Running head: LITERATURE REVIEW 1

Literature Review

Corey Langerveld

Azusa Pacific University

LITERATURE REVIEW 2

Literature Review

A principled decision maker is a leader who is able to apply ethical standards, principles

and beliefs, to the systematic and intuitive analysis that informs the decisions that are made

(Barron, 2018). Yet, for a leader to have the ability to apply ethical standards and principles to

the decisions that are made, a certain level of awareness is required. Awareness is necessary

throughout the decision-making process, and it looks different at each stage. In the initial stages

of decision making, a leader must know her own ethical principles, and perhaps, how those

principles have grown and been developed within. Following the initial awareness of one’s

ethics, a leader needs to be aware of the process, strategy, or system, in which she goes about the

analysis and formulation of her decision making. This literature review will first look at the

importance of a leader’s awareness of his or her own ethical principles, through the lens of

current literature. Then, the ethical frameworks presented by current literature will be looked at.

Awareness of Ethics

The current literature pertaining to ethical leadership and ethical decision-making is

rather extensive. While the theories, studies and perspectives differ, a significant number of

works all agree to the reality that those in positions of leadership, who are making decisions,

must be clear of their own ethical orientation. Mitchell (2012) discusses that the principles and

ethics of a person are developed over the course of an individual’s life, through the combination

of experience and education. However, Mitchell (2012) believes that few are able to identify just

how their ethics and beliefs are influencing their decisions. Mitchell (2012) studied and observed

this concept in the context of community college presidents, in that these individuals face

complicated and complex situations in which multiple parties have competing needs with one

another. These presidents are then left to make the decisions of how to bring about resolution,
LITERATURE REVIEW 3

which can cause significant ethical stress on them. Mitchell (2012) proposes that in order for

these presidents to even begin to discern the correct course of action, they must take the time to

identify the values and ethics that are within them, which allows them to be mindful of how

potential choices and decisions either support or violate their ethical principles.

Remaining in the context of community college education, Oliver and Hioco (2012) also

point to the awareness of ethics as the foundation for leaders making difficult and stressful

decisions. For Oliver and Hioco (2012), self-awareness can lead to the creation and

establishment of a code. These codes can provide guidelines, or serve as a checklist, for leaders,

when they are facing complicated issues. An established code, in theory, will allow leaders to

keep a sense of consistency in their decision-making, regardless of the complicated situations a

leader may face. Beyond an individual’s personal code, Oliver and Hioco (2012) believe that

community college administrators can also instill institution wide codes, based off of the agreed

upon values and beliefs of the school. This code would then serve as a guide for all within the

institution, serving as a standard for sound ethical decisions. However, Oliver and Hioco (2012)

recognized that while this is ideal, it would be difficult to instill, since ethics tend to be a

common topic of disagreement.

Groessl (2017) also believes that the first step in the process of ethical decision-making is

self-awareness. Groessl (2017) writes, “ethical decision-making is a process and requires that

participants be aware of how values, assumptions, moral development, and emotional skills

influence decision-making,” (p. 72). Groessl (2017) is concerned with the field of social work, in

that there are various needs by many parties that depend on a leader’s decision, therefore, the

majority of decisions that need to be made are complex, and can bring about significant ethical

dilemmas. Similar to Mitchell (2012) and Oliver and Hioco (2012), in that the awareness of
LITERATURE REVIEW 4

one’s ethics is the foundation to bringing clarity and guidance to complex situations, Groessl

(2017) also believes that the difficult decisions that social workers face can be made simpler

when ethical principles are clearly defined and put in the context of a particular situation.

Burke (1999) highlighted the subject of ethical awareness on a large scale, in the context

of world leaders and their respective countries. The article looks at ethics on an international

level, in that different countries have particular ethical principles and beliefs in which they hold

their citizens to, and display to the rest of the world. Burke (1999) describes that many countries

bring awareness to their ethical beliefs by, “clearly defined leadership values and ethics, openly

stated,” (p. 530). This practice gives leadership a clear understanding of their ethical principles,

and brings accountability, in that they are held to the values and ethics that are stated. With this

foundation, a country’s leadership has the ability to make decisions that follow their articulated

ethical principles.

Awareness of a leader’s own ethical values, beliefs and principles is a huge component to

their ability to be a principled decision maker. However, self-awareness is not enough to ensure

ethical, sound decisions. Leaders also need to be aware of the ways in which they make their

decisions, such as the frameworks by which decisions are formulated. The following section of

this literature review will look at some of the ethical frameworks that are presented in current

literature.

