EDLD 603
Ethics and Leadership
Instructor: George E. Reed, Ph.D. george.reed@sandiego.edu 619-260-4893
3 Units
Office Hours: Monday 2:00-5:00 p.m. Tue 3:00-5:00 p.m. Hill Hall Room 201
Course Objectives: 1. Critically analyze ethical theories to assess their implications for understanding both the nature of leadership and its relationship to ethics. (S 1; K 8) 2. Apply ethical theories and traditions to contemporary ethical issues and dilemmas of leadership and organizational dynamics (S 1, 3, 5; K 8) 3. Examine competing theories of justice and democracy and the role of leadership in securing and maintaining both. (S 1, 6; K 5, 8) 4. Analyze the problem of administrative evil and describe the factors that permit normal human beings to suspend their ethical principles and participate in group atrocities and other criminal activities. (S 1, 5, 6; K 8, 9) Course Description Ethics and Leadership explores the intersection of ethics and leadership in contemporary society with an emphasis on the dilemmas that are inherent in leadership practice. EDLD 603 provides students with a foundation in ethical theory and the role of ethics in leadership. We will explore ethical dimensions of leadership activity in organizations in the public and private sectors. A variety of ethical theories and approaches will be considered and applied to situations. The course will be case oriented and problem focused, with participants personally involved in reflection and discourse about both leadership and ethics. A primary focus will be on the exercise of both individual and collective judgment in a democratic context. Of particular interest and relevance is the application of ethical perspectives to the problem of evil, particularly as it is perpetrated by groups of psychologically normal individuals in both formal and informal groups and organizations. The course emphasizes the centrality and relevance of ethical perspectives to the challenges faced by leaders in contemporary organizations. Required Texts and Readings The following texts are available from the University of San Diego Bookstore: Adams, G., & Balfour, D. Unmasking administrative evil. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
1
Bissinger, H.G. (1990). Friday night lights. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley. Ishiguro, K. (1988). The remains of the day. New York: Vintage. Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2008). Moral intelligence: enhancing business performance & leadership success. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing. Power, S. (2002). “A problem from hell”: America and the age of genocide. New York: Harper Collins. Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2007). The elements of moral philosophy. Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill. Other course readings are available on-line through electronic reserve via the Copley Library. The password is “ethics” All course materials outside of assigned texts are also available via WebCT. Candidate Outcomes and Evaluation Most of the time in seminar will be spent in dialogue, discussion of cases, and textual analysis. Participants are expected to attend well prepared to discuss assigned readings and cases. Class participation is important to individual and class learning and thus participants will be graded on their preparation, participation, and contributions to seminar learning. Student preparation and participation in discussion is assessed by attendance record and instructor judgment In addition to the reading assignments, there will be oral and written assignments related to readings and class discussions (See rubrics at Appendices A and B). The final written assignment will consist of an original ethical case study and analysis. It should be based on personal experience and research. The case should contain sufficient essential detail in order to provide opportunities for induction (reasoning from particulars to general statements) and reconstruction of the experience. The case study should consist of approximately 14 to 18 pages that: 1) establishes a fact basis for the case, 2) identifies ethical issues inherent in the facts 3) applies a systematic analysis of the issues leading to a recommended solution and, 4) applies good habits of critical thinking to the solution and anticipates repercussions of the recommended solution. Students are expected to attend class prepared to discuss in-depth, assigned readings and cases. Class participation is important to individual and class learning and thus students will be graded on their active engagement in the class. Student preparation and participation in discussion is assessed by attendance record and instructor judgment
2
Class attendance 10% Course contributions to dialogue 30% Group assignment and discussion 10% Ethics Case Study Final Paper 50%
NOTE: STUDENTS WHO FAIL TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS COURSE WILL RECEIVE AN “INCOMPLETE.” THE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET BY THE END OF THE TENTH WEEK OF THE NEXT REGULAR SEMESTER; OTHERWISE, THE “I” GRADE WILL BE COUNTED AS AN “F.” Students with disabilities who believe that they may need accommodations in the class are encouraged to contact Disability Services in Serra 300 (tel. 260-4655) as soon as possible to better ensure that such accommodations are implemented in a timely fashion. Texts Available on E-Reserves through Copley Library (password “ethics”) Course Schedule/Activities Session 1
Course Overview
Monday Jan 28, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
