Creighton University
Interdisciplinary EdD in Leadership
I.
Course Number and Title:
ILD 802 - Leadership and Applied Ethics
II.
Credits: 3
Faculty Contact Information
Linda S. Scheirton, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Faculty Associate, Center for Health Policy and Ethics
School of Pharmacy and Health Professions
Creighton University
LindaScheirton@creighton.edu
402.280.3108
Peggy Rupprecht, Ph.D.
Interdisciplinary Ed.D. in Leadership Instructor
PeggyRupprecht@creighton.edu
402.680.2251
Skype: Peggy.Rupprecht
John G. Hudson II, Ph.D.
Interdisciplinary Ed.D. in Leadership Instructor
JohnHudson1@creighton.edu
402.232.7700
Contact with Instructor:
There are several modes of communication for students – website, e-mail, telephone. The option of
direct contact for an appointment time is always open. There is also the opportunity to hold a
synchronous session with students or small groups if that would be helpful. Please contact your
ASSIGNED instructor to coordinate interactions.
III.
Technical Support
For all technical issues related to BlueLine, please call (866.717.6366) or email
(creighton@personalsupportcenter.com) the Personal Support Center (PSC). This information is also
located on the BlueLine login page (http://creighton.learntoday.info/default.asp).
IV.
Online Writing Support
The Writing Center is available to online students. The process for making an appointment is detailed
on the following website:
http://www.creighton.edu/gradschool/onlinewritingcenter/index.php
You can also access the writing center through http://www.creighton.edu/onlinelearning
1
V.
Support Services for Students with Disabilities
Students with documented disabilities are eligible for academic services through Student Support
Services. Please refer to page 18 of Creighton University’s policy on Students with Disabilities
http://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/Registrar/docs/archive/UG_11-12.pdf and contact the
Office of Disability Accommodations at (402)280-2749 or visit their website at
www.creighton.edu/eop/disabilitysupportservices/index.php.
If you have a disability that will require academic accommodations, you need to do both of the
following as soon as possible: 1) contact LuAnn Schwery (402.280.2772) who will assist you in
obtaining a letter verifying your disability and the accommodations needed, and, 2) make an
appointment with your instructor to review this letter and discuss what reasonable accommodations
can be made.
VI.
Graduate Policies
Please visit the Graduate School website for all graduate policies: www.creighton.edu/gradschool
The University Student Handbook can be found at:
http://www.creighton.edu/studentservices/centerforstudentintegrity/
VII.
University Academic Integrity Policies
Be particularly aware of the dangers of plagiarism. We expect that your written products are your own
creation. “Copying and pasting” others’ written work through any kind of internet search is a serious
offense. If you have questions here, I would be more than happy to discuss them. “Plagiarism” is the
attempt to pass off other peoples’ work (ideas, words, phrases or passages) as your own. Plagiarism is
not acceptable regardless of which writing style, format, guide or publication manual you may be using
to complete an assignment. The penalty for plagiarism can range from a grade of "F" on the
assignment, paper or test, to a grade of "F" for the course and/or dismissal from the University.
A student who engages in any of the following acts of academic or academic-related misconduct is
subject to disciplinary procedures and sanctions as determined by the school or college in which he or
she is enrolled. Academic or academic-related misconduct is defined to include but is not limited to:
1. Unauthorized collaboration or use of external information during examinations.
2. Plagiarizing or representing another’s ideas as one’s own.
3. Furnishing false academic information to the University.
4. Falsely obtaining, distributing, using, or receiving test materials.
5. Falsifying academic records.
6. Falsifying clinical reports or otherwise endangering the well-being of patients involved in the
teaching process.
7. Misusing academic resources.
8. Defacing or tampering with library materials.
9. Obtaining or gaining unauthorized access to examinations or academic research materials.
10. Soliciting or offering unauthorized academic information or materials.
11. Improperly altering or inducing another to improperly alter any academic record.
12. Engaging in any conduct which is intended or reasonably likely to confer upon one’s self or another
2
unfair advantage or benefit respecting an academic matter.
VIII.
Internet Etiquette (Netiquette)
Netiquette is a set of rules and guidelines on how to behave in interactive discussion forums and email.
It is a combination of the words “Net” and “Etiquette”. While the rules of netiquette can and will
change over time and where they are being used, some simple common sense guidelines are generally
agreed on.
The primary rule to remember in all your communications online, via email or the discussion forums is
that the person on the other end is another human being. The anonymity of the internet can tempt
one to express themselves in ways they wouldn’t if the same conversation was face to face.
When having discussions with your classmates or instructors please be mindful that your conversation
is public and you should not disclose anything or say anything you would not say in a large public forum
or a classroom. You can also read more about netiquette from the following sites that go into more
detail about all forms of Internet communications.
Albion.com Core Rules of Netiquette: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html
Living Internet Netiquette Guidelines: http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ia_nq.html
IX.
Course Rationale:
This is a required core course, offered early in the program. Students will be applying the concepts,
ideas, theories and skills to their own work context. It is the learning community of learners that is
cross disciplines that will also bring richness and interdisciplinary perspectives to the course.
X.
Relationship to Programmatic Themes:
A. Jesuit values/mission: Students are expected to engage in a process of critical self-reflection
(discernment) in exploring components of self as moral person and leader. Part of the continued
process of formation as a leader is the understanding of the role of the leader as moral agents in taking
action that makes a difference in the outcome. Fundamental to leadership is respect for others and
respect for human dignity or cura personalis. The learning community of students and faculty will
model this throughout the course.
B. Interdisciplinary: Leaders must recognize and support the talents of others in working together
toward organizational goals. Complex, contemporary problems often require multiple disciplines
coming together, respecting one another’s contributions in working towards a solution. Leaders who
have a strong moral compass and acute self-awareness are in a good position to facilitate the
collaboration of others. Students will engage in interdisciplinary dialogue throughout the course in
online discussions and a team-based project.
XI.
Course Description:
Consistent with the ideal that leadership is not just an act but a way of being, this course will explore
the ethical foundations that inform the leader’s personal and professional practices. Students will
examine ethical theories and concepts applied to leadership challenges in real world situations.
Emphasis will be placed on understanding ethical leadership for social and organizational change, the
leader’s role as a moral agent, as well as the organization’s role as a moral agent in society.
3
XII.
Course Objectives:
On completing the course, the students will be able to:
1. Describe and apply core ethical principles to the practice of leadership. (Program objectives 1, 2)
2. Examine the moral principles underlying key normative theoretical models of leadership. This
analysis will be used for interdisciplinary small groups to develop an instructional module for
dissemination. (Program Objective 4)
3. Analyze self and character strengths and weaknesses as a moral person, manager and leader.
(Program objectives 1, 2)
4. Analyze organizational and societal challenges posed by ethical leadership or lack of ethical
leadership and propose strategies for addressing these challenges. (Program objective 5)
5. Apply a virtue-based leadership model of responsibility, authenticity and presence to own practice
setting and develop a personal professional development plan. (Program objective 1, 2)
XI. Teaching and Learning Methods:
Critical Reading—Regular reading assignments are selected to explore the dimensions and ideal of
leadership and the ethical foundations that inform a leader’s personal and professional practices.
Selected chapters, articles, and reports are listed in the Course Schedule/Calendar.
Analytical Writing—Writing assignments are designed to facilitate students’ ongoing critical reflection
and application of the material to his or her own practice setting. There will be continued
emphasis on students’ development of skills in analysis and synthesis.
Discussion—Students will contribute regularly to discussion forums designed to offer students
opportunities to exchange ideas, identify areas of consensus and disagreement among fellow
students, and formulate substantive responses and contributions to inquiry in the course.
Feedback—Students will receive regular feedback on their performance and progress throughout the
course.
XIV.
Communication Plan:
Scheduling office hours at times that accommodate the schedules of EVERY student is not always
possible, so I do not specify, set office hour times and days. I very much want to get to know each of
you, and I encourage you to contact me to arrange a conversation via the live chat functions on the
course website, telephone, or email. Please contact me via email, and we can set a mutually agreeable
appointment time and venue.
The instructor will make every reasonable effort to respond to emails within 24 hours of receipt.
Discussion posts will be graded within 3 days of the due date and papers within 5 days.
Announcements will be posted in BlueLine or through the BlueLine messaging system.
XII.
XIV.
Student Expectations:
Students at the doctoral level should write clearly, concisely, and correctly in all formats. However, the
instructor will pay closer attention to grammar, spelling, etc. in the papers than in the discussion posts.
Students should daily check the course site, and, if possible the CREIGHTON email at LEAST every other
day.
Grading (overall course and individual assignments) (Below is the grading scale used in the program)
Grade
Grading Criteria (% of total points)
4
A
B
C
F
94-100
Superior performance in meeting course objectives
86-93
Excellent/good performance in meeting course objectives
78-85
Average performance in meeting course objectives
Below 78 unsatisfactory performance
Course Grading Distribution
Discussion Forums (7 weeks x 20 point/wk)
Moral exemplar paper (week 02)
Normative theory analysis small group instructional
module (week 03 & 04)
Organizational Case Analysis (week 05, 06 & 07)
Final paper (week 08)
Total Possible Points
140
75
75
Total
150
40
480
INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: As previously mentioned, the instructor will make every effort to have discussion
posts graded within 3 days of the due date and papers within 5 days. For larger student assignments, the
instructor will typically get all assignments graded within a one week period. If more than one assignment is
due within a particular week, priority will be given to those assignments that are “works in progress,” thereby
enabling students to continue work on those ongoing assignments as soon as possible. If university holidays,
competing commitments, or illness render it impossible for the instructor to meet these deadlines, an attempt
will made to give you early notice.
PAPER preparation: Papers are to be prepared following APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines.
They are to be double-spaced, 1 inch margins, formatted and referenced according to APA guidelines. A quick
reference document for the APA style guide is at the end of this syllabus or you may visit the following link:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/10/.
Assignments: See detailed assignment guidelines at the end of this syllabus and via the attachment.
XV: Prerequisites: none
XVI: Discussion and Writing Requirements.) (Instructors reserve the right to modify these as the course
proceeds.)
*All Initial Discussion Posts are due at 11:55PM Central Standard Time (CTS) on Thursdays.
Papers and Discussion Post Responses are due at 11:55PM Central Standard Time (CTS) on
Sundays; with the exception of Week 8 Papers and Discussion Post Responses are due by
Friday at 11:55PM Central Standard Time.
XVII: Required Text(s):
Title: Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow
Author: Craig Johnson
5
Publisher: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Edition/Year: 2012, 4th edition
Other assigned and suggested readings will be available through online reserve at Reinhardt library
6
ILD 802: SCHEDULE/ASSIGNMENTS
Written Assignment #1 (week 02):
Moral Leadership Exemplar
(75 points)
In this course, we will examine and discuss various ethical theories of leadership. However, all ethics starts
with experience. It is by being exposed to inspiring (or horrifying) leaders that we first learn about the
morality of leadership. It is by being engaged in the practice of leadership that we become fully aware of the
moral challenges evoked by a leadership role.
One of the first ethicists in western history, the Greek philosopher Aristotle, used this idea of moral
experience and moral expertise as the foundation of his theory of ethics. Aristotle divided virtues into
intellectual and moral. The intellectual virtues include art, science, intuition, reasoning, and practical wisdom.
The moral virtues will be very familiar to you and include fidelity (faithfulness/trust), compassion, justice
(fairness), veracity truthfulness), respectfulness, confidentiality, and integrity. What are the moral virtues to
“living a good life,” “being a good person,” or in our case, “being a good leader?”
In this first written assignment you are asked to reflect on your leadership experiences. In the first part of
your paper, you must adopt an external perspective. Reflect on the leadership qualities of a leader of your
choosing (not a relative or family member) who has exhibited various qualities of moral leadership. Make
clear whether you consider these qualities to be only inspiring for you personally, or virtues that every aspiring
leader should seek to emulate. Since few leaders are saints, also reflect on the shadow side of your
exemplar’s leadership approach. In the second part of your paper, adopt an internal perspective. Critically
examine your own leadership qualities, both in terms of the light and the shadow sides thereof.



