ppi

Running Header: LEADERSHIP INTEGRITY 1 Leadership Integrity Institutional Affiliation Date

LEADERSHIP INTEGRITY 2 PPI could be described as having a recognizable philosophy of moral values since even though companies focus on their ability to increase their revenue while minimizing costs through questionable means, PPI is going an extra mile to ensure that the facility does not only comply with the law, they are also ensuring the safety of the employees is met thus creating a suitable working environment. The company has put in place some proper moral values that benefit revenue and those that work in the organization. The company's senior management has also fostered moral decisions and behavior when it comes to planning, communication, and implementing its operations. The policies show the organization's significant corporate values by monitoring and assessing the operations to ensure efficiency. This has helped PPI address organizational issues before they happen and increase employee safety, thus preventing accidents. It has made the organization active in upholding moral values across the entire facility and created an environment where employees can raise concerns. The ethical perspective that best describes PPI's approach to safety concerns is the virtue- based approach. The company's strategy insists on virtuous qualities instead of financial results. The company ensures the safety of its employees above anything else since it understands their value. Putting measures in place that continuously check on the company's equipment and operations to mitigate errors caused by accidents shows how it focuses on doing good even if these results in increased expenses. The virtue-based approach believes in reason and not goals lead to excellence, and this is depicted by the annual sales revenue they record. Employees have a sense of belonging since they feel that their safety is of the most concern to the organization; thus, they perform the different tasks given to them in the most professional way.

LEADERSHIP INTEGRITY 4 and the attorneys' conflict are due to their obligation on the use of care and competence. The obligation comprises a number of situations. Failure by the attorneys to use competence and care can result in them being sued by PPI for damages while making them vulnerable to disciplinary action. Competence and care require attorneys to act only when they are competent. I agree with my results since, according to the case study, and the PLIS scale in Figure 1.0 Tom Griffin has done a lot to ensure the employees are safe through regular restoration and renovation of the equipment and tools used while ensuring their working environment brings the best out of them. This is reflected by the organization's yearly revenue and the fact that its insurance provider has never paid any employee claims for many years. The company ensures it is up to standard in safety through regular inspections by the Occupational Safety and Health Authority to assess whether there are potential risks to safety, making the necessary improvements. The manager is empathetic, considers opposing views, and continuously communicates with employees. He shows confidence in employees' abilities, especially those he feels are productive. He does not favor people since everyone is treated equally at the company. He does not like shifting the blame on others since he believes in solving issues first before pointing fingers at those responsible. Every morning, he takes a routine walk across the departments to ensure things are running smoothly while also addressing any concerns he may encounter. When engaging in projects, Tom does not tear people up. If he feels one of the employees does not understand what is needed, he will be quick to ask those tasked with training to ensure the employee gets the relevant knowledge to continue working. Even though he encourages discipline across the organization, he only terminates contracts when an employee commits serious violations that may negatively impact the organization.

LEADERSHIP INTEGRITY 5 The PLIS scale has been significant in assessing Tom Griffin and the organization's moral and ethical issues. According to the scale, there is the perception that he is effective and ethical in how he runs PPI. The organization seems to encourage employee empowerment, and there is an adequate response from the executive on issues raised. The scale shows that PPI is currently not in need of any ethical intervention since its executive has been at the forefront of upholding the moral values and philosophies that make the company more robust than most of its competitors. These philosophies allow Tom Griffin to continue with the safety checks despite the company attorney being against this. The Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS) leadership questionnaire is essential since it promotes and allows one to identify if a business leader has integrity and is ethical in their leadership methods. This can be used to indicate the effect of business leaders and their leadership styles on organizations, especially the workforce. Studies have shown that having a business leader of high integrity promotes integrity in the whole organization, thus indicating leadership's significance on other employees. The questionnaire can help executive leaders identify their strengths and weaknesses in terms of integrity to make necessary improvements that would improve these strengths while working on the weaknesses. The PLIS scale can also be used to assess the level of integrity around the organization since it ensures employees are aware that any behavior that does not promote integrity will not be tolerated (Vance, 2006). This makes employees and clients perceive the organization as being of high integrity. The scale can also act as a link between ethical leadership and ethical climate. This is achieved through the role played by the leader as the main facilitator promoting this link. The scale helps relay the leader's impact of ethical leadership on employees' assumption of the

LEADERSHIP INTEGRITY 7 Reference Glendon, A. I., & Litherland, D. K. (2001). Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behavior in road construction.   Safety science,   39(3), 157-188. Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee engagement and commitment.   SHRM foundation, 1-53.

LEADERSHIP INTEGRITY 8 Put his or her personal interests ahead of the organization. 1 2 3 4 Would risk other people to protect himself or herself in work matters. 1 2 3 4 Deliberately fuels conflict between other people 1 2 3 4 Enjoys turning down requests 1 2 3 4 Would blackmail an employee if she or he though she or he could get away with it 1 2 3 4 Would deliberately exaggerate people's mistakes to make them look bad to others 1 2 3 4 Would treat some people better if they were of the other sex or belonged to a different group 1 2 3 4 Ridicules people for their mistake 1 2 3 4 Can be trusted with confidential information 1 2 3 4 Would lie to me 1 2 3 4 Is evil 1 2 3 4 Is not interested in tasks that do not bring personal glory or recognition 1 2 3 4 Would do things that violate organizational policy and expect others to cover for him or her 1 2 3 4 Would allow someone else to be blamed for his or her mistake 1 2 3 4 Would deliberately avoid responding to email, telephone, or other messages to cause problems for someone else 1 2 3 4 Would make trouble for someone who got on his or her bad side 1 2 3 4 Would engage in sabotage against the organization 1 2 3 4 Would deliberately distort what other people say 1 2 3 4