Ethical Leadership Case Study

2. Part B: Portfolio of Evidence Contents

2.1 Appendix A: The Ethical Leadership Debate

Motion: “The Business School believes that ethical leadership is impossible in a shareholder focused economy”

Mike Gustavsson who is a retired lecturer and Greenpeace activist, stances stood against the motion. He strongly believes that ethical leadership is crucial when it comes to top management’s behaviour and decision making in an organisation and it relates back to foundation in school where ethical leadership is nurtured. This illustrates virtue ethics, right and justice which emphasise morally on his principles (Zaltan et al, 2003) and he demonstrates Maxim 3 of universality (Kant, 1997). As a Greenpeace activist, Mike is a discretionary stakeholder

He could choose to compensate Boris to stay back and meet the client which illustrates a utilitarian approach (Eggleston, 2012). The manager could also take an ethical approach of right and justice (Crane & Matten, 2010) due to employment entitlement of leave, he has to let Boris makes his own decision or having another replacement to meet the client. The manager identified to be Maxim 2 of human dignity (Kant, 1997).

Swee Lan’s ethical dilemma discussed concerns her response to Boris dilemma. Firstly, using her egoistic approach (Longenecker, McKinney & Moore, 1989) and utilitarianism (Eggleston, 2012), she could make her decision for Boris to go for the holiday with her, meeting her parents which results in everyone to be happy. Even though, they had difficult conversion initially, Swee Lan eventually gives in and respect Boris’s decision which illustrates Maxim 2 of human dignity (Kant, 1997) within

His action dealing with the important client mentioned by his company will lead to further contracts which will eventually not only benefit company, this will bring ‘greatest good’ towards his manager and career performance. This demonstrate him adopting consequentialist theory of utilitarianism which drives to act in a way resulting in the greatest possible amount of well-being for most number of people instead of an individual (Eggleston, 2012). Initially, Boris adopted Stage 1 of Kohlberg’s (1971) where there is no reluctance in him to decline the request from his manager. If he declines, this would lead his downturn relationship with his manager and unreliable employee status in the company as a punishment. Boris justify himself as a dominant stakeholder (Maak, 2007) as he has to power to choose with his employee entitlement and legitimacy being one of the reliable accountant for the company dealing with an important client. Boris does not hold any urgency in a way that there could have a replacement of accountant to deal with the client. Boris decision making relate back to his moral intensity of magnitude of consequences (Jones, 1991) in which his moral intensity increases as his decision would jeopardise his relationship with Swee Lan and his colleagues or his status career. The probability of effect is also demonstrated in this case where the client’s product