L102_Ethical Dimensions of Organizational Leadership

US ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLLEGE Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) US Army Command and General Staff School Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSOC) Common Core L102: Ethical Dimensions of Organizational Leadership Advance Sheet for L102 Ethical Dimensions of Organizational Leadership 1. SCOPE This lesson provides an opportunity for you to develop tools and skills designed to help cultivate your ability to utilize ethical reasoning as an organizational leader. Ethical reasoning is crucial to making sound ethical decisions and establishing trust within an organization. Ethical leaders clearly identify problems, think through moral implications, and make decisions using ethical guidelines and tools. To refine your ethical reasoning, this lesson examines three major ethical reasoning approaches—virtue based, principle based, and consequence based—alongside the just war tradition. You then apply these approaches to a case study wrought with ethical dilemmas or by participating in the ethics game. In L102, you examine the three major ethical approaches identified above using the ethical triangle as a conceptual framework. You also examine the major tenets of the just war tradition: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Through rigorous examination, you learn that the basis for ethical decision making lies in your ability to balance the various ethical approaches and principles, recognize how each of them might influence decisions for organizational leaders, and apply an approach that aligns with personal and organizational values. The goal in examining these approaches is to challenge leaders to think critically about the ethical decisions they make for the organization. It is not enough for an organizational leader to simply make intuitive decisions based on his or her own ethical approach. Often leaders tend to default to intuitive decision making because it is a fast, experience-based approach to solving problems. From an ethical approach, this can be disastrous. Often leaders tend to operate within a single corner of the ethical triangle, meaning their analysis of ethical dilemmas is shallow and incomplete. Even when leaders do get it right, they struggle with explaining “gut decisions.” Using the ethical triangle allows a leader to make reasoned and balanced ethical decisions they can articulate and explain to others. As a result of this lesson, you have a better understanding of ethical reasoning using the three major ethical approaches, just war tradition, and how each influences decision-making. This allows you to explain ethical decisions to others and help develop good ethical reasoning in subordinates. This lesson provides a foundational understanding of the different ethical approaches to apply to subsequent lessons in the academic year. 2. LEARNING OBJECTIVES This lesson supports TLO-CC-1 , “Analyze organizational level leadership concepts used to lead in developing organizations” as listed on the block advance sheet. ELO-CC-1.2 Action: Apply the principles of ethical reasoning as a steward of the profession of arms. Condition: Using principles and standards of critical thinking, references, practical exercises, personal experience, and computer-based instruction (CBIs). Standard: Application includes- L102 Advance Sheet June 2021 (AY 21-22)

1. Ethical considerations of an organizational leader 2. Ethical considerations of JIIM operations 3. Ethical considerations of resource management 4. Ethical considerations of ground combat 5. Historical examples of ethical reasoning Learning Domain: Cognitive Level of Learning: Application This lesson supports achievement of the following CGSOC Program Learning Outcomes, (PLOs) in support of CJCSI 1800.01F Dated 15 May 2020. CGSOC Program Learning Outcome 2 (The Profession of Arms) : Graduates who are able to comport themselves as professionals, responsive to the country and the public as servant-leaders. CGSOC graduates model and enforce the ethics, norms, and laws of the profession of arms, applying their knowledge and commitment to strengthen warfighting and related capabilities that advance US security aims. They apply effective interpersonal skills, leadership and followership in the joint environment. They demonstrate a high degree of commitment to further development of their own expertise in the art and science of war, going beyond the study of their own Service’s competencies. CGSOC PLO #2 Attributes: a. Apply ethics, norms, and laws of the profession. b. Apply knowledge and commitment to strengthen warfighting. c. Apply interpersonal skills, leadership, and followership. d. Meet organizational-level challenges. e. Demonstrate commitment to develop further expertise in the art and science of war as life-long learners. f. Demonstrate commitment to study beyond their own service’s competencies. 3. HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT a. First requirement: Read the following before viewing the computer-based instruction (CBI): Read: L102RA: An Overview of Ethical Philosophy and Just War Tradition (8 pages). L102RB: “Ethical Decision Making: Using the ‘Ethical Triangle’” Kem, Jack. Presented at the 2016 CGSC Ethics Symposium, Fort Leavenworth, KS, April 21, 2016 (14 pages). L102RC: “Could Admiral Gensoul Have Averted the Tragedy of Mers el-Kébir?” Lasterle, Philippe. The Journal of Military History , Vol 67, no 3 (July 2004): 835-844 (11 pages). For additional readings on this lesson topic, consider : Allhoff, Evans and Henschke, Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War , New York: Routledge Publishing, 2013. Lucas, George, Routledge Handbook of Military Ethics , New York: Routledge Publishing, 2015. McManus, Robert M. et al, Ethical Leadership: A Primer , Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018. Northouse, Peter Guy. Leadership: Theory and Practice . Eighth ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2018. (see “Leadership Ethics” in this book) Orend, Brian, The Morality of War , Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press, 2006. Orend, Brian, War and Political Theory , Medford, MA: Polity Press, 2019. Pojman, Louis P. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong . 7 th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing, 2012. L102 Advance Sheet 2 June 2021 (AY 21-22)

