SLC 300 (601) Fall 2025 Leading with an Ethical Perspective

After reading the chapter “Decision Making” from Principles of Management, I started to think about how many different choices I make throughout the day. It surprised me to realize that most of my everyday decisions are considered programmed decisions—ones that are routine, repetitive, and follow a familiar pattern. For example, I decide what to wear based on the weather, which route to take when walking to class, and what to eat for dinner without giving it much thought. These decisions happen almost automatically because they’re part of my daily habits. I never really viewed these as “decisions” in a management sense before, but this chapter helped me see how much thought goes into even the simplest actions.

In contrast, a recent nonprogrammed decision I made was helping plan my family’s Christmas trip to Colorado this December. This type of decision required more creativity and research since it involved several new and unfamiliar choices. We’ve been comparing ski resorts, restaurants, and activities to find what best fits our budget and interests. With so many different options, we’ve had to carefully weigh the pros and cons before deciding, which made me realize how much more complex nonprogrammed decisions can be.

Overall, learning about these two types of decisions made me more aware of how I approach choices in general. Understanding when to rely on routine versus when to think creatively can make decision-making more intentional and effective, both in everyday life and in future professional settings.

Works Cited
Principles of Management. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing, 2010.

While reading “Playing Favorites? Hospital Boards, Donors Get COVID Shots,” I learned that several hospitals faced backlash for giving vaccines to their employees and board members before the general public. In Seattle, one hospital gave a major donor early access to the vaccine and later issued an apology. This looked especially bad because the donor had given the hospital a large sum of money. Similar incidents happened elsewhere, where people with influence or wealth received special treatment. While researching for Mini-Analysis 4, I came across examples of how a lack of integrity can harm public trust. The unethical behavior described in this article reminded me of those findings. I studied financial institutions known for their questionable practices, and I noticed the same patterns—organizations prioritizing their own interests over doing what’s right, much like the Seattle hospital did.

During the pandemic, I remember how chaotic things felt. Certain groups clearly needed vaccines first because of their health risks. My mom, a teacher, had to wait until her designated group to get the vaccine so that those at higher risk could go before her, which seemed fair. Unfortunately, unethical behavior like this still shows up all the time. Watching the news, I often see examples of how wealth or power gives people unfair advantages over others. It’s frustrating but also a reminder of how important integrity is in leadership and decision-making.

Works Cited
Guth, W. D., & Tagiuri, R. (1965). Personal values and corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 43(5), 123–132. https://hbr.org/1965/09/personal-values-and-corporate-strategy

While reading “LuLaRoe was more than a scam, a Washington State lawsuit claims,” I learned that LuLaRoe operated as a pyramid scheme. The company persuaded customers to purchase large quantities of clothing in bulk, which they were expected to resell individually. They promised refunds for unsold items but often failed to deliver, leaving many people in serious financial trouble. There were also several other questionable actions by the company. This article stood out to me because I actually knew people who sold LuLaRoe. My mom had several friends involved in it, and she used to buy clothes from them. I remember owning a ton of their pieces. My mom’s friends would order large shipments and turn rooms in their houses into makeshift boutiques. I think that sense of owning a “business” is what drew people in. Before reading this, I had no idea LuLaRoe had such unethical business practices.

It reminded me of the article we read about the scooter company. That situation was also a pyramid-style setup that caused similar financial problems for people involved. In both cases, no one believed it was a scam at first. The LuLaRoe case seemed smaller in scale, but the damage still felt significant. Reading this made me realize how many companies operate like pyramid schemes without people noticing. There are countless ways individuals can be deceived into losing money, and it’s hard to tell what’s legitimate anymore.

Works Cited
Jones, Charisse. “LuLaRoe Was Little More than a Scam, a Washington State Lawsuit Claims.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 29 Jan. 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/28/lularoe-pyramid-scheme-duped-consumers-washington-suit-says/2700412002/.

While reading “Principles of Management” , I learned all about decisions. The text describes decisions as a key part of management. It mentions how one decision in an organization can start a chain reaction. It’s key to understand that decisions need to be made ethically as they affect so many people. 

This text reminds me of myself when I often make decisions quickly without thinking carefully. I have made many mistakes from not thinking about the effects of decisions on others. I realized that the main issue was I didn’t look at all the options present. Realizing that I make decisions based on emotions is critical to changing my ways in the future. 

I have worked with many decision making models for organizations in my other classes. For example, the most common one I remember is the ProACT model. I feel like models like this help my decision making process within an organization. It helps me gather all information and properly define my problem from the start. I am able to look at all options rather than picking one immediately. 

