The Mash of Civilizations-Social Networks, Empower Enemies of Freedom

Yesterday, I encountered an eye opening article that really brings to perspective one of the negative aspects of social networking and the ability individuals have to assist their criminal activities with technology available today. This article is posted on the Newsweek website and it outlines the fact that, "information technology, particularly social networking through the internet is changing the global balance of power". In other words, the article brings up several instances of ways that social media networks and modern technology have given rise to criminal activities and even overthrows of established governments. While the first example discusses a way that social networks might promote democracy, the following examples explain how they also empower the enemies of freedom.

To begin, the "Facebook Generation" is now known for and credited with the overthrow of Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak. It is truly amazing that this generation was able to accomplish such an astounding feat, but unfortunately this is a positive aspect that comes from the this generation surrounded by several negatives occurring throughout other parts of the world. The article continues by telling the reader to ask themselves how they think the murderous mob in Mazar-e Sharif found out about the burning of a Quran in Florida. It suggests that the reader should look no further than the Internet and the mobile phone. In addition to this, the article states an interesting fact saying, "Since 2011 cell-phone access in Afghanistan has leapt from zero to 30 percent". Another example that is used says to consider the fact that before a page on Facebook entitled "Third Palestinian Intifada, which proclaimed "Judgment Day will be brought upon us only once the Muslims have killed all of the Jews", was removed, it had notched 350, 000 "Likes". The article continues with a unique quote saying, "What we've ended up with is something more like a mashup of civilizations, in which the most militantly anti modern strains of Islam are being channeled by the coolest technology the West has to offer".

There is too many great examples, not to state some more that this article has to offer. According to the Jihadica website, there is now a special data package produced by the "Mobile Detachment" of the "al-Ansar al-Mujahideen Forum" especially for cell phones. The users can download encryption software, pictures, video clips, and even have access to an electronic magazine entitled al-Samud ("Resistance"), published by the Afghan branch of the Taliban. If that isn't enough there is also, "Inspire", the online magazine published by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and aimed at aspiring jihadists in the West. Not only does the website contain bomb-making instructions, it also publishes target lists of individuals against whom fatwas have been proclaimed.

It is absolutely astounding to sit down and really realize that some of our biggest enemies and threats in the world can now post on Facebook, e-mail their holy Quran, and "tweet the call to jihad". This issue has a huge ethical and moral undertone and it is unfortunate that while modern technology comes accompanied with so many awesome benefits, it also comes with several negatives. With this article, we can bring up a recent chapter we have studied in class relating to Leadership Ethics in Chapter 15. More importantly, the topic of Principles of Ethical Leadership can be brought up for discussion. While these leaders are not prestigious in our eyes, nor are they well respected by individuals in the Western Hemisphere, Islam extremists are a branch of "leaders" in our world and they have been given exposure to modern forms of technology that can unfortunately assist them in the unethical acts they commit daily. When relating this to the Principles of Ethical Leadership, these individuals clearly completely disregard every aspect of these principles in their actions. These principles include, respecting others, serving others, showing justice, manifesting honesty, and building community. To begin, these individuals are clearly completely intolerant of opposing viewpoints and insensitive to other people's needs. They also are one track minded and only aim to accomplish their own goals, with disregard for others. Finally, these individuals definitely have no sense of justice, honesty, or community, accept for in some rare cases with their own kind.  Clearly, these individuals who are infiltrating our social networks and using modern technology to further their own agenda are not only unethical, but also putting fear in the minds of individuals who use this technology to better society and the world around us.

The article can be viewed here.


-Josh Dlabal

Are Tech Companies Becoming Unofficial Intelligence Agents

     This article is very interesting to me because it has to do with something that millions of people around the world use every day. The Government and Facebook are the two main players in this case. Many people do not think it is ethical that the United States Government (CIA) is funding a massive online surveillance run by the CIA. The author in the article states that this program is known as “Facebook-dreamed up by secret CIA agent Mark Zuckerberg”. The government is funding this new project to increase its intelligence for our safety and security from threats from home and abroad. However, many people think this is an unethical stunt because of privacy issues and concerns. Specifically, many privacy and civil liberty advocates are greatly concerned. These advocates are concerned and worried because they think that technology companies are being turned into unofficial intelligence agents. The evidence in the article states that these advocates also think it unethical because with this increase of regulatory, law enforcement is turning to them for access to our electronic and local communication data.