Welcome to the Ethical Dimensions of Organizational Leadership lesson. Successful organizational leaders consider multiple ethical approaches to make informed, reasoned, and ethical decisions. Ethical reasoning is crucial to making sound ethical decisions and establishing trust within an organization. Most decisions have ethical components. Ethical leaders are able to clearly identify the problem, think through the moral implications, and make ethically sound decisions. To refine your ethical reasoning, you will examine three ethical approaches; virtue, principle, and consequentialism, and apply the concepts to an ethical dilemma. Learning how to balance these approaches will help you make effective, ethically sound decisions. The goal in examining these approaches is to challenge you to think critically about the ethical decisions you will make for the organization. It is not enough for an organizational leader to simply make intuitive decisions based on his or her own ethical approach. Often leaders tend to default to intuitive decision making because it is a fast, experience-based approach to solving problems. From an ethical approach, this can be disastrous. Using the ethical triangle allows a leader to make reasoned and balanced ethical decisions they can articulate and explain to others. L102 Advance Sheet 4 June 2021 (AY 21-22)

“Wrong Ball” Trick Play This may sum up what you viewed.  Great play  Cheaters  Ingenuity  Lack of integrity  What are we teaching these kids? People see things differently and make decisions based on virtues, principles, and/or consequential ethics. Reflection Questions  Where did you see virtue in the football game?  Principles? Who represents the rules on the field (referees)? What were they doing?  How about consequential ethics? What’s the goal of football? Short term—to win games. Long term—knowing that this is a middle school football team invokes the idea of teaching character to young people. It is not just about winning games; it is about teaching character.  What is the impact of the play on trust? What will happen in the game the next time there is an injury or someone attempts to interrupt a play? What can you learn from this? Why is it important?  There is more than one ethical point of view, each point of view being equally valid from a particular perspective using the different approaches to ethics.  One person might see an action as unethical from their perspective, but another ethical from his/her own perspective. It is important to consider how a person came to a particular decision before just labeling it as unethical.  It is equally important to consider each of the approaches to ethics while making a decision, so that one understands how others might respond to a decision. Because people approach ethics differently, when making a decision that has ethical implications, it is important to communicate the thought process behind that decision. This does not guarantee agreement, however, it builds understanding and trust that this decision has not been made lightly or without considering other ethical options. For every situation there is more than one ethical point of view. One person may see an action as unethical while another person may view the same action as ethical. It is important to consider how a person came to a particular decision before just labeling it as unethical. According to the ethical triangle, people see things differently and make decisions based on all but which of the following ethical approaches? – Morals Ethical Dilemma? Recall from your reading, “Ethical Decision Making: Using the ‘The Ethical Triangle’” by Dr. Jack Kem that ethical dilemmas are choices between two rights. Ethical Dilemma Examples  Truth vs. Loyalty  Individual vs. Community, etc.  Short Term vs. Long Term L102 Advance Sheet 5 June 2021 (AY 21-22)

