>Users:   login   |  register       > email     > people    


Ethical Leadership - Part 2
By Mike Raneses, Parole Agent, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
Published: 02/08/2010

Yes no Part 2: Making it Practical

In our last article (Part 1- A New Paradigm), we discussed that ethical leadership is needed at all levels of an organization, and that the responsibility for leadership is placed not only on those in designated leadership positions, but that all staff are leaders and share the responsibility for ethical leadership and the ethical climate of their organization. This week, we will present a few ethical decision making models that we trust will prove useful both at the organizational and personal levels.

CDCR Model

The first model we will present was developed several years ago by a team of managers from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as a project for the Leadership Institute of CDCR. This model presents factors these managers felt important to consider in making work-related decisions in their agency:
  • Is it the truth?
  • Is it in conflict with our Values Statement?
  • Does it benefit public trust?
  • If it were subject to public scrutiny, would it harm CDCR?
  • Is it an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars?
  • Is it equitable to all?
  • Does it conflict with rules and regulations?
  • Would you be willing to testify to your actions in a public hearing?

Our lives are filled with decision-making opportunities that involve ethical choices. Most of these decisions do not involve much thought; we simply make our decisions based on our innate sense of right and wrong, good and bad. But some decisions that involve ethical choices are not as easy to make, especially those that involve decisions in what may be referred to as the “Gray Area,” an area of uncertainty, and are not so simply made.

Especially challenging are those ethical decisions that involve choices between positive values, for example, honesty and loyalty. Most would agree that the values of honesty and loyalty are positive attributes to be sought after and upheld. But sometimes these values are in conflict, causing the decision maker an ethical dilemma. Here are two other decision-making models that you may find useful, especially in personal decision making:

Two-Fold Test of Ethics

Personal Test
The first aspect of this model is the Personal Test. How does the decision you are about to make “feel” to you? As you ponder the decision, how does your proposed course of action sit in your mind and heart? Or, perhaps more graphically, how does it make you feel in your “gut?”

Public Test
The second aspect of this model is the Public Test. How would you feel if the decision you are about to make, or the behavior you are about to engage in, was “sunshined” or subject to public scrutiny for all to see? How would you feel if your decision were published in your local newspaper, or if your family knew of the decision?

Some would argue that the Two-Fold Test of Ethics is simplistic. Perhaps, but it can prove useful if utilized to sort out ethical dilemmas

Blanchard-Peale Model

According to Kenneth Blanchard and Norman Vincent Peale, authors of “The Power of Ethical Management”, there are three questions you should ask yourself whenever you are faced with an ethical dilemma.

Is it legal?
In other words, will you be violating any criminal laws, civil laws or organizational policies by engaging in this activity?

Is it balanced?
Is it fair to all parties concerned both in the short-term as well as the long-term? Is this a win-win situation for those directly as well as indirectly involved?

Is it right?
Most of us know the difference between right and wrong, but when push comes to shove, how does this decision make you feel about yourself? Are you proud of yourself for making this decision? Would you like others to know you made the decision you did?

Most of the time, when dealing with "gray decisions," just one of these questions is not enough. But by taking the time to reflect on all three, you will often times find that the answer becomes very clear.

While these models can be helpful in simplifying the complexity of ethical decision-making, ethicist Michael Josephson, simplifies ethical decision making even further. According to Josephson, the first component of ethical decision-making is discerning the right thing to do, but the second component, the commitment to do the right thing, is admittedly more challenging. But, as Josephson says concerning making good ethical decisions, “If it were easy, everyone would be doing it.”

In the end it’s up to us.

References:

“The Power of Ethical Management,” Ken Blanchard and Norman Vincent Peale, HarperCollins Publishers, 1988, New York, NY

“Making Ethical Decisions,” Michael Josephson, 1992, The Josephson Institute, Los Angeles, CA

Mike Raneses is a 40-year criminal justice veteran with service as a Deputy Sheriff, Probation Officer, and most currently as a Parole Agent with the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation. He resides in Tustin, CA with his wife Ruth where they lead Corrections Staff Fellowship, an organization designed to help staff maintain their faith and values while walking “The Toughest Beat in the Nation.”

Other articles by Mike Raneses


Comments:

  1. hamiltonlindley on 04/21/2020:

    If you just got hit in a car accident, it can be hard to know who to talk to, if anybody. If you have been in a hit by a drunk driver in waco , then calling Dunnam & Dunnam is the right choice. It is one of the best decisions that you can make for your car wreck case. Choosing a great lawyer is important to the outcome of your matter.

  2. hamiltonlindley on 04/15/2020:

    Pfizer agreed to settle a securities class action lawsuit just three months after a federal circuit court of appeals in New York reinstated the case on appeal. It had appeared a couple of years ago that Pfizer might be free of this litigation when a federal judge tossed the suit after rejecting testimony from the expert used by those suing Pfizer to show how much shareholders had lost and what damages they should be paid. One of the lawyers originally representing Mary K. Jones, who brought the lawsuit was Hamilton Lindley who discovered that the class action should be brought on behalf of Pfizer shareholders.

  3. vosyxudo on 04/12/2020:

    This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information... Zahnarztpraxis Zürich

  4. vosyxudo on 04/11/2020:

    I am hoping the same best effort from you in the future as well. In fact your creative writing skills has inspired me. xosovui.net/xsmb

  5. vosyxudo on 04/06/2020:

    Very interesting blog. Alot of blogs I see these days don't really provide anything that I'm interested in, but I'm most definately interested in this one. Just thought that I would post and let you know. Rèm văn phòng

  6. hamiltonlindley on 02/05/2020:

    Have you been researching someone online? You can read the twitter feed from business leader Hamilton Lindley, who has great exciting and relevant tweets to read. Check out his Twitter profile to see what questions Hamilton Lindley is answering!


Login to let us know what you think

User Name:   

Password:       


Forgot password?





correctsource logo




Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of The Corrections Connection User Agreement
The Corrections Connection ©. Copyright 1996 - 2020 © . All Rights Reserved | 15 Mill Wharf Plaza Scituate Mass. 02066 (617) 471 4445 Fax: (617) 608 9015