This is a joke that makes light on 
how much information
technology companies (like Facebook)
really have on us.

     Under the principals of ethical leadership, I think the government (CIA) has a duty to serve others (the American people). They are acting under the Patriot Act because they have a duty to help other pursue their own interests and goals. America will be safer because of the government’s actions. Under the “serves others” principal within the principals of ethical leadership, it states that leaders have an ethical responsibility to make decisions that are beneficial to their follower’s welfare. In this case, the government is fulfilling its ethical responsibility to the American people by making the decision to start and fund a massive surveillance program.

     In this case, the government (CIA), under the teleological theory, is using a “Utilitarianism” approach to make its decision regarding moral conduct. Under the “Utilitarianism” approach it states that leaders lead this way to create the greatest good for the greatest number. In this case, the government (leader) is distributing its resources (intelligence and money) in order to maximize the benefit to everyone (safety and wellbeing of the American citizens), while hurting the fewest (some people’s privacy).

     In this case, the Government is also acting as a servant leader. Under Greenleaf’s perspective of servant leadership, it states that leaders take care of and nurture followers. That is exactly the government’s intention when they are starting to fund a massive research surveillance program. The government (leader) are being attentive to the concerns of their followers (the American citizens). In class I learned that a servant leader has the social responsibility to be concerned with “have-nots” in the organization. In this case, the government (CIA) has a social responsibility to be concerned with the American people.

     All in all, I think the United States government is doing the right thing funding this new research for the CIA. They (the leader) are doing in in the interests of us (their followers). The three main topics that are relevant in this case are: the serves other principal, utilitarianism, and servant leadership. The main reason they are doing this is because they (the government) has a very high concern for the interests of others (the American people).

     Please voice your opinions on this issue. Do you think the Government is acting ethical? Or do you agree with the privacy advocates and think that they should not use third party social networking sites to gather intelligence?

I recommend you read the full, very interesting Forbes article: by clicking here:  Click Here: "Are Tech Companies Becoming Unofficial Intelligence Agents

--Michael Cosentino

How a Whistle-Blower Conquered Countrywide

In this article Mr. Winston has been pitted against an entire company led by a few very unethical leaders and by the end of this three year dilemma, the whistle blower finally wins. Mr, Winston has certainly beaten the odds when it comes to being a successful whistle blower in a time where frustration and unethical behavior had run rampant on the sub prime mortgage avalanche that felt so right and ended up dramatically affecting a whole country. Mr. Winston held true to his values throughout his employment at Countrywide and represented those that worked him very well by setting a great example in the fight against those who throw ethics by the wayside in a time of crisis. In that light I feel that his efforts should be celebrated and acknowledged in anyway possible.

Mr. Winston demonstrated many different leadership traits and styles as he began and continued his corporate journey to the point where he is today. I would first like to discuss the contingency model because I personally feel that he held several different positions within figure 6.1 in our text. I feel that most professionals have established themselves with specific relations to their peers and subordinates, task structure and position power, but Mr. Winston had to adapt his leadership style to several different situations with integrity and professionalism while being tested by his superiors. While this theory tests how effect a leader will be given a situation, I would like to note that Mr. Winston was a man that wore many hats for CountryWide financial between promotion and demotion after involving Cal-OSHA and refusing to falsify a report to MOODY. The fact is that it would have been much easier and much more profitable at the time for Mr. Winston to ignore all of these warning signs and compromise his ethical beliefs. But instead he showed consistent ethical behavior that eventually won him a lawsuit. In the meantime he was challenged across the contingency scale by being demoted, again it would have been easier for him to hop back on board and be unethical while continuing his career "funding em'". But he handled each demotion with ethical responsibility and ignored the unethical possibilities that would provide him with a much more profitable scenario instead of being demoted.

After being ethically consistent through the many scenarios of the contingency theory, I feel that Mr. Winston is a transformational leader while avoiding the perks of becoming a transactional leader. Winston practiced transformational leadership by calling OSHA in response to his employees sickness, risking his personal career for those around him. I also feel that Winston avoided the positive, yet unethical outcomes that were presented to him through transactional leadership of his peers. I feel that these instances would make him transformational in the fact that he remained ethical despite the most common type of leadership; the process of accomplishing tasks for a reward.