- Greatest good for the greatest number of people - “Decisions are judged by their consequences depending on the results to be maximized – security, happiness, pleasure, dignity, and the like.” – John Stuart Mill, on utilitarianism Consequential Ethics Consequentialism can prove a sticking point, especially if the greatest good for the greatest amount of people requires violating virtue or a universal moral law. Virtue Ethics What are the tenets of virtue ethics?  Virtues are traits of moral excellence demonstrated as habits that are good for anyone to learn and use.  People who are motivated by virtue make decisions based upon the ideals of character or morality.  Right action is the expression of virtuous character. Aristotle was among its first and most profound Greek champions, while Confucius had an enormous influence upon ethical thinking in the Far East. Virtue-based ethics should be easy to understand because it appeals to our innate sense of what is right and wrong. Likewise, the virtuous person knows when a bad decision has been made because he/she senses guilt or the compromise of character. Persons who exercise this approach hold deep convictions about how we make the world a better place; we do so by raising children of character to become adults who instinctively do the right thing. Virtues Categorized  Cardinal virtues (Plato): Wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice  Theological virtues (St. Paul): Faith, hope, and charity  Moral virtues: Honesty, benevolence, non-malevolence, fairness, kindness, conscientiousness, and gratitude  Non-moral virtues: Courage, optimism, rationality, self-control, patience, endurance, industry, musical talent, cleanliness, and wit  Army Values (better said: virtues the Army values): Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage Values, Vices, and Virtues The Relationship  Values: Things we consider important. They might not have a moral qualification.  Vices: An evil, degrading, or immoral practice or habit.  Virtue: A trait of character, manifested in habitual action, that is good for anyone to have.  Golden mean: The desirable middle (the virtue) between the two extremes of excess and deficiency. Virtues (and vices) are actions we do based on the emotions, character, and moral habits we aspire to as an ideal person. We form our true virtues into habits by discovering and imitating the proper moral examples of others—study and practice. Aristotle said that the moral virtues must be lived to be learned. They are trained behavioral dispositions that result in habitual acts of goodness. Virtues are not about simply finding the “right list” of good behaviors (intrinsic goods that lead to moral goodness). It is about aspiring to improve oneself as a person (intrinsic motivation). This L102 Advance Sheet 7 June 2021 (AY 21-22)

requires self-reflection and feedback . The specific list is not as important as having a list that ties to perceived shortfalls in one’s moral character and critical actions one must do to maintain one’s moral integrity . Principle Ethics What are the tenets of principle ethics? Principles are rule-based ethics that guide our thinking. Advocates of this approach see it as their duty to follow moral rules that one can accept as universal laws. Right consists of fulfilling our obligations. This approach, technically known as deontological ethics, was most famously represented in the West by Immanuel Kant, through his categorical imperative: “Act as if the maxim of your action was to become through your will a universal law of nature.” Good is defined in this context by universally recognized principles of conduct. That is, good is defined outside of the person’s particular virtues, by the generally-accepted obligations which come with being part of society. In this school of thought, we identify those things which we must do, and we make sure we do them wholeheartedly. This is the duty in the West Point motto: Duty, Honor, Country . The world will become a better place when everyone understands their obligations, expressed through rules and laws, and follows through with them. What are the tenets of consequential ethics? Using this perspective, leaders judge actions as right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences. The goal is to produce the most happiness as possible. The results desired drive the actions. This approach, represented by John Stuart Mill and others, appears to be the easiest to understand, especially in results-oriented organizations like the military or business world. When victory on the battlefield or dominance of a market or shareholder profit is considered fixed or absolute good, it simplifies how we think about particular decisions. This view is often expressed as the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. The focus is on the results or consequences of an action for all concerned. Those who hold to this approach often say, “Ultimately, it is the results which we must all live with.” This is an important view for us to consider because it forces us to ask what the first-, second-, and third-order effects of a decision might be. One of the challenges in considering the greatest good for the greatest number is the difficulty in approaching this unbiased. Most people or groups of people are biased towards their own group. The decision often becomes the greatest good for my group of people, not the greatest number of people. Ethical Approaches – Considerations L102 Advance Sheet 8 June 2021 (AY 21-22)