In the world, we see so many different businesses get into large scandals because they didn’t make decisions properly. This costs them their reputation and, ultimately, sometimes their whole business. This shows just how costly making improper decisions is to an organization. Leaders who make these poor decisions could use models in the future to change the way they look at problems. Publisher. (2015).

Principles of management. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing edition, 2015. This edition adapted from a work originally produced in 2010 by a publisher who has requested that it not receive attribution. https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.1801

The idea that the more intense a moral issue is, the higher chance it is likely that decision makers will use and respond with moral connects to many experiences I have had in both my academics and also professional life. For example, during group projects, I noticed that when teammates are fair or honest, it becomes easier to address it with them directly since it is starting to become a major problem within our group and isn’t morally right. By recognizing the importance of ethical issues, it motivates me to act consistently with my values rather than choosing the easier choice of ignoring nonmoral behavior.

This article also reminded me of readings in organizational behavior that we have read in class that have either shown value-based leadership or haven’t. Similar to Jones’ idea, these text emphasize that individuals are more likely to make ethical decisions when they perceive moral stakes are higher. The articles in class show us that having a leader who shows value-based leadership, will lean on these more in troubling times. Jones’ model is practical in illustrating how the intensity of an issue shapes behavior, which provides a more general perspective than general virtue ethics or rule-based approaches.

On a broader level, this concept is evident in the many real-world corporate scandals. When companies face highly visible ethical dilemmas like the data privacy issue at Facebook, decision makers are forced to confront the moral intensity of that situation. Those who fail to recognize and respond appropriately can cause a lot of harm, damaging the trust and accountability people have given that corporation. Jones’ framework highlights moral awareness can guide everyday decisions and prevent major ethical dilemmas within an organization.

Jones, Thomas M. Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, no. 2, 1991, pp. 366–395.

The UCSD article emphasizes ” Evaluate the options by asking whether they are legal, fair, and aligned with your values and organizational policies.” This approaches resonated with me because in mirrors the challenges I’ve faced in both internships and academic projects. When networking, there’s often a pressure to embellish experiences or emphasize minor achievements to stand out. However, I’ve realized that sustaining authenticity and staying true to myself preserves long-term credibility and aligns with my personal values even if it won’t help me in that certain situations. Similarly, in group projects, I’ve encountered situations where a teammate underperformed, and it would have been easier to not address it to them. Using fairness as a guiding principle reminded me to address it directly to that member while still being respectful to them as well.

This framework also connects to other leadership and ethical theories we have read about. Value-based leadership and the concept of ethicals from organizational behavior focus that decision should be guided more by principles that rules. USDC provides concrete steps that can be applied to real-life situations, making the approach practical when using it.

On a broader scale, this ethical approach parallels corporate practices governance. For example, tech companies evaluate ethics and use similar questions in order to be sure their innovation balances with responsibility (AI). If more organizations were asked whether their actions were legal and fair, more companies could have avoided scandals. The UCSD model demonstrates that ethical decision-making is both a personal practice and a critical part of maintaining organizational and public trust.

University of California San Diego. “A 7-Step Path for Ethical Decision-Making.” UCSD Blink, Ethics Awareness. “Evaluate the options by asking whether they are legal, fair, and aligned with your values and organizational policies.”

While reading “Ethical Decision making by Individuals in Organizations” by Thomas Jones, I learned that Jones believes the ethical issue itself is missing from most models for ethical decision making in organizations. Essentially, this means that the moral intense the ethical issue is, the more a person acts ethically. He introduces the idea of moral intensity which states that all situations sit on different levels. They vary from each situation and have about six different factors. Jones believes that moral intensity affects all different stages of ethical decision-making models.  

This article reminds me of my own experiences because I tend to weigh my decisions based on how intense I feel the situation is. Smaller ethical situations can take longer for me to notice than big and immediate ones. The intensity of the big ones makes it feel more urgent to react to. It also makes me feel like the impact will be bigger so I should weigh my decision more carefully. 

I believe a good example of this is climate change. I feel like this issue has been ignored for a long time and still is. This is because the effects of decisions related to this issue seem to be so far away. Thinking this way results in a worse outcome overall. 

Recently, I read an article for another class about the effect of smaller decisions. It mentioned how they are overlooked especially and businesses and can result in major loss. This article showed me the importance of thinking of the smaller choices which relate to moral intensity as well.   

Jones, Thomas M. Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, no. 2, 1991, pp. 366–395. “The more intense the moral issue, the more likely it is that decision makers will perceive its presence and respond with moral behavior” (p. 372).