Finally I feel that Mr. Winston would fall into the category of an authentic leader, due the fact that he was genuine when originality wasn't conducive to his career, led from conviction through the worst of times, and clearly based his actions on his values throughout his trials and tribulations. By the time his career was brought to an abrupt end, Winston has given up his power, his identity, and many resources in an effort to give his existence at Countrywide meaning and to accomplish his mission. I believe that today because of his actions previously, he can finally enjoy a sense of fulfillment do to his authentic actions.




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/business/20gret.html?adxnnl=1&ref=ethics&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1302505269-feV+J5fn3uvZ8Ci+6mezlA

Shae Spitznagle

Johnson & Johnson Settles Bribery Complaint for $70 Million in Fines

     For this last blog post of the semester, I’m going to be discussing the case that involves Johnson & Johnson and how they bribed European doctors to purchase knee and hip implants.  As Northouse states, “ethics is concerned with virtuousness of individuals (corporations) and their motives.”  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.  In this particular situation, I feel that there is significant evidence that justifies Johnson & Johnsons actions and would have to definitely agree that this is unethical.

     Johnson & Johnson admitted bribing European doctors and agreed to pay $70 million in civil and criminal fines.  However, Johnson & Johnson had provided significant assistance in their investigation of others in the industry, resulting in a reduced criminal fine for the health conglomerate.  With this said I’m going to incorporate material in the book, Leading Change by Northouse and going to talk about the teleological theory of ethical Egoism and show how this is applied to the case. Also, I’m going to further provide another point that this is also an example of a critical life event that would change this health conglomerate for good.

     Ethical egoism states that a person should act to create the greatest good for themselves rather than worrying about others.  As stated by Northouse, “ Ethical egoism is common in some business contexts in which a company and its employees make a decision to achieve its goal of maximizing profits (Northouse).  In this scenario, Johnson & Johnson truly went against the principle of “manifests honesty” that says that a company should never accept survival of the fittest pressures because it will result in dishonest behaviors (Northouse).  With Johnson & Johnson’s unethical acts, they felt that they had no other way out.  These unethical acts were done in desperation considering that they would have lost 95% of their business by the end of the year.  Under the ethical egoism approach, it states that leaders act this way to create the greatest good for the leader.  In this case, it was Johnson & Johnson that didn’t really care about anyone else and just thought about themselves and did everything in their power to maximize their profits to make up for all the past product recalls.  In the article, Gardiner Harris states, “The company has issued more that 50 product recalls since the start of last year involving such household brands as Tylenol, Motrin, Rolaids and Benadryl’ (Harris).  With all these recalls, Johnson and Johnson had to make up for this decline in profits somehow and chose to be unethical and worry about themselves.

     After all this, I feel that Johnson & Johnson also took a deontological approach as well.  “Telling the truth, keeping promises, being fair, and respecting others are all examples of actions that are inherently good, independent of the consequences” (Norhouse).  Independently of the consequences in this particular case, the company openly states, “we are deeply disappointed by the unacceptable conduct that led to these violations” (Harris).  I feel that they did do the right thing as a company and openly admitted that they were in fact wrong and that this was a learning experience for them.  I feel that this situation can act as a “critical life event” and can serve as a catalyst for change within the organization (Northouse).  The company can talk about their problems and then could correct their problem from here on out.

     In this case I incorporated the teleological theory that focus on consequences of the organizations actions and used the concept of ethical egoism to further state my position.  I also said by telling the truth and openly admitting to their unethical behavior, demonstrated the deontological theory and also will resulted in a triggered event that would deeply impact the organization.  Please read over this article and tell me any other approaches or theories that you can tie in that I did not cover. Do you think this organization learned their lesson?  What insight can you provide to further strengthen my argument?

For the article please click here 

- Steve Fagiano

Azul: The Next JetBlue

For my last blog post, I will take a positive CEO leadership example in contrast to stories of corrupt CEOs and ethical scandals.  This blog will focus on one individual in the business world who is admired by many and certainly looked up to by employees.  I located a interesting article written by Patricia Sellers, “Azul: The next JetBlue.”  The article presents detail information concerning David Neeleman, current CEO of Azul.  It addresses his previous career struggles and how he arrived as Azul’s CEO.  After studying the article, I was truly impressed by Neeleman’s passion and determination of developing into a successful leader and how he learned and gained valuable knowledge from past mistakes.  Neeleman was able to turn past key weakness into strengths reaching the position of CEO at Azul, an upcoming and promising Brazilian airline.