The understanding of differing ethical approaches also assists organizational leaders in establishing trust by developing a shared understanding of a particular situation. Communicating the complexity of the situation and its ethical components further contributes to the development of trust within the organization. One of the critical aspects of developing ethical decision makers is by modeling the behaviors and establishing and aligning the systems in the organization that reward ethical behavior and punish unethical behavior. The basic principles are: model the behaviors, train to the standards, educate for the complex ethical dilemmas of the operational environment, and hold peers, subordinates, and superiors to the highest of ethical standards. The crux of the issue is that there will be different viewpoints of what those standards are. Who determines the standards? Feedback  Principle Ethics: Principles are rule-based ethics that guide our thinking.  Consequential Ethics: Leaders judge actions as right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences.  Virtue Ethics: People who are motivated by virtue make decisions based upon the ideals of character or morality. L102 Advance Sheet 10 June 2021 (AY 21-22)

Case Study: Aviano Redux Col Hank Tuuth (CDR, 31st FW and CDR 7490 Wing (provisional)):  Resolve two pressing issues, the Spanish facility swap and Dokes’ questionable negotiation practices.  Follow the guidance and maintain the trust of his two bosses, ADM Smith and Lt Gen Ryan.  Believes the facility swap is unfair to the Spanish; requires breaking a NATO agreement.  Maintain momentum in Aviano 2000 negotiations.  Avoid professional embarrassment by mishandling the situations.  Establish a personal relationship with host-nation officials independent of Dokes. Lt Gen Ryan (16AF CDR, NATO Air South CDR and NATO Air South CDR):  Avoid confrontation with ADM Smith over the Spanish swap; let Tuuth solve it.  Wants second Spanish F/A-18 squadron to reduce US flying load. Admiral Leighton Smith (NATO CDR of IFOR and CDR, Allied Forces South):  Get better facilities for the EA-6B squadron to improve their quality of life (QOL).  Fears a drop in morale in Navy forces, which could affect the mission in Bosnia.  Get Tuuth to understand he is the “big dog.” Col Moody Blewes (Vice Wing CDR):  Concerned Spanish swap will destroy relationship with Italians.  Understands that they must address Adm Smith’s concerns. L102 Advance Sheet 11 June 2021 (AY 21-22)

 Siding with Adm Smith will hurt the Bosnia mission in the near term (loss of additional Spanish aircraft) and Aviano 2000 in the end (loss of trust with the Italians).  The Navy facilities at Aviano are on par with the Air Force facilities.  Smith and Ryan probably do not know about the Italian “gift-giving” practices.  The “gift-giving” practices violate AF regulations on property accountability. Adm Smith Facts: Directed the Spanish facility swap. Assumptions:  Tuuth does not care about the welfare of the Navy forces.  The EA-6Bs are much more important than the Spanish F/A-18s from a mission perspective.  Poor QOL in the EA-6B squadron could break unit morale.  If the EA-6B mission fails, the Bosnia air campaign could be at risk. Lt Gen Ryan Facts:  Negotiating for another Spanish F/A-18 squadron.  Expects Tuuth to resolve the Navy facility issue with Smith. Assumptions:  Smith is venting; he will not force the facility swap.  Will have to step in if Tuuth cannot fix the situation. Col Blewes Facts:  Believes facility swap will be disastrous.  Knows about the “gift-giving” practices. Assumptions:  If the facility swap occurs, it will jeopardize Aviano 2000.  “Gift-giving” practices are acceptable behavior in a foreign country. Col Dokes Facts:  Has adopted gift giving as a standard practice for strengthening personal relationships in negotiations.  All supplies used for gifting are excess.  Has established a positive relationship with Brig Gen Gadori and other Italian officials. Assumptions:  “Gifting-giving” practices are acceptable behavior in a foreign country; his last boss, Col Wald, supported the practice.  Gift giving is a necessary practice to build personal relationships and achieve negotiation objectives at Aviano.  Col Tuuth will support his negotiation techniques like his previous boss, Col Wald. L102 Advance Sheet 13 June 2021 (AY 21-22)

