Morals, Values, and Leadership

In my field of work, I have had quite a few times where I needed to make a moral decision that would have affected my ability to stay at the job or cost my employer money. Over the ages, I haven’t always made the best decisions because fear was the driving factor behind the decision itself. No one truly knows what decision they will make until they have been thrust into that position before or have given it some thought. I decided to address the moral dilemma of the administrative assistance because this issue has come up plenty of times in all of the employers I have been employed with.

Typically, companies have policies in place to keep situations like that from happening or at least provide protection to the employee. Knowing this has a role in what decision the person makes. With that in mind, I would choose to refuse to provide favors and risk losing my job. There are several issues at hand. The first is sexual harassment. The second is that it goes against my moral and religious beliefs. To partake in something like that goes against every thing that I hold dear. Although I know I have a recourse that involves human resources, I still have the option of filing a lawsuit and documenting the harassment to be reported as well. This code of conduct that has been put forth by society dictates in and of itself that it is wrong, and this is the essence of morality (Friedman & Schustack, 2012; Harsanyi, 1977).

I see myself at stage 6, because I have the view that personal morality is above all else and that no one can compel me to go against it to act otherwise (Friedman & Schustack, 2012). Even when it comes to my religious views, there are times I disagree with other adherents due to my own personal morality. For instance, when it comes to issues such as gay marriage in the United States. This country is built under the premise of equality and justice for all, yet people attempt to put restrictions on them due to their own personal beliefs. I do not necessarily agree with it, but I agree with the right for equality for all individuals and that they all should be treated the same. To treat one group with a high regard and another with a low regard because of their lifestyle doesn’t seem right. Kohlberg has mentioned that very few people reach this stage. I can understand why because it involves going against the grain of the majority of society (Kohlberg & Hersh, 2009). What people in stage 6 see as being right and ethically and morally correct may not be what the acceptable norm is (Friedman & Schustack, 2012).

My personal values tend to be high in theoretical, social, and religious while low in economic, aesthetic, and political. This is pretty consistent with my beliefs that the search for the truth is something that’s important to me. This goes for all things, not just psychological research. It is one of the things that spurred my religious search many years ago. With theoretical being on top, it goes hand in hand with my want to be a scientist since I value intellectual and rational analysis. I also have a lot of philanthropic aspects, which is supported by my need to do charitable work. I volunteer, I help people out, I donate to causes that help people in need. Those who are high in social find that economic and political values as its opposite (Friedman & Schustack, 2012).

I do not personally feel that the religious value would have much bearing on being a leader as much as theoretical and social. Social speaks well for being a caring person and puts value on other people more so than themselves; whereas theoretical has a focus on order and systemization. I believe the combination of these two are suited for leadership more than political, whose focus is power or economic where the value is based on self-preservation. A truly effective leader cares for those around him (Singhapakdi, Karande, Rao, & Vitell, 2013). There is an old Arab proverb that states, “All of you are shepherds and each one is responsible for his flock. A leader of a people is a shepherd and responsible for them. A man is a shepherd over his family and is responsible for them. A woman is a shepherd over her husband's house and his children and she is responsible for them. And a servant is a guardian over his master's property and is responsible for it. So all of you are guardians and are responsible for your charges.” This is the essence of leadership to me and I believe political, economic, or aesthetic values addresses the need to be this type of leader.

References

• Friedman, H. S., & Schustack, M. W. (2012). Personality: Classic theories and modern research (5 ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
• Harsanyi, J. C. (1977). Morality and the theory of rational behavior. Social Research, 44(4). doi:10.2307/40971169 ↩
• Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (2009). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory Into Practice, 16(2), 53–59. doi:10.1080/00405847709542675 ↩
• Singhapakdi, A., Karande, K., Rao, C. P., & Vitell, S. J. (2013). How important are ethics and social responsibility? ‐ A multinational study of marketing professionals. European Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2), 133–153. doi:10.1108/03090560110363382 ↩