Neeleman’s first difficult lesson learned came when he was only 23 years old.  As a young businessman, “He started a travel agency with his main supplier being a startup airline that hurtled into bankruptcy, and he lost everything” (Sellers, Patricia).  From that painful experience, Neeleman quickly learned his first difficult lesson as CEO, “Always bolster your business with plenty of capital” (Sellers, Patricia).

Neeleman’s second difficult experience encompassed the following lesson, “Always be your own boss” (Sellers, Patricia).  This lesson learned came after selling his second company, Morris Air, to southwest Airlines thinking he would become the candidate to succeed CEO Herb Kelleher.    Kelleher ended up firing Neeleman from Southwest.  Never again would Neeleman make that same mistake and vowed never to work under anyone else.

“At age 39, Neeleman founded JetBlue.  He built the airline into America's eighth largest and ascended into the ranks of the most admired and innovative CEOs” (Sellers, Patricia).  However, Neeleman’s good fortune would not last long.  At the time, his poor communication skills on developing a coherent explanation in reaction to an ice storm incident caused his downfall at JetBlue.  Failure to effectively provide his plan in addressing the ice storm fiasco to his board of directors was the main reason Neeleman was removed as JetBlue’s CEO.  From this experience, Neeleman learned another lesson from his mistakes, “The need to design his next company so that his board can't toss him out” (Sellers, Patricia).

From the accumulation of his past career corporate experiences, and improving with every lesson learned, Neeleman developed into an effective leader that many people thought never possible. Neeleman accepted his greatest challenge of his career.  “Neeleman started Azul Airlines in 2008 and raising $235 million for the venture, a record for a new airline.  Personally, he invested $13 million, some four times the amount he sank into JetBlue” (Sellers, Patricia).  I believe that the personal financial commitment to Azul Airlines is linked to his passion to successfully run an airline -- it runs much deeper than just money for Neeleman.  This is about his CEO leadership ability.  Neeleman is willing to put up millions of his own money, knowing that he could lose all of his investment and perhaps more if the company goes under.

Clearly, this illustrates that Neeleman has developed into a confident leader, and believes his vision for this airline will prosper!  This goes against the prevailing conventional agreement that the airline industry has been declining throughout the last decade.  In addition, a startup airline in this highly competitive industry rarely sees profit in its first few years.  Majority of senior airline executives would be extremely hesitant to gamble and start up a new airline in this struggling economy.  “Neeleman is adamant that airlines can pay off -- if you know where to put your money.  Brazil, Latin America's largest economy, has rebounded quickly from the financial crisis, with an anticipated 5.8% rise in real GDP this year” (Sellers, Patricia).

In my opinion, down deep Neeleman knows what he is doing presents significant risk to his own financial portfolio but he is extremely confident.  Neeleman’s vision for Azul Airlines is built on past experiences at Morris Airline and JetBlue and he is well aware of what works and what does not work.  Neeleman’s lessons learned can be linked to the skills approach on leadership in the class textbook.  As stated in the textbook, “the skills approach suggests that knowledge and abilities are needed for effective leadership” (Northouse p.39).  Associated to the three components in the skill model, Neeleman clearly demonstrates that he has admirable individual attributes and competencies, which is the reason he is a successful leader.  Based on the skills model, the four attributes comprise cognitive ability, crystallized cognitive ability, motivation, and personality.  Neeleman exemplifies all four of these skills attributes.  Neeleman’s creativity and overall reasoning skills have allowed him to develop his cognitive ability.  In addition, Neeleman’s chief strength in this model encompasses his crystallized cognitive ability that is, “intellectual ability learned or acquired over time” (Northouse p.48).  Looking back on Neeleman’s past executive leadership roles, he has acquired knowledge from each of his past job experiences, strengthening his overall leadership ability.  Neeleman’s painful experiences has helped him improve his competencies, such as problem-solving skills, social judgment skills, and his overall knowledge in running a major airline company on a daily basis for the long-term.

Also, Neeleman exhibits behavior in the third attribute of the model, motivation.  Neeleman is personally motivated to build a company from nothing, and build it into one of the juggernauts in the airline industry by motivating his employees to embrace his vision.  Furthermore, Neeleman is certainly motivated to succeed from his past failures and, “He is committed to the social good of the organization” (Northouse p.49).  The last attribute of the model, personality, is another element of Neeleman’s strengths.  He demonstrates traits such as confidence and the flexibility a leader must possess in running a successful and vibrant company.