In reading Chapter 11 of “Principles of Management”, I found the section on decision-making in groups to be very interesting. It explores how group decision-making can enhance creativity and lead to better outcomes when done effectively. What stood out to me the most was the section on groupthink, which describes how the desire for harmony or consensus can actually suppress critical thinking and lead to poor decisions. It is shocking how easily people can conform to avoid conflict, even when they know something is wrong.

This concept feels relevant to today’s political and social climate. In many cases, we can see groupthink playing out in real time, whether within political parties, activist movements, or social media platforms. Instead of encouraging open debate or questioning, people often rally behind dominant voices or popular narratives in fear of backlash or exclusion if they don’t agree. As a result, complex issues are only discussed superficially and people maintain their one-sided perspectives.

What I find most interesting about this topic is how subtle and human it is. Groupthink does not come from ill intent but often comes from our social need to belong and to maintain unity. Yet, it shows how easily our good intentions can undermine sound judgment. This makes me think about the importance of open dialogue in groups and creating safe spaces where people can disagree respectfully without fear of judgment.

Fortunately, I have been able to experience these safe spaces that have helped me to openly question issues and form my own educated opinions. It makes me wonder what it would take for the majority of society to adopt this way of thinking. And has social media changed this form of thought, or did it just amplify it?

University of Minnesota. (2015). Decision Making in Groups. In Principles of Management (pp.490-497). University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.

The Character-Based Decision-Making Model, developed by the Josephson Institute of Ethics and outlined by UC San Diego, offers a clear and compassionate process for making ethical choices. The first step reminds us that “all decisions must take into account and reflect a concern for the interests and well-being of all affected individuals (stakeholders)” (UC San Diego, 2025). This principle, grounded in the Golden Rule to “help when you can, avoid harm when you can” (UC San Diego, 2025), encourages empathy and awareness of impact. I see this reflected in my current internship with a nonprofit organization. Recently, the executive team faced a decision about reallocating funds for the coming year. They ultimately chose to maintain support for direct community programs, even though it meant delaying internal technology upgrades. Their choice demonstrated a deep concern for the people our organization serves and embodied the model’s call to consider the welfare of all stakeholders.

The second step explains that “ethical values and principles always take precedence over nonethical ones” (UC San Diego, 2025). This resonates with me because I often see how tempting it can be to focus on efficiency or recognition rather than fairness and honesty. The model warns that “perceiving the difference between ethical and nonethical values can be difficult” (UC San Diego, 2025), and that rationalization may signal this conflict. I have witnessed our leadership pause during meetings to reflect on whether decisions truly align with the organization’s mission, showing the importance of that self-awareness.

Finally, the model notes that it is “ethically proper to violate an ethical principle only when it is clearly necessary to advance another true ethical principle… to produce the greatest balance of good in the long run” (UC San Diego, 2025). This step has helped me understand that ethical decision-making is rarely simple but always guided by compassion, fairness, and character.

UC San Diego. (2025, October 3). Ethics Awareness. Blink. https://blink.ucsd.edu/finance/accountability/ethics-awareness.html#the-decision-making-model

In Principles of Management, the discussion on group decision-making provides valuable insight into how teams can make better, more thoughtful decisions. The book highlights two common challenges: social loafing, defined as “the tendency of some members to put forth less effort while working within a group” (2015, p. 490), and groupthink, described as “the tendency to avoid critical evaluation of ideas the group favors” (2015, p. 490) Both of these behaviors can seriously undermine a team’s success by limiting creativity, engagement, and honest discussion.

I have experienced these issues firsthand in group settings. For example, when my team had to decide on a topic for a research project, we immediately agreed on the first idea suggested. At the time, this seemed like efficient teamwork, but in reality, it reflected groupthink. We avoided exploring other ideas or questioning the initial suggestion. As a result, our final topic didn’t fully reflect everyone’s interests or strengths, and some members became less motivated to contribute — a subtle form of social loafing.

The book emphasizes that effective teams should work to “encourage a culture of difference where different ideas are valued” (2015, p. 493). I found this point particularly meaningful. Encouraging a culture of difference means creating an environment where team members feel comfortable expressing unique perspectives and where disagreement is seen as a path to better solutions, not conflict. In future group projects, I plan to apply these principles by actively inviting diverse opinions, questioning early assumptions, and making sure everyone’s voice is heard. Reflecting on these ideas helped me understand that successful group decision-making depends on balancing harmony with healthy debate.

Publisher. (2015). Principles of management. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing edition, 2015. This edition adapted from a work originally produced in 2010 by a publisher who has requested that it not receive attribution. https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.1801