
the intense debate on
whether the action can be justified or not. Abortion is the most
challenging and
controversial moral issues facing different societies, and there
have been calls to make
legalize the act and in some cases to make it illegal (Kaczor,
2011). The dilemma
whether abortion is justified or not can be viewed from two
perception one which is the
moral status of the fetus and the rights of the pregnant woman.
The argument can fall
under the two-ethics theory, consequentialism, and
consequentialism.

Under consequentialism, abortion can be justified when it’s
meant for the great good of
the mother. In the United States 49% of pregnancies were
unintended (2006), and of
the unintended pregnancies, about 40% ended in abortions.
Unwanted pregnancies
increased among poor women, decreased among financially
well-off women. Unwanted
pregnancies increased among black and Hispanic women
(Hinman, 2014). Most women
who terminate pregnancies attributed this to lack of capital to
raise a baby, a baby will
interfere with education and career paths and ability to care for
dependents.
Additionally, so, most have completed childbearing, and another
baby will be a burden.
As a result, the action of terminating the pregnancy can be
justified if the overall
performance favors the mother especially those in serious
careers which the baby
interferes with. If the consequences of abortion are more
beneficial, the act is justified.

Hence abortion as an action, in this case, is moral.
The moral status of the fetus on other should put into
consideration. Non-
consequentialism does not support termination of pregnancy.
Terminating a pregnancy
is committing murder, and that is morally wrong. Since under
non-consequentialism the
judgment is based on the consequences, not the action, abortion
can be seen as
immoral. There have been arguments that life starts at
conception. Both a fetus and a
newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons. The
fetuses are not
persons; they are potential persons because they can develop,
thanks to their biological
mechanisms. Those properties make them ‘persons’ in the sense
of ‘subjects of a moral
right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to
make aims and appreciate
their life (Cline, 2016). The theory, therefore, considers
abortion immoral despite the
benefits that come with terminating an abortion. If the pregnant
mother had a good job
or was pursuing her studies keeping the baby can lead to her

losing her job or
discontinued studies to take care of the baby. While terminating
the pregnancies will be
viewed as murder and immoral despite the overall good that
comes with the act.
References
Allen, K. (2015, July 23). What is Ethical Dilemma? Retrieved
May 16, 2017, from The
New Social Worker: http://www.socialworker.com/feature-
articles/ethics-
articles/What_Is_an_Ethical_Dilemma%3F/
Cline, A. (2016, August 11). Ehhics of Abortion: Is It Moral or
Immoral to Have an
Abortion. Retrieved May 16, 2017, from ThoughtCo:
https://www.thoughtco.com/ethics-
of-abortion-248020
Hinman, L. M. (2014). Abortion: An Overview of The Ethical
Issues. Ethics Matter, 6-8.
http://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-
http://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-
https://www.thoughtco.com/ethics-of-abortion-248020
https://www.thoughtco.com/ethics-of-abortion-248020

Jacques P. Thiurox, K. W. (2014). Consequentialism Theory. In
K. W. Jacques P.
Thiurox, Ethics: Theory and Practices (pp. 18-23). Boston:
Pearson Publisher.
Jacques P. Thiurox, K. W. (2014). Non Consequentialism
Theory. In K. W. Jacques P.
Thiurox, Ethics: Theory and Practices (pp. 23-26). Boston:
Pearson Publisher.
Kaczor, C. (2011). The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights,
Human Rights and The
Question of Justice. New York: Routledge Copyright.
U5D1 – DPA8408
Introduction
Before comparing the concepts of virtue that are significant in
the text, it is important to
understand the meaning of virtue. A virtue is a quality that is
morally acceptable and
valued. It is the foundation of not only good moral being but of
the principle as well.
Analysis
Therefore, in the text, the characters presented including Joseph
Darby, Bunnatine

Greenhouse, Daniel Ellsberg, Coleen Rowley, Lois Jenson and
W. Mark Felt were or
are trying to showcase their personal virtues so that the societal
members will see the
sense of promoting individual and collective greatness in the
society. The only
challenge these personalities end up facing is rejection or even
killings as observed in
Karen Silkwood. Besides, when Joseph Darby provided an
anonymous note as well as
a compact disc of photographs exposing the prisoner abuse and
torture at Abu Ghraib
Prison in Iraq, his life ended up in shuns. His property was
vandalized; his life shunned
and is now living in a protective military custody with his wife.
Equally important, he had
wanted his name to remain anonymous but the Senate names
him during the Senate
hearing. This indicates how the concepts of virtue in the society
are not fully considered
and founded on moral excellence. And this is what it has
evolved over time and has

remained the case in the society.
Conclusion
Additionally, and as observed in whistle blowing, there is
indeed clarity and fact to say
that virtue is a matter of having that appropriate attitude
towards pleasure and pain. For
example, and in the face of danger, a coward can suffer but a
courageous or rash
person can endure or suffer sufficient pain. Therefore (Thiroux
& Krasemann, 2016)
indicates that the concepts of virtues are highly manifested
among fearless individuals
such as Bunnatine Greenhouse and Karen Silkwood. Therefore,
a virtuous person
possesses all virtues of life thus, it's meaningful to today's
public administrators is that
moral virtues are what helps us as humans to perform and
function well in different
personal and professional lives. Moreover, public administrators
in modern life are
guided by transcendence, justice, wisdom, temperance, courage
and humanity.
Reference