I firmly believe that some competing CEO’s in the airline industry are betting against the success of Azul Airlines and Neeleman.  However, this is a bad bet since Neeleman has gained valuable leadership experience in the airline industry throughout his career.  Also, one can definitely correlate Neeleman’s leadership traits, experiences, and accomplishments to the skills Model of Leadership.  “Career experiences have an impact on the characteristics and competencies of leaders.  The skills model suggests that the experiences acquired in the course of a leaders’ career influence their knowledge and skills to solve complex problems” (Northouse p.49).  It is clear that past experiences and development of Neeleman’s leadership attributes and competencies has helped him with his performance as CEO of Azul Airlines.

As Neeleman works hard in proving his doubters wrong, it is apparent that he is on the right path leading to success.  “Azul Airlines started flying in December 2008 and registered 2.2 million passengers in its first 12 months, shattering the previous record for a startup airline” (Sellers, Patricia).  Neeleman is quoted, “With revenues of $150 million last year, we will probably more than double that this year, on track to turn the first profit” (Sellers, Patricia).

An exemplary leadership trait that Neeleman portrays is that he treats his employees with respect and dignity.  Neeleman sets a strong example for everyone and fosters an environment that subordinates feel as equal partners in the company, disregarding current job title.  “Neeleman assigns parking places by lottery” (Sellers, Patricia).   When one star manager griped about receiving a faraway spot, Neeleman told him, "Dude, if you act like that, you're never going to be a vice president here” (Sellers, Patricia).  This example depicts that Neeleman is a self-confident leader who demonstrates dominance when needed, and he has the desire to influence others. These are leadership characteristics that have made Neeleman a significant transformational leader.  In return, his workers feel a high level of trust in Neeleman’s leadership abilities and his vision for the company.

In sum, one vital lesson I have learned concerning Neeleman’s career is that one should never give up.  People from all walks of life, including CEOs, will make mistakes throughout a career. It is how the individual moves on and learns to correct past failures that will set one apart from the rest of the pack.  As one builds a foundation of learning experiences, the competent leader does not make the same mistake twice.  Neeleman’s determination and persistence did not allow him to fail as an innovator and leader in the airline industry.  Based on his drive and motivation to succeed, Neeleman overcame obstacles to become a competent CEO of Azul Airlines.

What do you think about Neeleman’s past career successes and failures?  Do you think that his painful experiences and several failures in the airline industry have propelled him in becoming a competent leader?  What do you think about Neeleman’s leadership strengths and weaknesses that were demonstrated in current and past CEO positions?

Adam Kalkirtz

Click HERE to see the full article!

Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit At Bayer

In a recent article posted today, I encountered a very interesting topic addressing issues currently being brought up by Bayer AG's U.S. health care branch. The article brings up a very significant problem regarding gender discrimination in the workplace. It is said that the branch filed a $100 million gender discrimination lawsuit today, claiming that the U.S. unit of Bayer discriminates against its female employees in terms of pay and promotion, as well as pregnancy leave. This lawsuit was filed through the Newark, NJ federal court and seeks "class-action status". Stated simply, the lawsuit is asking for $100 million in pay back, damages, and legal costs. 

“Bayer engages in systemic discrimination against its female employees — particularly those with family responsibilities — by paying them less than their counterparts, denying them promotions into better and higher paying positions, limiting their employment opportunities to lower and less desirable job classifications, and exposing them to different treatment and a hostile work environment,” said Katherine Kimpel, a lawyer for the women suing. “To make matters worse, Bayer is often blatant about its disregard for its female employees.”

According to the same source, the defendants include Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and its U.S. parent Bayer Corp. In addition, the lawsuit claims that the company's HR department has defined gender discrimination as being a "gray area" that should be handled by the employee, not the company. It is also important to note that a Bayer spokeswoman stated that the company had previously received administrative complaints before the EEOC by 6 current or former New Jersey based employees. Apparently, the company was prepared to cooperate with the EEOC and respond to said charges, but the plaintiffs elected to end the proceedings and file the current lawsuit. 

This article brings up yet another ethical situation regarding women and leadership, along with the fact that a number of corporations who do business in the U.S. have faced discrimination suits on behalf of their female employees as well. In fact, last month Sanford Wittels & Heisler, which brought the Bayer suit, sued Toshiba Corp's U.S. business and French advertising company Publicis Group SA on behalf of female employees in the U.S. Several other situations exist as well, including a lawsuit on behalf of as many as 1.5 million female employees at Wal-Mart Stores. 

