The Rise and Fall of Carly Fiorina

Read the following article: Article 5: Johnson, C. The rise and fall of Carly Fiorina. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 15(2), 188-196.

Respond to the following questions within your initial response:

When Carly Fiorina took over as CEO of Hewlett Packard and pushed financial performance over the “HP Way”, what type of leadership was she using? Explain your answer.

Explain the ethical leadership construct described in the article as a two-part process.

What behaviors, actions and decision-making process did Ms. Fiorina use that did not follow the ethical leadership construct?

Be sure to include supporting evidence from your textbook or other scholarly resources within your response.

View your discussion rubric.

Part Two

Leadership Theories and Strategies – Week 7 Assignment

Leadership Ethics

There are three components to this week’s assignment:

Assignment 7.1 – How Safe is Safe?
Assignment 7.2 – I Want to Be an Activist!
Reflection 7.1 – Perceived Leader Integrity Scale

(NOTE: All your written work should comply with the APA style guide; see the Supplemental Materials folder for APA resources and a template)

Assignment 7.1 – How Safe is Safe?(1 page) case study is highlighted in green

Review the case study “How Safe is Safe” found in Chapter 13 (case study 13.2) of the textbook, under “Media and Library” link. In a 1-2 page paper, answer the following questions based on the case study. Be sure to include supporting evidence from your textbook and/or other scholarly research within your response.

As a company, would you describe PPI as having an identifiable philosophy of moral values? How do its policies contribute to this philosophy?

Which ethical perspective best describes PPI’s approach to safety issues? Would you say PPI takes a utilitarian-, duty-, or virtue-based approach?

Regarding safety issues, how does management see its responsibilities toward its employees? How do the attorneys see their responsibilities toward PPI?

Why does it appear that the ethics of PPI and its attorneys are in conflict?

How Safe Is Safe?

Perfect Plastics Incorporated (PPI) is a small injection molding plastics company that employs 50 people. The company is 10 years old, has a healthy balance sheet, and does about $4 million a year in sales. The company has a good safety record, and the insurance company that has PPI’s liability policy has not had to pay any claims to employees for several years. There have been no major injuries of any kind since the company began.

p.357

Tom Griffin, the owner, takes great pride in the interior design and working conditions at PPI. He describes the interior of the plant as being like a hospital compared with his competitors. Order, efficiency, and cleanliness are top priorities at PPI. It is a remarkably well-organized manufacturing company.

PPI has a unique approach to guaranteeing safe working conditions. Each year, management brings in outside consultants from the insurance industry and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to audit the plant for unsafe conditions. Each year, the inspections reveal a variety of concerns, which are then addressed through new equipment, repairs, and changed work-flow designs. Although the inspectors continue to find opportunities for improvement, the overall safety improves each year.

The attorneys for PPI are very opposed to the company’s approach to safety. The lawyers are vehemently against the procedure of having outside auditors. If a lawsuit were to be brought against PPI, the attorneys argue that any previous issues could be used as evidence of a historical pattern and knowledge of unsafe conditions. In effect, the audits that PPI conducts voluntarily could be used by plaintiffs to strengthen a case against the company.

The president and management recognize the potential downside of outside audits, but they point out that the periodic reviews are critical to the ongoing improvement of the safety of everyone in the plant. The purpose of the audits is to make the shop a secure place, and that is what has occurred. Management also points out that PPI employees have responded positively to the audits and to the changes that result.

Assignment 7.2 – I Want to Be an Activist!(2 pages)

Research and select an activist whom you respect; someone working for a cause they believe in. Conduct research on your selected activist and write a 2-3 page response to the following questions:

How did this person become an activist?

How does he or she sustain passion for the cause?

How does he or she influence others?

Set and accomplish goals?

What sets this person apart from others?

Which of the five ethical principles apply to this person?

Can anyone become an activist? Why or why not?

Be sure to include supporting evidence from your textbook and/or other scholarly research within your response.

Reflection 7.1 – Perceived Leader Integrity Scale(1 page)

The following items concern your perceptions of another person’s behavior. Circle responses to indicate how well each item describes the person you are rating.

Perceived Leader Integrity Scale

Scoring

The PLIS measures your perceptions of another person’s integrity in an organizational setting. Your responses on the PLIS indicate the degree to which you see that person’s behavior as ethical. Score the questionnaire by doing the following. First, reverse the scores on items 9 and 30 (i.e., 1 becomes 4, 2 becomes 3, 3 becomes 2, and 4 becomes 1). Next, sum the responses on all 30 items. A low score on the questionnaire indicates that you perceive the person you evaluated to be highly ethical. A high score indicates that you perceive that person to be very unethical. The interpretation of what the score represents follows.

Scoring Interpretation

Your score is a measure of your perceptions of another person’s ethical integrity. Based on previous findings (Craig & Gustafson, 1998), the following interpretations can be made about your total score: • 30–32 High ethical: If your score is in this range, it means that you see the person you evaluated as highly ethical. Your impression is that the person is very trustworthy and principled. • 33–45 Moderate ethical: Scores in this range mean that you see the person as moderately ethical. Your impression is that the person might engage in some unethical behaviors under certain conditions. • 46–120 Low ethical: Scores in this range describe people who are seen as very unethical. Your impression is that the person you evaluated does things that are dishonest, unfair, and unprincipled almost any time he or she has the opportunity.

In a 1 page reflection paper, share your results and reflect upon your findings.

View your assignment rubric.