In this session we will discuss the course content and expectations. We will discuss course deliverables, especially the final paper and oral presentation assignments for session three. In addition, we will discuss the use of case studies as a learning tool, and address the means of analyzing ethical case studies that will provide a basis for framing seminar dialogue. I will assign topics and groups for oral presentations scheduled for Sessions 3 and 4. Session 2
Moral Development
Monday Feb 4, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
This session examines the perspective that asserts that moral reasoning can be developed. The textbook chapter by Dr. Cropf provides a good overview of ethics from the perspective of public administration; a field that has particular relevance to leadership studies. In seminar we will examine the play Antigone as a case study full of ethical dilemmas and obtain some group practice in using the case study method. Read: Kohlberg, L. (1986) “Moral development: A modern statement of the Platonic view,” in Thomas Donaldson, Ed. Issues in moral philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 36-45. (E-reserve #1and WebCT) Sophocles, trans. (442 BCE/1984) Antigone. Translated by R. C. Webb. (E-reserve #2 and WebCT)
3
Cropf, R. (2008) "Chapter 3: Ethics and public administration," in American public administration: Public service for the 21st century. New York: Pearson Longman, pp. 45-70. (E-reserve #3 and WebCT) Session 3
Ethical Foundations I
Monday Feb 11, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
Because our students come from a variety of backgrounds with differing levels of training and education in moral philosophy, this and the next session are designed to "level the playing field" by exposing all to some well known ethical frameworks that should be of assistance as you identify and attempt to resolve ethical dilemmas. Working in groups as assigned in Session 1 each group will research the assigned topic and prepare a presentation designed to impart a working knowledge to seminar members. Each presentation should consist of about fifteen to twenty minutes of information transfer followed by about ten minutes of dialogue. PowerPoint slides are permitted as are summary handouts (one per seminar member) that should consist of no more than three typewritten pages. I request that you avoid using skits and kinetic activities which are time consuming and focus instead on mini lecture and discussion methods that impart the maximum amount of information in the limited time we have available. Read: Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2008). Moral intelligence: enhancing business performance & leadership success. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing, pp. 1-76. Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2007). The elements of moral philosophy. Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill, Chapters 1-5, pp. 1-81. Group reports on: Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics and the Golden Mean Saint Augustine: The City of God and the City of Man; Just War John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Thomas Hobbes: The Leviathan Session 4
Ethical Foundations II
Monday Feb 18, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
Read: Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2008). Moral intelligence: Enhancing business performance & leadership success. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing, pp. 77-138. Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2007). The elements of moral philosophy. Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill, Chapters 6-12, pp. 89-202.
4
Group Reports on: Emmanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative Thomas Hobbes: The Leviathan John Rawls: The Veil of Ignorance Hanna Arendt: The Banality of Evil Reinhold Neibur: Justice Each group should bring a summary handout consisting of no more than three pages for distribution to the class as a courtesy to your classmates. Session 5
An Educational Dilemma
Monday Feb 25, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
As a means of firing our moral imagination we will discuss educational dilemmas revealed in Bissinger's award winning book Friday Night Lights. Read: Bissinger, H.G. (1990). Friday night lights. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
Session 6
The Situational Imperative
Monday Mar 3, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
In this session we will discuss the power of the situation and psycho-social cues in influencing human behavior. We will discuss the work of Phillip Zimbardo's most famous work-- the Stanford Prison Experiment and will watch a film that documents some important aspects. Our discussion will focus on implications of the Stanford Prison Experiment for the practice of leadership. Read: Zimbardo, P. (2007) The lucifer effect. New York: Random House, pp. 1-323. Watch: The Quite Rage Session 7
Administrative Evil
Monday Mar 10, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
Guy Adams and Daniel Balfour provide us with the notion of Administrative Evil whereby otherwise well intentioned individuals participate in systems that unknowingly produce harm to people. They argue that the modern penchant for technical rationality as the predominate form of reasoning serves to mask administrative evil. We will discuss the implications of administrative evil for the practice of leadership and will examine a contemporary case study in the abuse of detainees at the Abu Ghraib Central Prison. We will also discuss the requirement to bring a copy of the code of ethics for your profession to Session 7.
