Chapters 13 - Due 41

.pdf

School

Henry Ford College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

130

Subject

Philosophy

Date

May 22, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

5

Uploaded by JusticeTitaniumWallaby25

Chapters 13 1. How would you describe the followership at Penn State? Whom would you identify as the followers? Who are the leaders? The followers are Penn State employees who were aware of Jerry Sandusky's charges but failed to take the proper action. This includes assistant coaches, staff members of the organization, and anybody else who was aware of the situation but chose not to report it or take appropriate action. 2. Using Kelley’s typology, how would you describe the follower styles for Schultz and Curley? What about McQueary? Kelley’s Typology for Schultz, Curley, and McQueary: Schultz and Curley: Passive Followers: Schultz and Curley were aware of the charges brought against Sandusky, but they took no further action to address or reveal them. They did not question or protest the decisions being made; instead, they bowed to the leadership. Alienated Followers: McQueary saw the improper behavior firsthand but refrained from acting quickly and decisively. Although he informed his superiors about it, he did not see to it that the proper action was being taken to resolve the issue. 3. How did followers in this case act in ways that contribute to the power of destructive leaders and their goals? What was the debilitating impact their actions had on the organization? Actions Contributing to Destructive Leadership: The followers in this case: disregarded credible allegations, allowing Sandusky's conduct to remain unchallenged. prioritized the football program's reputation over the safety and well-being of the victims. Effects: Sandusky's assault was allowed to continue unchecked in a toxic environment by doing nothing and hiding it. It had major legal, financial, and reputational ramifications and hurt Penn State's and its football program's reputation.
4. Based on Lipman- Blumen’s psychological factors that contribute to harmful leadership (Table 13.3), explain why those who could have reported Sandusky’s behaviors chose not to. Psychological Factors Contributing to Inaction: Based on Lipman- Blumen’s psychological factors: Fear of Retaliation: People may have been afraid of retaliation or negative effects for coming out with information about a well-known person like Sandusky. Groupthink: The suppression of opposing views or behaviors may have resulted from a shared desire to preserve the harmony and cohesiveness of the group. Denial: To avoid having to face unpleasant realities, some people may have explained away or downplayed the seriousness of Sandusky's acts. 5. Based on the outcome, where did Paterno’s intentions go wrong? In what ways could followers have changed the moral climate at Penn State? Paterno’s Intentions and Followers' Potential Influence: Paterno’s Intentions: It's possible that Paterno wanted to preserve the university's standing and the football program. However, he neglected to put the victims' safety and wellbeing first by not acting decisively against Sandusky. Impact of Adherents: By opposing the decisions made by the leadership, standing up for the victims, and making sure that Sandusky was held accountable, followers could have altered the moral atmosphere. 6. In the end, who carries the burden of responsibility regarding the failure of Paterno’s program— the leaders or the followers? Defend your answer. Responsibility for the Failure of Paterno’s Program: The burden of responsibility can be attributed to both the leaders and the followers:
Leaders: Paterno, Curley, and Schultz were among the influential and leading individuals. Their failure to act promptly and suitably had a significant impact on how long Sandusky's behavior went unchecked. Followers: A portion of the fault for the failure also rests with those who chose to take no action or report the issue while being aware of it. Their silence allowed the bad behavior to continue and added to Penn State's overall toxic culture. In conclusion, both followers and leaders share some of the blame for Paterno's program's failure. Leaders failed in their duty to protect and preserve the institution's values, while followers failed in their duty to challenge and keep the leadership accountable for their actions. Chapters 15 Questions 1. The chapter states that “a leader’s choices are also influenced by their moral development.” Applying Kohlberg’s stages of moral development to this case: a. At what stage would you classify Captain Crozier’s level of moral reasoning? Why? Reason: According to Kohlberg's theory of moral growth, Captain Crozier's actions show that he cares about the rights and well-being of his crew. This is consistent with Stage 5 (Social Contract and Individual Rights) or Stage 6 (Universal Ethical Principles). He put his crew's safety and wellbeing ahead of operational considerations and formalities. b. At what stage would you classify Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly’s level of moral reasoning? Why? Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly: Reason: Modly's decision to discharge Captain Crozier without conducting a formal investigation point to a preference for self-interest (Stage 2) or deference to authority (Stage 1) above considering the wellbeing of the sailors and more general ethical considerations.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help