Length of this paper: between 750 and 1000 words, excluding quotes from references and the
bibliography (please include word count at the bottom of the paper).
Deadline for this paper: Week 02, Sunday night at 11:55 p.m. in the students’ own time zone.
Submit the paper to the drop box.
Rubric for this written assignment will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
Grading Rubric: Moral Leadership Exemplar
Total Points
Earned On
Assignment
71-75
Description
Superior performance. Generates productive, insightful interpretations
of on both dimensions (external and internal); there is supporting
evidence that exemplifies the key concepts of moral leadership. The
critical self-analysis is thoughtful and reflective. Assignment is wellwritten (grammar, syntax, punctuation, coherence) and properly cited
7
65-70
59-64
Below 58
and referenced.
Excellent performance. Responds thoughtfully to assignment
requirements and demonstrates critical analytical inquiry into
documents’ content. Assignment is well-written but has a few
grammar, syntax, punctuation, and/or coherence issues. There may be
some minor citation or referencing errors.
Marginal performance. Demonstrates minimal and somewhat
inconsistent responsiveness to assignment requirements. Assignment
has grammar, syntax, punctuation, and/or coherence issues. There may
be some citation or referencing errors.
Unsatisfactory performance. Demonstrates poor ordering or
organization of ideas, inaccurate use of English language vocabulary,
editorial carelessness with punctuation, spelling, English language
syntax or grammar. Assignment has incomplete, incorrect or missing
citations and/or references. Demonstrates a lack of responsiveness to
due dates and times or failure to adhere to formatting criteria.
8
Assignment #2
Normative Theory Instructional Module/Case Analysis (week 03 & 04)
(Interdisciplinary group instructional module) (75 points)
In this course, we will examine three leadership theories. All students will be expected to study and discuss
the required readings on all three theories. However, the time available in the course does not allow for all
students to examine each of these theories in depth. This second writing assignment offers each student the
opportunity to apply one of these leadership theories to one or more real life cases and report on their
findings.
The assignment will be done in small groups. Each group will consist of 4 to 7 students and will be assigned by
the instructor to one of three selected leadership theories. This assignment has two phases. In the first phase
(week 03) the small groups will:





Summarize key aspects of the assigned leadership theory
Delineate assumptions (if any) of the theory
Describe the limitations of theory
Provide examples of application of theory to at least one case. This can be a real case or “creatively
crafted” case
Compose an annotated bibliography of 5 to 10 core references (literature, book chapters or books but
not references to web-sites) about the assigned theory and its application(s)
Each group shall submit their leadership theory synopsis, containing the aforementioned five items, by the
end of Week 03: Sunday night at 11:55 p.m.
The leadership theory group synopsis will not be graded and not yield points towards your assignment grade.
However, in week 04, these synopses will be the focus of the week’s Discussion. Insights from other students
submitted as postings should assist the group in its realization of the second phase of this assignment.
The second phase (week 04) consists of the development of an instructional module. The module should
include:
 Theory title & theorist(s)
 Instructional objectives for the module
 Key aspects of the assigned leadership theory
 Assumptions (if any) of the theory
 Limitations of theory
 Examples of application of theory to at least one case. This can be a real case or “creatively crafted”
case
 A bibliography of references/resources
Guidelines for module preparation:
Format your instructional module as a PowerPoint presentation. Use no more than 15 slides. The slides
themselves should only contain short statements, bullet points, graphs etc. Add the explanatory text that will
9
be spoken out loud by the presenter in the “Notes” box that is below the slide window. (You will not be
expected to actually present the module orally).
The deadline for the PowerPoint presentation is at the end of Week 04: Sunday at 11:55 p.m.
Grading Rubric: Group Project
Total Points
Earned On
Assignment
71-75
65-70
59-64
Below 58
Description
Superior performance. Insightful interpretations of the leadership model;
clear applications of the theory to practical situations; exceptional
presentation; examples of the limits of leadership model; strong evidence of
references/resources & linkage to concepts. Assignment is well-written
(grammar, syntax, punctuation, coherence) and properly cited and
referenced.
Excellent performance. Demonstrates interpretation of the model with
examples of application; covers the basic elements with
references/resources & linkage to concepts. Assignment is well-written but
has a few grammar, syntax, punctuation, and/or coherence issues. There
may be some citation or referencing errors.
Average performance. Demonstrates minimal and somewhat inconsistent
responsiveness to assignment requirements and references/resources
linkage to concepts. Assignment has grammar, syntax, punctuation, and/or
coherence issues. There may be some citation or referencing errors.
Unsatisfactory performance. Demonstrates poor ordering or organization of
ideas, inaccurate analysis & application of theoretical concepts; weak
10
references/resources & linkage to concepts; demonstrates lack of
responsiveness to due dates & times or failure to adhere to formatting.
criteria.
Written Assignment #3
Social Audit/Organizational Case Analysis (week 05, 06 & 07)
(150 points)
In this third written assignment, students will be expected to complete a social audit and organizational case
analysis” of an organization’s commitment to ethics and moral leadership. Students can select an
organization of their choice; this may be an organization where the student works or has worked or another
organization, but it could also be any another organization with which the student has or can establish
personal contacts
IMPORTANT: When contacting an organization for assistance in creating this social audit, please explain to the
institution that this audit is done as an assignment that is part of your own doctoral education. Assure the
institution that the resulting paper will be shared only with the course instructor, who will treat this paper
confidentially. In your work with this organization, please apply the utmost sensitivity and professionalism;
while the institutional leadership will appreciate any positive findings, they may understandably be worried
about the outcome of your audit and analysis. Always keep in mind that if the institution requests a copy of
your report, you should be ready to provide them with it.
As part of your audit:
 Evaluate the organization’s public expression of mission and core values and commitment to ethics
 Identify and describe its ethics policies or code
 Interview the leader or leaders to assess their view on leadership and core values underlying that
approach
 Interview at least one other employee to ascertain his or her perceptions of the presence of ethical
leadership
 Review and evaluate artifacts/evidence that demonstrates the strength of the organization’s
commitment to ethical climate/culture
 Analyze strengths and weaknesses of the organization and suggest recommendations for enhancement
 Integrate key concepts, theoretical constructs and other supporting literature in your paper
Length of this paper: between 4000 and 5000 words, excluding extensive quotes from references and
excluding the bibliography (please include word count at the bottom of the paper).
Deadlines for this assignment:


Week 02: Submit the name and location of the organization you propose for your audit. Briefly explain
your reasons for selecting this organization. Submit to the drop box by Sunday 11:55 p.m. (Please note:
this submission will not be graded and not yield points towards your final assignment grade)
Week 03: Compose a one-page description of the nature of your audit that you can provide to the
organization’s leadership when you seek permission (in week 04) to undertake the audit. Include your
name and contact information. Attach the letter provided by your instructor endorsing the project,
informing the organization’s leadership of confidentiality of findings, and providing instructor contact
11




information. Submit your one-page letter to the drop box by Sunday 11:55 p.m. (Please note: this
submission will not be graded and not yield points towards your final assignment grade).
Week 04: Contact the organization to obtain permission to undertake the audit. There is no need to
report on the meeting if the results are positive. Immediately contact the instructor if you do not attain
permission to discuss an alternative site of your audit.
Week 05: Initiate the data collection. Obtain written organizational documents such as the institutions
mission/vision statement(s), ethics code, PR documents, and other public expression of mission and
core values and commitment to ethics. You will also be expected to generate three questions that you
plan to use to “take the ethical temperature” in the selected organization. These questions will
become part of the Week 06 Discussion. Post these three questions by Sunday at 11:55 p.m. of week 5,
but post them in the Week 06 Discussion.
Week 06: Initiate the on-site audit through meetings with at least one leader and at least one other
non-leader employee.
Week 07: Submit audit report by Sunday night at 11:55 p.m. (in the student’s own time zone). Submit
the paper to the drop box.
Grading Rubric: Social Audit
Total Points
Earned On
Assignment
141-150
129-140
117-128
Below 128
Description
Superior performance. Comprehensive data from the organization; critical
and thoughtful analysis of the case using key concepts and applicable
theory; analysis includes both strengths and weaknesses of the
organization with supporting evidence and clear recommendations for
enhancement; appropriate use of references/resources and linkage to
concepts. Assignment is well-written (grammar, syntax, punctuation,
coherence) and properly cited and referenced.
Excellent performance. Demonstrates data for all of the components;
analysis of case using concepts of theory; listing of strengths and
weaknesses along with recommendations; basic components in place.
Assignment is well-written but has a few grammar, syntax, punctuation,
and/or coherence issues. There may be some minor citation or referencing
errors.
Moderate performance. Demonstrates minimal and somewhat
inconsistent responsiveness to assignment requirements. Assignment has
grammar, syntax, punctuation, and/or coherence issues. There may be
some citation or referencing errors. There may be a lack of responsiveness
to due dates.
Unsatisfactory performance. Demonstrates poor ordering or organization
of ideas, inaccurate use of English language vocabulary, editorial
carelessness with punctuation, spelling, English language syntax or
grammar. Assignment has incomplete, incorrect or missing citations and/or
references. Demonstrates a lack of responsiveness to due dates and times
or failure to adhere to formatting criteria.
12
Written Assignment # 4
The Greater Good: Final Assessment Paper (week 08)
In this last week we move beyond organizational leadership to leadership of communities and society at large.
The main question we examine is this: How can leaders foster the greater good and realize a more just world?
This question is central to Catholic and Jesuit social justice theory.
Reflect on the proper balance between individual interests and the common good. Do leaders have a stronger
moral obligation to the community as a whole than to the individuals that make up the community? What is
the “common good”? As part of this assignment, reflect on your own qualities as a leader and what you have
learned in this class. Strive for depth rather than breadth, for critical acumen as opposed to broad
superficiality.