5
Read: Adams, G., & Balfour, D. Unmasking administrative evil. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2008). Moral intelligence: Enhancing business performance & leadership success. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing, pp. 157-214. Adams, G., Balfour D., & Reed, G. (2006) “Abu Ghraib, Administrative Evil and Moral Inversion: The Value of ‘Putting Cruelty First.’” Public Administration Review. Volume 66, Number 5, September-October 2006. (E-Reserve #4 and WebCT) Note that Spring Break runs from March 17-21. There is no class on March 17th. Session 8
Professional Ethics
Monday Mar 24, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
Professions seek to protect their jurisdictions and serve their clients, in part, by asserting internal control through creeds, ethical codes, and sanctions. In this session we will examine and analyze a range of ethical codes. Each seminar member is asked to bring to seminar a copy of an ethical code that governs their profession or occupation. We will discuss the use and utility of professional ethics as a means of resolving ethical dilemmas that are part and parcel of leadership practice. We will consider the work of Kazuo Ishiguro as a case study that highlights some important aspects of professionalism that we should consider. Read: Ishiguro, K. (1988). The remains of the day. New York: Vintage. Session 9
Realism, Idealism, and The Problem of Genocide Monday Mar 31, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
Few dilemmas of contemporary life and foreign policy are as compelling and complex as the problem of genocide. We will derive our case study and dialogue for this section by reading Samantha Power's Pulitzer Prize winning book. Read:
Thucydides (431 BC) "The Melian Dialogue." History of thePeloponnesian War. (EReserve #5A and WebCT) Gvosdev, N.K. (2005) "The Value(s) of Realism." SAIS Review. 25.1, pp. 17-25. (EReserve #5 and WebCT)
6
Power, S. (2002). “A problem from hell�: America and the age of genocide. New York: Harper Collins. All read pages 1-61, 155-169, 475-516. Group 1 read "Cambodia: "Helpless Giant" pp. 87-154. Group 2 read "Iraq: "Human Rights and Chemical Abuses Aside" pp. 171-246. Group 3 read "Bosnia: No More Than Witnesses at a Funeral" pp. 247-328. Group 4 read "Rwanda: "Mostly in a Listening Mode" pp. 329-390. Group 5 read Srebrenicia: "Getting Creamed" pp. 391-442. Group 6 read Kosovo: "A Dog and a Fight" pp. 443-474. Session 10
The Unhappy Subject: The Torture Question Monday Apr 7, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
Some decisions are not simply between right and wrong, but constitute choices between bad, awful, terrible, and catastrophic. In this session we will address dilemmas involving questions of torture. Read: Elshtain, J. B. (2004) "Reflection on the Problem of "Dirty Hands" in Torture: A collection. Sanford Levinson, Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 77-89. (E-Reserve #6 and WebCT) Watch: PBS Frontline The Torture Question Session 11
The Ethics of Dissent
Monday Apr 14, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
It is highly probable that leaders will eventually find themselves in a situation where they are juxtaposed between an organizational decision and a point of personal principle. This session addresses the problem of competing demands and the ethics of loyal dissent. Read: Oleary, R. (2006). The Ethics of Dissent: Managing Guerrilla Government. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, pp. 1-40, 90-120. (E-reserve #7 and WebCT) Kelman, H.C. & Hamilton, L. (1989). Crimes of Obedience: Toward a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Ereserve #8 and Web CT) Watch: The Smartest Guys in the Room.
Session 12
Case Study Review
Monday Apr 21, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
7
This session is reserved for a discussion of case studies in progress, especially for those who may be having difficulty in conceptualizing or developing their case. Session 13 p.m.
Case Study Presentations
Monday Apr 28, 5:30-8:20
The last two sessions of the course are dedicated to discussing the ethical case studies that you have prepared as the final paper. No handouts or PowerPoint slides are necessary. Your goal is to discuss the case and its implications. Try to avoid reading your case word for word. See the rubric at Appendix B. Presentation of ethics case studies. Session 14
Case Study Presentations
Presentation of ethics case studies, continued.
8
Monday May 5, 5:30-8:20 p.m.