Thiroux, J. P., & Krasemann, K. W. (2016). Ethics: Theory and
practice.
U5A2 – DPA8408
Whistle-Blowers’ Predicaments
Motivated by integrity, an individual’s reaction when called
upon to be a whistle-blower
would be to heed the call. It is an effective way of revealing
ethical violations within an
organization. Such misconducts would rather be swept under the
carpet by the
perpetrators. Making such violations public enables responsible
and powerful authorities
to lash out correct disciplinary actions. Whistle-Blowers often
face difficulties after
making an expose. The dangers they are likely to encounter
ranges from loss of life to
loss of privacy. They are sometimes assassinated or die in
mysterious circumstances.
Launched police investigations rarely end up to any good. In

addition, they face
constant threats, destruction of property in their names, loss of
employment, reputation
and separation from family. Having a mere thought of
undergoing through all these
suffering instills great fear in whistle-blowers. Nonetheless,
some strategies could be
implemented to mitigate adverse effects that arise from
whistleblowing. Firstly, uphold
the anonymity of the whistleblowers. Identities of those who
reveal unethical conducts in
organization and government institutions should remain a
secret. Those who are guilty
would not know who exposed them. Hence, whistleblowers
remain safe. Secondly,
whistle-blowers’ protection unit ought to be created. It will
offer protection to whistle-
blowers whose identities have gone public. When put under
protective custody no or
less harm can come to them. Lastly, all the guilty perpetrators
together with their
accomplices must be put behind bars. Possibilities of
orchestrating revenge plans in
prison are almost zero. Whenever revenge attempts are made,

the authorities can
easily detect it and thwart the plans. As a result, whistleblowers
get the freedom to
enjoy their freedom and perhaps get celebrated and awarded for
a job well done.
References
Thiroux, Jacques P. and Keith W. Krasemann. “Whistle
Blowing: Public Benefits and
Personal Risks.”
Thiroux, Jacques P. and Keith W. Krasemann. Virtue Ethics.
n.d. 61-76.
LEADERSHIP MIND MAP
The first component of a personal vision of leadership is
courage. To have braveness
requires self-belief. The quality leaders are very assured in
themselves and their
thoughts, which allow them to be decisive. But, they should be
capable of exude that
confidence without conveying arrogance or intimidation! Great
leaders have the ability to
make tough decisions and are inclined to take risks, even if
traditional wisdom could

dictate otherwise. They must be willing to stand by myself if
they consider in their
convictions. This is without delay associated with their
visionary talents, strategic
questioning and their self-confidence.
The second component of a personal vision of leadership is
good communication skills.
Great leaders do now not should be incredible orators or
awesome writers. What is
required is that they're inspirational and persuasive. They can
speak and write to the
audience’s level. They speak in a way that generates purchase-
in and inclined fans. Good
leaders must usually be trustworthy, even delivering the horrific
information whilst
suitable. But, they commonly exude a high-quality mind-set and
are visible as optimistic,
even in the most troubling of times. Even in the event that they
do not have a professional
background or training in sales, leaders often exhibit elements
of effective selling
competencies. They can strengthen their thoughts in a logical
and comprehensible

manner to all tiers of the organization
Another component of a personal vision of leadership is vision.
Outstanding leaders see
the entire picture and do no longer get too targeted on unique
tasks or tasks. They have
deep understanding of related industries/groups and are
strategic thinkers. They regularly
have sturdy networks and constantly become aware of essential
tendencies early of their
life cycle. They are excellent at communicating an imaginative
and prescient of the future
and getting organizational buy-in. Strong leaders understand
their goal clients; recognize
the corporation's value proposition and additionally, its
competitive weaknesses. They
major on enhancing center capabilities of the employer and
developing the talents and
competencies to be able to enhance their cost proposition.
Among the goal relating to leadership is listening.
Extraordinary leaders know they don't
have every one of the appropriate responses. They focus on
asking more inquiries, and

tuning in to the appropriate responses. Listening is one of the
most ideal approaches to
show colleagues that you esteem their conclusions and think
about their prosperity.
Listening is vital to all compelling correspondence. Without the
capacity to listen viably,
messages are effectively misjudged. Accordingly,
correspondence separates and the
sender of the message can without much of a stretch wind up
plainly baffled or bothered.
Another goal relating to leadership is innovation. Great leaders
are continuously running
on fixing large problems or developing and innovating new
methods to do things. One of
the benefits of a revolutionary place of business is the usage of
area to increase
productivity and worker pleasure whilst at work. According to
the General Services
Administration, one of these places of job has sufficient room
for employees to sense free
to transport round. There must be access to herbal mild and out
of doors views. There
ought to be locations wherein personnel can meet to discuss
standards privately in small