Ethical Frameworks

Current literature consists of various frameworks that utilize different techniques,

systems, and processes. While the following frameworks differ in structure, they are all intended

to give an individual the ability to consciously and deliberately analyze a situation, with hopes of
LITERATURE REVIEW 5

producing multiple options, or even reaching a sole decision. The first framework is called the

Tripartite Analytic Approach.

Burke (1999) presented the Tripartite Analytic Approach, which seeks to ask three

questions of a situation. Burke (1999) identifies the three questions as, “what is believed to be

moral? … what is legal? … what is the organization’s established standard of ethics?” (p. 537).

Each of the three questions requires significant consideration and contemplation. The first

question of “what is moral?” is dependent on a leader’s ability to identify their own morals and

ethics, which was discussed previously in this literature review. The second question, regarding

the legality of an issue, can be significant in that it may eliminate certain options immediately.

Finally, it is important that a leader is aware of the ethical standards of an organization or

community in which the leader is involved. This final question can be problematic, in that if a

leader realizes that her own standards of ethics differ greatly from the organization, she has an

even greater conflict to solve. Burke (1999) lays out the three different questions, in that when a

leader is facing a decision, the three-step approach can determine whether it is solvable through

one’s own ethical principles, through the enforcement of the law, or through the standards set by

the organization or community. While the process can bring about answers in some situations, it

is still problematic in that it identifies ethical issues, but cannot do much in terms of clarification.

Stonehouse (2015) discusses another framework, known as the “FAIR” approach to

ethical decision-making. Each letter in FAIR represents a component in which leaders should

consider when formulating options. The “F” stands for fairness, “A” for autonomy, “I” for

integrity, and “R” for results. The idea of these four different concepts is that they each add a

different perspective and concern to a situation, which requires a leader to be cautious and

thorough in their contemplation. Stonehouse (2015) equates fairness with justice, in that a leader
LITERATURE REVIEW 6

does not need to treat all groups the exact same, rather, a leader needs to determine how various

options would affect different groups, and whether certain options would limit justice for some

will giving preference to others. Autonomy, in this framework, requires that a leader allows for

capable individuals to make decisions for themselves, unless it has the potential to bring harm to

others or restricts others from having the chance to make their own decisions. Integrity requires

that a leader’s actions reflect the values, beliefs and principles that a leader claims. Finally,

results are intended to maximize the benefits, while minimizing harm. This framework has the

potential to help leaders in their decision making, by promoting careful consideration of the four

components. Yet, the framework is limited particularly by the results, in that it is simply a

prediction or assumption of what the benefits and harm might be. Ultimately, the FAIR approach

allows for a leader to be mindful of their decision-making process, yet, it might lead to

misguided or incorrect conclusions.

Oliver and Hioco (2012) present a framework that consists of a series of nine questions

that allow for a leader to map out the details of a decision. For example, the first step of the

framework is to write out a statement of the problem, in order to provide clarity as to what needs

to be solved. Elements of this framework are similar to that of the Tripartite Analytic Approach,

presented by Burke (1999), in that it requires a leader to identify the potential ethical

implications, and the legality of an issue. The final two questions within the Oliver and Hioco

(2012) framework call for reflective analysis, in that once a decision is made, the leader must

articulate the decision, and then assess the effect it had on others, from an ethical standpoint.

This framework can be utilized in many situations, and promotes a high sense of awareness

throughout the formulation and implementation of a decision, however, it requires drawn out

thought and contemplation that may not be possible in certain situations of crisis or time crunch.
LITERATURE REVIEW 7

Buford and Pettit (2008) offer a framework that is centered on the recognition and

awareness of competing factors that occur when a leader is facing an ethical issue. The model by

Buford and Pettit (2008) is called the Model for Moral Decision Making, which consists of

Values Taxonomy and Moral Agency. The Values Taxonomy consists of six contexts: moral,

personal, professional, organization, public and cultural. The model calls for a leader to discern

the values and morals in each of these contexts, which allows for a leader to begin to identify

conflict points, which contribute the most to ethical stress. During the course of discernment, a

leader is able to determine their position on particular values, which will help clarify their

thought process, which influences the course of action. The process of discernment, and

ultimately, the actual decision, is the Moral Agency portion of the model. The model presents

leaders with a tool to increase the likelihood of sound judgment and decisions in times of ethical

dilemmas. A weakness of the model is that different contexts could be misidentified by a leader,

which can impact the decision that is made and produce a negative outcome.

