Leadership Foundations in Research

When it comes to personal values and a sense of ethics or morality, I've always prescribed to the slippery slope theory. This idea -- that one small indiscretion makes way for a slightly larger indiscretion, and so on -- doesn't always apply to every case (some fanatics bring it to an extreme when they argue against things like civil rights, for instance). But I've seen it in play in my own life, in a variety of ways. The same way that modern audiences, after decades of seeing escalated versions of violence in horror films, can become desensitized to movie gore, the same phenomenon, I believe, can happen in other spheres. At the risk of appearing to take a political stance, let's talk about President Donald Trump. I've seen both a slippery slope effect, as well as themes from Kramer's article (2003) in his campaign for president, and in how the public seems to receive him. In the 1970s and 1980s, Trump's fame increased for a few different reasons but, m...

Standing in opposition, the theories of deontology and consequentialism approach the setting of ethical standards in very different ways. While a deontologist makes decisions based on universal rules or rights of morality, a consequentialist makes them based on an assessment of consequences, their weight, and a judgement on how those considerations should be leveraged (LaFollete, p. 22). Personally, I see strengths and weaknesses in both theories. While I have a clear aversion to the subjectivity inherent in consequentialism, for instance, I'm also extremely wary of absolutes, which makes deontology troubling. But, I understand that circumstances are important, as well, which makes consequentialism attractive -- even though I also believe that some actions should never be justified based on their results, since that enters into a more heady, philosophical space that, to me, doesn't always reflect real-world truths. So, in short, I'm conflicted. Digger deeper in...

My results to the assessment at the start of Chapter 10 were interesting, in that I answered exactly zero questions within the S1 or S2 strategies. Instead, my scoring was split this way: 10 S3 answers, and six S4. This says a lot about my leadership style — namely, maybe, that I lean heavily toward the "pull" approach, but that I also might underestimate my potential impact on a group of followers (Obolensky, p. 173).  "Taken together S3 and S4 are typical strategies when the leader does not know the solution (or chooses to hold back) and follows/supports. This leadership approach can also be applied to upward leadership and in today's complex world, where solutions are more at the bottom than the top, upward leadership is becoming increasingly more important" (Obolensky, 172). This passage encapsulates a lot of my theories going into the quiz. As a worker, I tend to believe (because I've seen it firsthand) that employees are capable of a whole lot. A...

When faced with decisions that offer no attractive options, a critical thinker’s mind is likely to go into overdrive, desperate to work out the best course of action or find an alternative option. It is likely common in these kinds of scenarios for the thinker to rationalize after the fact, convince him/herself that the right decision was made, if for no other reason than to avoid a lifetime of guilt or doubt. Some decisions, however, have to be made quickly and, in those cases, it’s helpful to have a “guiding light”: a set of principles that govern the way in which a person makes choices. To get a better understanding of these types of no-win decisions, we can analyze three different scenarios in a classical ethical dilemma involving a train. Scenario 1: Five or One In this scenario, the choice is simple: You can risk hitting five children with a train, or you can change course and risk hitting only one child. In this case, for me, the “right” course of action seems rela...

I’ve certainly had situations in my life where I’ve had to lead, even though I wasn’t officially the “leader,” but I wanted to focus in this post on an example that is as far from the boundaries of traditional professional leadership as it gets: an example from my marriage. My relationship with my wife is full a partnership, but like any marriage, our roles continually shift depending on what’s going on in our lives. If we’re thinking through a vacation plan, for instance, she almost always takes the lead. She’s passionate about travel and loves making plans, researching hidden gems, perusing hotels. Me? I mostly just like the travel part. Getting away. We have the same goals when we travel, but in the months leading up to the vacation itself, our skills and interests vary, and so we take advantage of that. By vacation time, we’re both psyched and ready to go. In other areas, though, roles reverse. At the start of the year, for example, I wanted us to set a goal to pay off a...