companies as well as large meeting rooms.
The first barrier that will need to be overcome to achieve the
vision is arrogance. Despite
the fact that certainty is an imperative administration quality,
having excessively quite a
bit of this is considered as haughtiness. In the event that you are
a pioneer you will be
required to utilize your certainty to impact others and to convey
aim and thoughts. This
data ought to be conveyed in a roused way that energizes and
inspires others. Certainty
nonetheless, tends to develop if not oversaw legitimately, and
when this happens self-
importance assumes control and starts to make requests.
The second barrier that will need to be overcome to achieve the
vision is disorganization.
A group will look to their pioneer for instance of how things
ought to be finished. On the
off chance that a pioneer always works at a hysterical pace yet
completes pretty much
nothing, or requests data commonly however neglects to move
an aim without hesitation,

it makes a confused express that stops the stream of advance.
This disarranged method
for working likewise unleashes stress and disappointment and
effects on all individuals
from a group. A pioneer should in this manner have the capacity
to sort out their timetable
with the goal that it urges others to take after the case. By being
sorted out a pioneer
additionally shows a more extensive choice of aptitudes and
administration ability.
Another barrier that will need to be overcome to achieve the
vision is untrustworthiness.
Without trust it is extremely troublesome for a pioneer to
inspire others to do as they
inquire. A pioneer needs to grant learning, data and thoughts in
a way that exhibits
genuineness and respectability. On the off chance that others
don't believe a pioneer they
will wind up noticeably impervious to whatever the pioneer
proposes or requires. To
propel and move others a pioneer in this manner needs to rouse
trust, and in addition act
as needs be in any circumstance. This is best accomplished by
being straightforward and

dependable at all circumstances.
Presented here below is a visual representation of the vision
statement.
References
Jackson, A. (2016). Concept Map of Leadership and
Management. Florence: European
Univ. Institute.
Kendrick, A. (2010). Leadership theories: Concept map of
leadership and management.
Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
Lamarck, S. T. (2014). Concept map of leadership and
management. Canberra: Govt.
Printer of Australia.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-
b&q=concept+map+of+leadership+and+management&sa=X&ve
d=0ahUKEwiB6qLCvZ7TAhUqKcAKHXqVABIQ1QIIbSgD&bi
w=1280&bih=689
w=1280&bih=689

w=1280&bih=689U8A1 – Theory Bases for Ethical Dilemmas
Sheet2Input data from a XXX Customer1Planning(50% devoted
to raw materials)$ 385,000.002Purshasing$
650,000.003Expediting$ 255,000.004Receiving$
535,000.005Inspection$ 205,000.006Warehouse: Labor (mgmt
and staff)$ 450,000.007Warehouse: Space$
302,000.008Accounting (30% devoted to accounts payable)$
650,000.009Revenue generated per hour$ 47,000.0010Line
down costs (fixed costs, etc.) per hour$ 42,000.0011Monthly
hours lost due to passives (line down)0.6512Annual volume of
passives$ 6,020,000.0013Total line items per year$
155,000.0014Passive% of line items42%15Warehouse space %
for passives31%Other dataCurrent Proposed (VMI)1XXX
Proposed premium for the VMI program as % of the total
passives cost16%2Cost of capital6%6%3Obsolescence costs as a
% of inventory4%N/AUnder the VMI program, all products are
assumed obsolence4Average passive turns per year
4205IRR10%10%Worksheet for savings under VMICurrent
Proposed (VMI)Savings1Material costs2Annual passive
planning costs3Annual passive purchasing costs4Annual passive
expediting costs5Annual passive receiving costs6Annual
passive inspecting costs7Annual passive warehouse (labor)
costs8Annual passive warehouse (space) costs9Annual passive
accounting costs10Interest cost11Obsolescence costs12Subtotal
(2-11)13Total costs of acquisition (1+12)14Annual line down
costs (fixed, etc.)15Total savings (13+14)16Annual revenu lost
due to line down17Freed up capital18Opportunity cost of
investing freed up [email protected]19Total revenu opportunity
(16+18)20Total savings + revenue opportunity (15+19)

STEPS OF THE ETHICAL STEPS OF THE ETHICAL DECISIONDECISION--.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to STEPS OF THE ETHICAL STEPS OF THE ETHICAL DECISIONDECISION--.docx

Similar to STEPS OF THE ETHICAL STEPS OF THE ETHICAL DECISIONDECISION--.docx (20)

More from whitneyleman54422

More from whitneyleman54422 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

STEPS OF THE ETHICAL STEPS OF THE ETHICAL DECISIONDECISION--.docx