Length of this paper: between 500 and 800 words, excluding quotes from references and the
bibliography.
Deadline for this paper: Week 08, Sunday night at 11:55 p.m. in the students’ own time zone.
Submit the paper to the drop box.
Rubric for this written assignment will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
Grading Rubric: Final Self-Assessment
Total Points
Earned On
Assignment
38-40
34-37
31-33
Below 31
Description
Superior performance. Generates productive, insightful
interpretations of on both dimensions (external and
internal); there is supporting evidence that exemplifies the
key concepts of moral leadership. The critical self-analysis
is thoughtful and reflective. Assignment is well-written
(grammar, syntax, punctuation, coherence) and properly
cited and referenced.
Excellent performance. Responds thoughtfully to
assignment requirements and demonstrates critical
analytical inquiry into documents’ content. Assignment is
well-written but has a few grammar, syntax, punctuation,
and/or coherence issues. There may be some minor
citation or referencing errors.
Marginal performance. Demonstrates minimal and
somewhat inconsistent responsiveness to assignment
requirements. Assignment has grammar, syntax,
punctuation, and/or coherence issues. There may be some
citation or referencing errors.
Unsatisfactory performance. Demonstrates poor ordering
13
or organization of ideas, inaccurate use of English
language vocabulary, editorial carelessness with
punctuation, spelling, English language syntax or
grammar. Assignment has incomplete, incorrect or missing
citations and/or references. Demonstrates a lack of
responsiveness to due dates and times or failure to adhere
to formatting criteria.
OPTIONAL ACTIVITY
Responsible Conduct of Research
Optional: One of the requirements of the Ed.D. program is obtaining certification for responsible conduct of
research through Creighton’s access to national online training modules (Collaborative Institutional Training
Initiative- CITI). We urge you to do this sooner rather than later. This is required to be completed prior to
your Practicum course (ILD 811). If you decide to do this now, it looks like it may fit well in week 5 of our
course ILD 802. Taking one of the modules takes about 2 hours to complete. Directions for the CITI module
are located on this webpage
http://www.creighton.edu/researchcompliance/responsibleconductofresearch/index.php
14
DISCUSSION DESCRIPTIONS
WEEK 01
Initial Post
You must do an initial post, in which you demonstrate your engagement with the discussion topic for the
week. You must draw upon the readings assigned for the week, your professional and personal experiences,
and your moral and ethical beliefs in your posts.
Explore the "character dimensions" of leadership and factors that have influence. Address the following three
questions:
1. What factors do you consider when determining your loyalty to an organization?
2. Take one of the elements that leaders must manage (power, privilege, information, loyalty,
responsibility) and discuss both the light and shadow sides that leaders may encounter.
3. What are the critical virtues or elements of a leader's character that are necessary and specific to
working and leading in an interdisciplinary organization or setting?


Length of posting: 300-500 words (include word count at bottom of post).
Deadline of posting: Thursday at 11:55 pm in the students’ own time zone.
Responses to Peers’ Postings
As part of your responsibility to the community of learners and learning community you are required to
interact and react to your colleague’s postings at least twice as part of the community conversation and this
should be done by Sunday at 11:55 p.m. These postings should extend the conversation, raising further
questions and/or providing insight and feedback.
While an occasional compliment to or expression of agreement with a fellow-student is certainly allowed,
please bear in mind that these postings should extend the conversation, raising further questions and/or
providing additional insight and feedback. The instructor will typically provide additional guidelines for these
follow-up postings in the course site lessons.


Length of the follow-up postings: 200-350 words each (include word count at bottom of post).
Deadline for follow-up postings: Sunday at 11:55 p.m. in the students’ own time zone.
Your posts will be graded using the following:

Grading Criteria for Discussion Forums
Review the grading criteria for discussion posts. Generally, keep quotations to a minimum. Emphasize using
your own words. Cite sources for comments and quotations using APA style. Please check the Course Calendar
for specific due dates.
15
WEEK 02
Initial Post
This week we are looking at different types of ethical theories/perspectives and how they apply to “ethical
capacity.” In the first Writing Assignment, you are asked to adopt one of these theories, that is, virtue ethics.
Johnson in Chapter 5 covers several additional well-known theories of ethics, including utilitarianism; Kant’s
duty-based ethics, also called deontology, and communitarian ethics. In week 8, we will revisit communitarian
ethics. In this week’s discussion, we focus on utilitarianism and deontology.
Present a short case description of an ethical leadership challenge that you experienced in the past or that you
recently encountered in the media. If it is an ethical dilemma, note that an ethical dilemma is a situation that
will often involve a conflict between moral imperatives, in which to obey one would result in transgressing
another (for example, there are varying degrees of decision-making challenge: one choice is considered to be
“good” and the other “evil” – this is easier to determine; there is a choice between two goods which are
mutually exclusive - but you can’t do both; there is evidence favoring as well as disfavoring possible
alternatives; and, finally, there is a choice between two evils – most challenging).
Analyze this case from both a utilitarian perspective and deontological perspective, and show how these two
theories of ethics frequently yield very different resolutions (for guidance, see the utilitarian and deontological
case analysis models in week 02 readings).
In your initial post, you must draw upon the readings assigned for the week. You are encouraged to share
professional and personal experiences, but always in an attempt to contribute to the learning of all
participants to the debate. After all, purely personal opinions are just that: personal opinions.


Length of posting : 300-500 words (include word count at bottom of post)
Deadline of posting: Thursday at 11:55 pm in the students’ own time zone.
Responses to Peers’ Postings
As part of your responsibility to the community of learners and learning community you are required to
interact and react to your colleague’s postings at least twice as part of the community conversation and this
should be done by Sunday at 11:55 p.m. These postings should extend the conversation, raising further
questions and/or providing insight and feedback.
While an occasional compliment to or expression of agreement with a fellow-student is certainly allowed,
please bear in mind that these postings should extend the conversation, raising further questions and/or
providing additional insight and feedback. The instructor will typically provide additional guidelines for these
follow-up postings in the course site lessons.


Length of the follow-up postings: 200-350 words each (include word count at bottom of post).
Deadline for follow-up postings: Sunday at 11:55 p.m. in the students’ own time zone.
16
Your posts will be graded using the following:

Grading Criteria for Discussion Forums
Review the grading criteria for discussion posts. Generally, keep quotations to a minimum. Emphasize using
your own words. Cite sources for comments and quotations. Please check the Course Calendar for specific due
dates.
17
WEEK 03
In this week, we move from theories of ethics to normative theories of leadership/theories of leadership
ethics. The fundamental presupposition of any theory of ethics is that norms are not subjective, a matter of
personal opinion or even cultural convention. Rather, morality, much like nature or the mind, is an objective
reality. That is to say, the values and principles that define morally good leadership can be defined in a way
that are convincing to any reasonable and rational person, using intersubjective explanations and arguments.
Ethics is the science of morality, in the same way that biology is the science of nature and psychology the
science of the mind.
In the Moral Exemplar paper which you wrote in week 2, you reflected on a particular leader who you
considered to be a moral leader. In this week’s discussion, we will build on this exercise. When we label
somebody as a “good leader,” the qualifier “good” can mean two things. It can refer to the leader’s
skillfulness and effectiveness at leading people; but it can also refer to the leader’s moral character. It appears
to be easier to reach consensus on what makes somebody an effective leader than a moral leader.
Initial Post
In preparation of your initial post, please watch the 2000 film Remember the Titans starring Denzel
Washington.
This film can be purchased on Amazon or rented on services such as iTunes or Netflix. In his 2000 review of the
film, New York Times critic A. O. Scott wrote, “...the film tells the true story of the T. C. Williams High School
Titans in broad, accessible shorthand. Denzel Washington plays Herman Boone, who becomes the Titans' head
coach by fiat of the Alexandria school board, which has also required the desegregation of Williams's team.
Boone's predecessor, Bill Yoast (Will Patton), one winning season away from election to the Virginia Football
Hall of Fame, swallows his pride, and brushes off the outrage of many of the town's prominent whites, to stay
on as Boone's assistant. The relationship between the two men gradually mutates from hostile suspicion to
grudging respect to loyalty and trust, an evolution mirrored by the players.” Read the full review,
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A07E5D61E3AF93AA1575AC0A9669C8B63.
The movie trailer can be found at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0210945/.
For your initial post, provide a critical assessment of the way the various characters in the film display the
normative leadership theories discussed in Chapter 6 (transformational, authentic, and servant leadership).
18
For your follow-up posting, provide a critical assessment about how others view the leadership characteristics
displayed in the film.
• Length of posting: 300-500 words (include word count at bottom of post).
• Deadline of posting: Thursday at 11:55 pm in the students’ own time zone.
Responses to Peers’ Postings
As part of your responsibility to the community of learners and learning community you are required to
interact and react to your colleague’s postings at least twice as part of the community conversation and this
should be done by Sunday at 11:55 p.m. These postings should extend the conversation, raising further
questions and/or providing insight and feedback.
While an occasional compliment to or expression of agreement with a fellow-student is certainly allowed,
please bear in mind that these postings should extend the conversation, raising further questions and/or
providing additional insight and feedback. The instructor will typically provide additional guidelines for these
follow-up postings in the course site lessons.
Length of the follow-up postings: 200-350 words each (include word count at bottom of post).
Deadline for follow-up postings: Sunday at 11:55 p.m. in the students’ own time zone.
Your posts will be graded using the following:

Grading Criteria for Discussion Forums
Review the grading criteria for discussion posts. Generally, keep quotations to a minimum. Emphasize using
your own words. Cite sources for comments and quotations. Please check the Course Calendar for specific due
dates.
19
WEEK 04
Last week, each group completed its leadership theory synopsis and uploaded it to the week 3 dropbox. This
drop box is set to have open access so that all students can access all three synopses. Review the two
synopses from the other two groups in preparation of this week’s Discussion.
Initial posting
Provide comments on the other two synopses. You may use the questions below to start your comments but
are NOT required to do so.
1. Where do you see the connections between your group’s theory and the other two theories? Are there
overlapping concepts that would highlight some fundamental elements about leadership?
2. The other synopses contain various case examples to illustrate the practical application of the selected
leadership theory. Would the analysis of those case examples be significantly different if approached from
the leadership theory you covered in your synopsis?
3. Each synopsis contains a summary of the limitations of the selected leadership theory. Are these
limitations better addressed in the other two leadership theories? Do the same limitations surface in all
three theories? If so, what does that tell you about leadership theories in general?


Length of posting: 300-500 words (include word count at bottom of post).
Deadline of posting: Thursday at 11:55 pm in the students’ own time zone.
Responses to Peers’ Postings
As part of your responsibility to the community of learners and learning community you are required to
interact and react to your colleague’s postings at least twice as part of the community conversation and this
should be done by Sunday at 11:55 p.m. These postings should extend the conversation, raising further
questions and/or providing insight and feedback.
While an occasional compliment to or expression of agreement with a fellow-student is certainly allowed,
please bear in mind that these postings should extend the conversation, raising further questions and/or
providing additional insight and feedback. The instructor will typically provide additional guidelines for these
follow-up postings in the course site lessons.
Length of the follow-up postings: 200-350 words each (include word count at bottom of post).
Deadline for follow-up postings: Sunday at 11:55 p.m. in the students’ own time zone.
Your posts will be graded using the following:

Grading Criteria for Discussion Forums
20
Review the grading criteria for discussion posts. Generally, keep quotations to a minimum. Emphasize using
your own words. Cite sources for comments and quotations. Please check the Course Calendar for specific due
dates.
21
WEEK 05
[Information on Penn State Case - Review for Discussion This Week]
This week is focused on how ethical principles/concepts can be helpful to us in reflective analysis of ethical
situations and decision making. There are many ethical models, frameworks that outline a number of steps
that can be applied in sorting out ethical issues. These structures can be very helpful in thinking through the
dimensions or layers of complexity in ethical situations. In preparation of this week’s discussion, review the
report on the Penn State case uploaded to the week 05 lesson tab and found at the end of Week 5 below.
Initial Post
Provide an ethical analysis of the Penn State, applying Kidder’s ethical checkpoints (as described in Johnson’s
chapter). Pay attention to the various components of ethical behavior (moral sensitivity, moral judgment,
moral motivation and moral character).
Length of posting: 300-500 words (include word count at bottom of post).
Deadline of posting: Thursday at 11:55 pm in the students’ own time zone.
Responses to Peers’ Postings
As part of your responsibility to the community of learners and learning community you are required to
interact and react to your colleague’s postings at least twice as part of the community conversation and this
should be done by Sunday at 11:55 p.m.. These postings should extend the conversation, raising further
questions and/or providing insight and feedback.
As part of your responsibility to the community of learners and learning community you are required to
interact with and react to your colleagues’ postings at least twice as part of the community conversation.
While an occasional compliment to or expression of agreement with a fellow-student is certainly allowed,
please bear in mind that these postings should extend the conversation, raising further questions and/or
providing additional insight and feedback. The instructor will typically provide additional guidelines for these
follow-up postings in the course site lessons.
Length of the follow-up postings: 200-350 words each.
Deadline for follow-up postings: Sunday at 11:55 p.m. in the students’ own time zone.
Your posts will be graded using the following:

Grading Criteria for Discussion Forums
22
Review the grading criteria for discussion posts. Generally, keep quotations to a minimum. Emphasize using
your own words. Cite sources for comments and quotations. Please check the Course Calendar for specific due
dates.
Penn State Case of Child Sexual Abuse
I suspect we are all dismayed and disgusted by the horrible events that have and continue (even to this day) to
unfold at Penn State. The actions and inactions of many at Penn State portray a shocking absence of moral
leadership and represent the very dark side of loyalty. Here are just a few thoughts for your consideration:
1) In the April, 2011, edition of the Harvard Business Review, Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel
have an article on behavioral ethics titled, “Ethical Breakdowns.” Among the barriers to ethical
organizations that they describe are “motivated blindness” and “indirect blindness.” Motivated
blindness allows us “to overlook unethical behavior when it’s in our best interest to remain ignorant”
(p. 60)… think of everyone at Penn State who knew or suspected what was going on. It is becoming
clear there were many … from janitors to the president … who had observed or been told about the
abuse of children but chose to remain silent. Indirect blindness motivates us “to hold others less
accountable for unethical behavior when it’s passed off to third parties” … think Paterno who told the
athletic director that “something” had happened and then did nothing else and all the others who
passed it up the line but then did nothing else. Bazerman and Tenbrunsel have a new book titled Blind
Spots if you would like to read more about behavioral ethics and their research.
2) Linda Klebe Trevino and Michael E. Brown in an Academy of Management Executive (2004) article
titled “Managing to be Ethical: Debunking Five Business Ethics Myths” remind us there are many myths
about ethics in for-profit and non-profit settings. One that comes up frequently is that unethical
behavior is simply the result of “bad apples” (Trevino & Brown, 2004, p. 78). The implication here …
stated or unstated … is that our culture is fine, we just need to get rid of the bad actors (Trevino &
Brown, 2004, p. 78). The vice chairman of the Penn State board of trustees said that Penn State’s
ethical culture is strong and will be stronger in the future as a result of the departure of the president
and the head football coach. Certainly there are people who need to be terminated for their behavior.
But, that will not solve the problem going forward … culture matters! You will remember that research
tells us that 80% of people “look up and look around” when they are faced with an ethical dilemma.
They often do not look inside themselves but rather, look to others for guidance when thinking about
what is right. We now know that the Penn State culture supported the appalling behavior we are now
reading about … and it will not be made healthy by just getting rid of a few bad apples.
3) Another myth is that “ethical leadership is about leader integrity” (Trevino & Brown, 2004, p. 75).
Personal integrity, while important and admirable, is simply not enough for moral leadership. Craig
Johnson in his book Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership when quoting from Brown & Trevino,
2006, reminds us that, “the practice of ethical leadership is a two-part process involving personal moral
behavior and moral influence” (p. xxi). I do not personally know the now former Penn State president
or the late Joe Paterno. I have heard them described as good men … and for all I know that is true.
But, their leadership roles required more than simply personal integrity; it required moral behavior for
themselves and moral influence over the Penn State community. Clearly, they did not feel themselves
responsible for influencing the moral behavior of others at Penn State and when faced with a defining
23
moment chose loyalty to the institution and its athletics culture over the health, welfare, and safety of
the children victims.
4) Another favorite description of moral leadership comes from Joanne B. Ciulla in her book Ethics: The
Heart of Leadership, “Leadership is not a person or a position. It is a complex moral relationship
between people, based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the good.
Ethics, then, lies at the very heart of leadership.” May it be so in the future at Penn State!
5) Again, to refresh the memory for those that may not have followed the case closely, read the wellreferenced summary on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal
Some basic facts are:
1998 – One child’s mother reported molestation to the Penn State Police. In sworn testimony, the
detective investigating, Ronald Shreffler, said that the Director of Campus Police, Thomas Harmon, told
the Centre County District Attorney, Ray Griear, to drop the case. The District Attorney chose not to
prosecute. Ray Griear has been missing since 2005 & could not testify at the Sandusky trial.
2000 - Janitor, James Calhoun, reportedly observed Jerry Sandusky giving oral sex to an unidentified
boy. Twelve years later, in 2012, Calhoun was in a nursing home suffering from dementia and lacked
competency to testify.
2001 - Graduate Assistant, Mike McQuery, entered the locker room and heard what he believed to be
sounds of sexual activity. He looked in the shower and saw a naked boy (estimated age of 10) with his
hands up against the wall being sexually abused by a naked Jerry Sandusky. He did intervene but
reported it the next day to Joe Paterno, who informed Athletic Director Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, a
senior VP of finance and business who was the administrator who oversaw the Penn State police
department.
Action taken: Curley and Schultz ordered Sandusky not to bring any children from Second Mile to the
football building. Second Mile is a non-profit organization for at-risk youth started by Sandusky. The
action was approved by the School President, Graham Spanier. It is important to note that Spanier,
Paterno, Curley, and Schultz ALL knew about the 1998 incident.
2002 - Despite the banning of Sandusky bringing children on the main campus, he was permitted to
bring summer camp children to a Penn State satellite campus. The boys where 4 th – 12th graders.
Abuse occurred from as early as 1994 and continued until 2009; for more than a decade.
24
WEEK 06
There is usually a strong connection between leadership and organizations as most leaders are part of
organizations. In fact, most of our work activities take place in organizations of many different shapes and
sizes. In this week we are starting to think about the “ethical temperature of an organization” or exploring the
organizational ethical climate. The discussion session is linked now to your assignment of this “social audit”
that you will do of an organizational of your choosing.
Initial Posting
Generate three questions that you plan to use to “take the ethical temperature” in the organization you plan
to audit. Post these three questions no later than Sunday at 11:55 p.m. of Week 05, but post them in the Week
06 discussion board. Your posting of these 3 questions will count as your week 06 initial posting.
Length of posting: at your discretion
Deadline of posting: The Sunday PRECEDING Week 06 at 11:55 p.m.
Responses to Peers’ Postings
Read the questions proposed by two of your fellow students and provide constructive feedback to each
student. For this week, there is no minimum or maximum word count for these follow-up postings. However,
it will not suffice to respond by merely writing “Great questions!” You must provide your fellow students with
constructive commentary that will enable them to improve their social audit. Please note the early deadline!
Length of the follow-up postings: None
Deadline for follow-up postings: No later than 5 minutes before midnight, Wednesday (11: 55 p.m.) However,
try to post your responses earlier since many students may want to commence their interviews early in week
06.
Your posts will be graded using the following:

Grading Criteria for Discussion Forums
Review the grading criteria for discussion posts. Generally, keep quotations to a minimum. Emphasize using
your own words. Cite sources for comments and quotations. Please check the Course Calendar for specific due
dates.
25
WEEK 07
Initial Posting
Diversity is a benefit to most organizations but also tends to evoke ethical challenges.
1. Describe one ethical challenge evoked by the diversity of your organization’s work force. You can
select either the organization you are currently employed by, or the organization you are auditing.
2. Next, outline how the leadership of this institution responds to this challenge.
3. Finally, provide an ethical evaluation of this response, referencing this week’s readings.
Length of posting: 300-500 words (include word count at bottom of post).
Deadline of posting: Thursday at 11:55 pm in the students’ own time zone.
Responses to Peers’ Postings
As part of your responsibility to the community of learners and learning community you are required to
interact and react to your colleague’s postings at least twice as part of the community conversation and this
should be done by Sunday at 11:55 p.m. These postings should extend the conversation, raising further
questions and/or providing insight and feedback.
While an occasional compliment to or expression of agreement with a fellow-student is certainly allowed,
please bear in mind that these postings should extend the conversation, raising further questions and/or
providing additional insight and feedback. The instructor will typically provide additional guidelines for these
follow-up postings in the course site lessons.
Length of the follow-up postings: 200-350 words each (include word count at bottom of post).
Deadline for follow-up postings: Sunday at 11:55 p.m. in the students’ own time zone.
Your posts will be graded using the following:

Grading Criteria for Discussion Forums
Review the grading criteria for discussion posts. Generally, keep quotations to a minimum. Emphasize using
your own words. Cite sources for comments and quotations. Please check the Course Calendar for specific due
dates.
26
WEEK 08
No discussion posting this week. Read the assigned readings, complete The Greater Good: Final Assessment
paper.
Complete course evaluation.
27
APA Format for Citations, References, and Papers
The EdD program in Interdisciplinary Leadership uses the APA (American Psychological Association) format for
citations, references, and papers. Students are required to purchase or have access to a copy of this
publication manual and it is recommended that the student purchase or have access to the APA Style Guide to
Electronic References. The complete reference for the manual and style guide is listed below:
American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association
(6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association (2012). APA Style Guide to Electronic References (6th ed.). Washington,
D.C.: Author.
Basic elements of this style are presented below; however, you should consult the Reinert Library for more
information (click here for link) and Purdue University (The Owl) also has many helpful APA guides (click here
for link). There are also useful resources on the EdD program home page. Finally—if you need assistance while
writing, seek the help of your instructor.
Citations and References. Citing and referencing works used in research is critical to strong scholarship.
Researchers cite for two primary reasons. First, to give credit to those who have advanced the state of
knowledge. Second, citations provide readers who desire to learn more the opportunity to engage with the
works that underlie new work. Researchers attribute the source of facts, ideas, quotes, or statistics that are
not commonly known—both within the body of papers and in a concluding list of references. For instance, it is
commonly known that Gerald Ford was President of the United States, that the first Gulf War was in 1991, and
that diamonds are very expensive. However, it is not common knowledge that Gerald Ford was born in
Nebraska, that there were 482 coalition casualties in the first Gulf War, and that diamonds are mined in
Canada.
Examples. The following are examples of APA format citations and references. The first is a journal article,
while the second uses an article from a website as an illustration.
Citing a journal article within your paper: (Author’s Last Name, Year of Publication)
Referencing a journal article in your list of references: Author’s Last Name, First Initial.
(Year of Publication). Title of article. Journal title in italics, Volume #, pages.
Citing a website within your paper: (Author’s Last Name, Year of Publication)
Referencing a website in your list of references: Author’s Last Name, First Initials. (Year
of Publication). Title of article. Retrieval date, full address of website.
Note that the first letter of the text of titles and journal names should be capitalized; the remainder of the
title or journal name should not be capitalized.
Formatting Papers. We also expect that you will format your papers according to APA style. These guidelines
suggest four major sections: A title page, an abstract, the main body of your work, and a list of references. APA
papers are also double spaced, use 1” margins, and utilize a 12 point normal black font such as Times Roman
for the body of your text. Finally, each page should include a page header or running head, with page numbers
28
at the top of each page, flushed right. Most versions of Word™ and other word processing programs provide
helpful guidance on setting up papers to meet these standards. Note that you use only one space after each
character. For direct quotes (which you should avoid as much as possible), you place the text inside quotation
marks and you must add the Authors, Year of publication, and Page numbers.
29