 Col Tuuth has created a false dichotomy with his first assumption, which pits the guidance of Smith against the guidance of Ryan. Instead of choosing sides, Tuuth must focus on achieving the interests of his bosses.  For Smith, the primary interest is improving the QOL for the EA-6B squadron. If Tuuth can do this, Smith likely backs down from the facility swap. Getting Smith to change his position requires Tuuth to convince him that he really does care about the welfare of the Navy forces. Smith’s belief that Tuuth does not care about the Navy is the critical assumption Tuuth must overturn.  The third critical assumption is the one shared by Blewes and Dokes that the negotiation practice of “gift giving” is an acceptable behavior. Tuuth does not understand the logic behind this reasoning and will need to analyze the thinking of Blewes and Dokes using the ethical triangle. By identifying interests, we determine the points of view others maintain. By identifying assumptions, we uncover factors that influence decision making in others. Based upon previous framing, three assumptions stand out. Three Assumptions  Col Tuuth has created a false dichotomy with his first assumption, which pits the guidance of Smith against the guidance of Ryan. Instead of choosing sides, Tuuth must focus on achieving the interests of his bosses.  For Smith, the primary interest is improving the QOL for the EA-6B squadron. If Tuuth can do this, Smith likely backs down from the facility swap. Getting Smith to change his position requires Tuuth to convince him that he really does care about the welfare of the Navy forces. Smith’s belief that Tuuth does not care about the Navy is the critical assumption Tuuth must overturn.  The third critical assumption is the one shared by Blewes and Dokes that the negotiation practice of “gift giving” is an acceptable behavior. Tuuth does not understand the logic behind this reasoning and will need to analyze the thinking of Blewes and Dokes using the ethical triangle. Paradigms Recall that paradigms are generally accepted models or patterns that have had repeated validation (“conventional wisdom”). They may be rooted in doctrine or tradition and are often reinforced by ideology and dogmatic belief systems. Many paradigms are rooted in cultural background and are not visible to the owner of them. The pitfall of paradigms is that they can lead to the “terminal disease of certainty.” Consider This  What paradigms are US forces operating with at Aviano?  What are the paradigms of the host-nation officials? L102 Advance Sheet 14 June 2021 (AY 21-22)

