Search results

Case in Point (CIP) is an interactive leadership development method pioneered by Ronald Heifetz. CIP instructors follow a fluid class structure, in which group dynamics and student concerns become catalysts for learning. CIP proponents defend the method’s potential to help students experience real life leadership challenges. To date, however, very limited research exists on the effectiveness and risks of the CIP. This case study research explored the risks and rewards of CIP as experienced by a professor and her students in two courses. The first case was a graduate course at a liberal arts college. The second case was an undergraduate course at a large public institution. Results revealed considerable variability in student experiences. Students in the graduate course were divided. While some strongly supported the instructor and the CIP method, others felt alienated and lost. Students in the undergraduate course clearly enjoyed the experience, dealing well with uncertainties and frustrations and forging strong bonds among each other and with the professor. CIP instructors, therefore, may need to manage an uneven environment. Risks include student frustration, increased conflict, and instructor exhaustion. Rewards include helping students experience leadership challenges and creating a close to real life environment. Instructors are urged to consider the ethical implications of CIP and to seek university and peer support.

Leaders have a profound impact on the work lives of the employees they supervise. This chapter explores the experiences of employees whose leaders exhibit toxic behaviors and the impact of this toxicity on employee engagement. The authors report the findings of a qualitative study involving in-depth interviews with 13 participants. First, the authors describe the participants’ experiences before and after experiencing toxicity. Next, the authors outline three critical toxic leadership styles: the nightmare (leaders who have unbalanced emotional control and who are overly fond of power), the pretender (leaders whose authenticity and integrity seem low, who play different characters depending on the circumstances), and the runaround (leaders who change directions too often or give unclear instructions). Finally, the authors address organizational, leadership, and individual strategies to identify and remove toxic leaders from the workplace.

The purpose of the paper is to help leaders gain awareness of areas that can lead to problems in ethical decision making. Instead of simple “black and white” decisions, leaders face a myriad “grey” situations that cannot be addressed via blind application of company policy. The areas of focus are time, proximity, competitiveness, and personality.

The reader will learn about the “Urgency&Proximity Model” (U&PM); which describes how the urgency of an ethical decision and the proximity between the moral agent and the people involved in the situation impact the moral agent's decision‐making process. The authors incorporate the “Five Factor Model” of personality into the U&PM, raising possible connections between personality and moral reasoning.

The findings indicate that company policies lend themselves only to the simplest decisions, not ethical dilemmas. Thus keeping in mind the U&PM model, organizational competition, and one's own personality (from the WorkPlace Big Five Profile™) can form an ethical basis for moral decisions.

Additional research is needed to connect the aspects of personality to the U&PM.

Leaders are advised to increase self‐awareness, consider their personality traits, and position the moral dilemma being addressed in the U&PM.

This paper is only an introductory examination of ethical decision making based on urgency, proximity, competition, and personality. The concept should be further investigated because of the impact these factors can have on leadership decision making.