Ethics Definition and Kohlbergs Stages of Moral Development Assignment

Another one of my favorite chapters (and yes, I have several “favorite” chapters)… In my humble opinion (and yes, I have several of them, too), it is pretty difficult to be a “good” (effective) leader unless you are a “good” (moral) leader. Ethics and efficacy seem to be hopelessly intertwined.

Did it seem strange to read in this chapter: “Even in the literature of management, written primarily for practitioners, there are very few books on leadership ethics. This suggests that theoretical formulations in this area are still in their infancy.”? On the very next page, Professor Northouse presages his definition of ethics on ethical theory dating back to Plato and Aristotle. Later on, he credits the third strength of the chapter on how: “The virtues discussed in this research have been around for more than 2,000 years.” It is difficult to substantiate the claim that theoretical formulations in this area are still in their infancy, when you have 2,000 years of thought on the matter.

Let’s look at Professor Northouse’s definition of ethics: “Ethical theory provides a system of rules or principles that guide us in making decisions about what is right or wrong and good or bad in a particular situation. It provides a basis for understanding what it means to be a morally decent human being.”

Question #1:

Critically evaluate that definition of ethics. Do you agree with it? Is it missing something? Does it have too much in it?

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development are fascinating and a wonderful tool as a manager. I believe it would be of tremendous benefit to have a good grasp of this model if you were a middle-level manager, or a senior-level executive in an organization. Seeing a subordinate suffering from a lapse in judgment, you could employ this model to determine your corrective course of action with respect to the offender. If you attributed the cause of the lapse to the manager not possessing a suitable level of development, then you might be inclined to retain and train them. If you deem them to be operating at a postconventional level on most issues, then your course of action is clearer and more direct.

Question #2:

Level 3, Stage 6—Universal Principles. “People follow their internal rules of fairness, even if they conflict with laws.” What could go wrong with that?

Oh, and Kohlberg based his model on an interesting thought experiment that he administered to children—the Heinz dilemma. You might want to plug that into your favorite search engine to look at the scenario. We frequently read in Wall Street Journal and other business press, an exact replication of the pharmacist’s response to Heinz. Perhaps the scenario is not as far-fetched as some critics postulate.

Under “Ethical Theories”, there is a missing theory or two.

Ethics of Care (http://www.iep.utm.edu/care-eth/) addresses the concept that certain people are special to me and therefore deserve a higher level of consideration. I love my students dearly—I really do. I (in general) love and respect people. I donate blood platelets and plasma about every other week. I’m told that my one plasma donation helps three chemotherapy patients in the central Kentucky area. So, twice a month or so, I’ll lie on bed with a needle stuck in my arm for an hour or two, just to help total strangers. If at some time, due to unfortunate events, you need “A positive” blood, you could be a recipient of my largess. I’m also on the bone marrow donation list. On the other hand, I have two kidneys and I’m sorry, but you aren’t going to get one of those. Don’t ask. I might need them both someday, so they are staying right where they are for now. Now, should my son need a kidney—I won’t hesitate to give him one of mine. He is my son, after all.

See the difference in the ethics of care? “… ‘care’ involves maintaining the world of, and meeting the needs of, ourself and others. It builds on the motivation to care for those who are dependent and vulnerable, and it is inspired by both memories of being cared for and the idealizations of self.” (http://www.iep.utm.edu/care-eth/.)

Question #3:

Is there room for Ethics of Care in our capitalist society? What should that role be?

Question #4:

Is “Ethics” for leaders any different that for followers, or should it be?

Go back to Trait Theory. The word ethics does not appear. Closest we see is “integrity” which does sort of sound like Professor Northouse’s definition of ethics. In any event is seems to appear infrequently at best as a trait.

Question #5:

If “Ethics” isn’t a trait of leadership, is it meaningful?

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.