This clearly relates to our class topic, Chapter 13 on Women and Leadership. It goes along quite well with the premise of the glass ceiling and how women have struggled to gain elite leadership positions due to instances such as this one where Bayer is apparently preventing women from promotions and higher paying positions. A useful tool to help navigate this issue is further understanding of the Leadership Labyrinth. According to our text, women's underrepresentation in high-level leadership positions generally revolve around three types of explanations. The first is differences in women and men's investment in human capital. The next category considers gender differences between women and men. Then, the final explanation focuses on prejudice and discrimination against female leaders. Therefore, if we relate the Labyrinth to the situation at Bayer, you can start by thinking about whether or not the employed women's educational level, work experience, developmental opportunities, and work-home conflict play a role in this discrimination by the company. Next, you can look into various prejudices regarding gender stereotypes, biased perception and evaluations, vulnerability & reactance, along with cross-pressures. Finally, it is important to think about gender differences in the workplace, including traits, negotiation, self-promotion, commitment & motivation, along with style & effectiveness. Many of these various elements that are a part of the Leadership Labyrinth can often give explanation as to how and why some of these women may be discriminated against in their workplace.

It will truly be interesting to see how this lawsuit, along with the many others relating to discrimination of women all pan out. This is clearly an ethical issue that must be dealt with and analyzed more deeply. See the link below to read the full article. 

Click Here

 -Josh Dlabal

Presidential power vs. ethics

Obama’s Pledge to Reform Ethics Faces an Early Test

President Obama has been faced with many tasks that he has vowed to complete that will eventually by the end of his term dramatically affect our government in the US and indefinitely affect the American people and their trust in this administration and those of the future. In the article linked below, there is discussion of President Obama’s intentions as president to fill important political positions with well informed and talented individuals that had previously broken the law or have significant biases toward specific goals in leadership. Is this ethically advisable? No. Is this an ethical dilemma? In my opinion yes.

I would like to start from the beginning of our ethics teachings in class and suggest that legitimate power has given President Obama the authority to permit well qualified individuals that have make unethical decisions in the past to lead this country into the future. I feel that this is the primary unethical platform for future unethical decisions. Logic would dictate that any individual who has been convicted of breaking law in any way, shape, or form should not hold a position that allows him or her to make decisions in a position in which they were previously unlawful. I feel that if it were not for legitimate power, our president would not be able to appoint these individuals to specific positions in our national government.

I feel that opportunism also may play a role in these decisions. The president has the luxury of using impoverished management to his advantage, he can be hands off when leading certain members of his administration and let them admit their inadequacies while in the process of resignation, ultimately letting mistakes in their personal lives outweigh his initial mistake of appointing these individuals in the first place. Opportunism comes into play when he has to use an authority-compliance relationship with the individual to force them to step down for the good of the country and those that are affected by a particular portion of the government.

I also feel that path goal theory does certainly play a role in these unethical developments. President Obama has initially set goals during his campaign and ultimately during his first presidential address. The public has certain expectations of him and his staff that directly affect his ratings as our national leader. Mr. Obama has clarified his path in many addresses across the U.S., but fails to take into consideration the obstacles that he will face due to his initial unethical decisions. The president now has to remove these obstables to provide to support to the rest of the staff and the American people. This sense of removal, often of staff by a forced resignation, allows some sense of productivity as an end result; but we must take into consideration that the goal of achievement in this case has outweighed ethical behavior on President Obama’s behalf.

LMX theory may also play a role in these leadership decisions. President Obama’s in group has certainly reaped the benefits of his unethical decisions much more than the out group. As this theory entails, the individuals in the in group are more likely to receive special treatment and more authority (in this case the opportunity to obtain a position of authority). Though many do criticize the theory for suggesting that individuals are separated in the work place by an in group and out group, I feel that this example is very applicable. Many of these individuals, due to past convictions, should have no ethical reason to participate and make decisions on behalf of our country and its citizens, but they were given this opportunity because they were in an in-group of sorts.

Finally, I feel that authentic leadership is certainly worth discussing based on the findings in this article. From an intrapersonal perspective, authentic leaders base their actions on their values. I feel that if President Obama’s actions represent his values in these circumstances mentioned in the article; he has acted in an unethical manner. Though I do feel that he is a genuine leader who does have faults, he is original and does lead from conviction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/politics/03lobby.html?_r=1&ref=ethics

-Shae Spitznagle