A second model, presented by Seiler, Fischer, and Voegtli (2011), can also equip leaders

to raise their awareness of various components that contribute to a complicated ethical decision.

Seiler et. al (2011) discuss the IDP model of ethical decision-making, that consists of five

aspects that are interactive and at times co-occurring. Seiler et. al (2011) identify the aspects as:

1) moral perception, 2) internal dual process of reasoning and intuition, 3) preliminary/final

moral judgement and decision, 4) post hoc reasoning, 5) social interaction. The first aspect of

moral perception is dependent on an individual’s awareness of their own ethical principles,

which then allows a leader to determine the reasons for which a decision is creating internal or

external tension. The second aspect consists of the reasoning of a decision, in that a leader

cognitively processes a situation, in the effort to ultimately make a judgement. Preliminary/final

LITERATURE REVIEW 8

moral judgment is when a leader has reached a decision, however, in order for a decision to be

fully reached, the aspects of post hoc reasoning and social interaction must be completed first, as

these two aspects will adjust and influence a decision. Seiler et. al (2011) emphasize that the IDP

model is not a systematic five-step process, instead, a final decision is only completed when the

iterative process is completed.

Current literature on the topic of ethical decision making offers multiple frameworks.

These frameworks, which are rooted in the awareness of ethics, can help leaders and individuals

approach complex and ethically stressful situations with a variety of systems, procedures, and

processes to critically analyze and assess, with the intention of providing choices and options.

For the most part, the processes, questions, and models discussed above can give leaders insight

and awareness that can increase their ability to make sound, ethical decisions. However, these

frameworks are limited in situations that are time sensitive. If a leader is needing to make a

decision quickly, it is unrealistic to try to conceptualize the situation using a model, process or

system. That being said, if a leader has developed a consistent strategy over time, and is solid in

her principles, decisions can be made in a brief amount of time, with confidence.

Conclusion

Awareness of one’s ethical principles, values, and beliefs, along with the awareness of

the decision-making process with which one makes decisions, are foundational aspects to the

competency of a principled decision maker. The current literature pertaining to these two areas

of awareness provide significant insight in the field of study pertaining to ethical leadership.

However, a glaring gap, as stated throughout the paper, is that many ethical dilemmas facing

leaders are time sensitive, and therefore, the reflective and thorough frameworks that were

presented in the current literature do not offer much help in those situations. With this in mind,
LITERATURE REVIEW 9

further research could look into crisis situations, evaluating how time sensitive situations differ

from the ethical dilemmas that are presented in current literature.

Overall, a leader who is able to identify their own ethical principles and the ways in

which these principles impact their decisions, has the chance to be incredibly impactful and

consistent in their leadership. The nature of leadership requires leaders to confront many difficult

situations, and there are instances in which their ethics can be tested. Without a firm awareness

of their principles, and the process of their decision making, they are susceptible to

compromising or violating their ethical foundation.

 LITERATURE REVIEW 10

References

Azusa Pacific University. (2018). LDRS 595: Capstone project in leadership [course syllabus].

Azusa, California: Ed Barron.

Burford, C., & Pettit, P. (2018). Understanding for Moral Decision Making: A Conceptual Model

for Linking Values, Discernment and Outcome Perception. Values and Ethics in Educational

Administration,13(2).

Burke, F. (1999). Ethical Decision-Making: Global Concerns, Frameworks, and Approaches. Public

Personnel Management,28(4), 529-540. doi:10.1177/009102609902800404

Groessl, J. (2017). Leadership in the Field: Fostering Moral Courage. The Journal of Social Work

Values and Ethics,14(1).

Mitchell, R. L. (2012). Doing the Right Thing: Ethical Leadership and Decision Making. New

Directions for Community Colleges,2012(159), 63-72. doi:10.1002/cc.20027

Oliver, D. E., & Hioco, B. (2012). An Ethical Decision-Making Framework for Community College

Administrators. Community College Review,40(3), 240-254. doi:10.1177/0091552112445611

Seiler, S., Fischer, A., & Voegtli, S. A. (2011). Developing Moral Decision-Making Competence: A

Quasi-Experimental Intervention Study in the Swiss Armed Forces. Ethics & Behavior,21(6),

452-470. doi:10.1080/10508422.2011.622177

Stonehouse, D. (2015). Ethical practice for managers. British Journal of Healthcare

Management,21(8), 375-377. doi:10.12968/bjhc.2015.21.8.375