Appendix A: Rubric for Evaluating Case Studies Needs Improvement Contains insufficient information to determine context or excessive facts not germane to the case. Issues not related to a specific lens, concept, or metaphor. Fails to identify relevant issues.
Meets Standards Brief, yet complete recitation of key facts necessary to establish the context of the case. Identifies issues reflecting a lens, concept, or metaphor in assigned readings or literature.
Exceeds Standards Complete recitation of essential facts. Reflects considerable perceptivity.
Solutions
Solutions not linked to issues or relevant readings or literature. Inadequate level of interpretation, not well reasoned.
Original, insightful, and reflects synthesis of readings and literature. Solutions are persuasive and compelling.
Judgment
Lacks of applied judgment. Demonstrates inaccurate or superficial use of readings or literature.
Solutions reflect thoughtful analysis. Convincing and well reasoned. Assertions adequately supported by assigned readings or literature. Well reasoned and feasible interpretation of likely outcomes based on accurate use of reading or literature.
Facts
Issues
9
Issues reflect a mature ability to think issues through. Relates issues to assigned readings or literature. Exemplary analysis.
High level of analysis, synthesis and explication in sufficient depth. Conveys insight and good command of assigned material.
Appendix B: Rubric for Evaluating Oral Presentations Needs Improvement Meets Standards
Exceeds Standards
Content
Lacks clarity, completeness and unity. Not supported by assigned readings or literature. Exceeds time limits. Not a valuable contribution to seminar learning.
Professional presentation. Covers major points. Clearly linked to assigned readings or literature. Arguments are coherent, logical, and persuasive. Presented within accepted time limits.
Exemplary content with high level of analysis, interpretation, and explication. A contribution to seminar learning. Crisp, persuasive, insightful, and linked to assigned readings or literature. Good use of time.
Organization
Lacks sense of structure. Abrupt. Subject left hanging; questions left unanswered.
Contains clear sense of beginning, middle and end. Clear conclusion or summation. Clearly well thought out and organized.
Organization contributes to the persuasiveness of the presentation. Depth and breadth of information uniform and inclusive. Suitable for presentation to an academic audience without modification.
Delivery
Boring presentation that demonstrates lack of consideration for the audience. Little preparation evident.
Solid presentation. Keeps audience’s attention. Professional delivery. Clear, strong and articulate. Visual aids suitable. Truly a presentation, not a reading.
Style, emphasis, voice and bearing contribute to persuasive and informative presentation. Presentation aids are well crafted and helpful.
10
Appendix C: Avoiding Plagiarism Hugo Bedau wrote in Thinking and Writing About Philosophy (p. 141) that "Writers plagiarize when they use another's words or ideas without suitable acknowledgement. Plagiarism amounts to theft--theft of language and thought. Plagiarism also involves deception…. [Plagiarism] wrongs the person from whom the words or thoughts were taken and to whom no credit was given; and it wrongs the reader by fraudulently misrepresenting the words or thoughts as though they are the writer's own." Finally, although it sounds like a cliché, when you plagiarize you cheat yourself: first, by not developing the discipline and diligence to research, write, and edit well; second, because taking credit for other people's ideas will induce outrage and resentment against you; and third, because a habit of plagiarism can end your career and destroy your reputation. If you are unfamiliar with the University of San Diego’s policy, please read it. The code of academic integrity is not just rhetoric; forms of academic dishonesty, including but not limited to cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, or facilitating academic dishonesty, may result in suspension or expulsion from the university. To avoid plagiarism, you must cite your sources everywhere in your paper where you use the ideas of others, and not only when you quote them directly, but also where you paraphrase their points in your own words. In general, you should only use direct quotes when you find the author’s wording to be especially effective. Your paraphrasing or summaries of author’s points should be thorough. It is not fair to an author to change only a couple of words in a paragraph and then imply (by not using direct quotes) that the paragraph is entirely your own prose. It might help to imagine the author reading over your shoulder. You are certainly encouraged to work and learn collaboratively, both within and outside the seminar. The work you submit, however, should reflect your own thoughts and ideas, expressed in your own words unless you cite whose words you are using. You must cite references you use in completing your work using the format of the APA 5th Edition Style Manual. If you are unsure of what this means, please check with me before completing an assignment.
11