 Issue #2: Colonel Dokes’ gift-giving practices Use the ethical triangle and the three major philosophical approaches to justify your response. While there is no “school solution,” you will be walked through one approach based on the two issues identified by Col Tuuth using the three philosophical theories. Issue #1: Spanish Facility Swap The Ethical Dilemma Swapping facilities would improve Navy QOL, increase unit morale, and maintain the EA-6B squadron’s superb performance in Bosnia. These are excellent outcomes from a consequentialism approach. On the other hand, this would also cause resentment on the part of the Spanish and possibly decrease Spanish morale and performance. Not conducting the swap upholds the NATO agreement with Spain and supports both a virtue and principles approach. Additionally, allowing Spain to retain the existing facilities could result in increased Spanish air support to the Bosnia mission, which supports a consequentialism approach. Virtues are traits of moral excellence demonstrated as habits that are good for anyone to learn and use. Unilaterally removing the Spanish appears to be a violation of existing agreements and is not an action a virtuous person would undertake without strong justification. It demonstrates a lack of loyalty and fairness. Adm Smith’s concern for the EA-6B squadron members’ quality of life at Aviano is commendable, though their facilities, as assessed by Col Tuuth, are on par with the permanent party facilities of his 510th Fighter Squadron. A virtuous person would have serious concerns with the swap. Principles are rule-based ethics that guide our thinking. Advocates of this approach see it as their duty to follow moral rules one can accept as universal laws. One can easily interpret the NATO agreement with the Spanish government to use the modular facilities at Aviano Air Base as a rule-based promise. A leader that embraces a principle-based approach would have a hard time breaking the existing promise and moving the Spanish out of the facility. On the other hand, following orders is another aspect of a rules-based approach to ethics. Using this approach, consequential, leaders judge actions as right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences. The goal is to produce the most happiness as possible. Their substandard facilities could have a detrimental impact on the squadron’s performance and affect the outcome of the air campaign. Specifically, by not executing the electronic warfare (EW) mission of suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) to its full capability, NATO could fail in Bosnia. Adm Smith is using a consequentialism approach that argues that the goodness of this action to NATO outweighs the potential dissatisfaction to the Spanish government. In fact, the facilities are on par with the billets used by AF permanent party units. From a consequentialism approach according to Lt Gen Ryan , the real risk NATO faces if this swap occurs is an angry Spanish government that could withdraw their F/A-18 squadron as well as deny the use of additional Spanish aviation units. L102 Advance Sheet 16 June 2021 (AY 21-22)

Overall Assessment Adm Smith has not made a strong argument to support swapping facilities. Ethically, he is not supported by either a virtue or principle-based approach. His consequentialism argument uses an assumption that establishes a questionable cause-and-effect relationship. Poor QOL = poor morale = poor mission performance = failed Bosnia air mission. From a critical thinking approach, this is a weak argument. Tuuth Recommendation Col Tuuth can make a rational argument to Adm Smith, highlighting the weaknesses as outlined above with his plan for swapping facilities with the Spanish. Chances are, however, Col Tuuth will need more than an ethics and logic argument to get Adm Smith to change his mind. He must appeal to his interests, which in this case is a desire to improve the QOL for the EA-6B squadron. To demonstrate that he cares about the welfare of the Navy squadron, Col Tuuth should consider incentives (i.e., factors that drive extrinsic motivation) which could appeal to the unit, such as increased rations, R&R trips, USO visits, a squadron bar, and other upgrades to the existing facilities. Does one ethical approach supplant or carry more weight than the others, or do we have a bias towards one approach? In the military, we tend to default to a consequentialism-based approach (i.e., get results), even though the Army advocates a virtue-based approach in military doctrine. How do you balance competing guidance from two different bosses? We often get into trouble when we view competing approaches as an “either/or” dichotomy. Instead of creating a false dilemma, leaders should focus on identifying the party’s shared interests. Doing so enables leaders to develop additional COAs and increase problem-solving options. How do you convince your boss that ethical approaches are an important component of problem solving? It is easy to say ethics are part of everything we do, but applying the theories to everyday decision making is difficult. Subordinates must first educate their bosses on the theories. They have to see the value of using the ethical triangle as a tool for exploring ethical approaches and increasing decision-making options. Once they buy in, leaders must then act as role models, teachers, and coaches to get others on board. You will learn more about this influencing process in the culture and climate lesson, when we discuss the use of influencing tools called primary embedding mechanisms . Issue #2: Col Dokes’ Gift-Giving Practices The Ethical Dilemma Colonel Dokes’ gift-giving practices are ethically sound from a consequentialism approach, given the ongoing success of the Aviano 2000 negotiations. Conversely, Dokes’ decision to ignore fundamental principles of accountability violates the trust conferred upon him by his superiors, and does not stand up to ethical scrutiny from a principle-based approach. When viewed from a virtue-based approach, Colonel Dokes’ actions are debatable. He clearly feels his actions demonstrate virtuous behavior, but outsiders could question his motives. L102 Advance Sheet 17 June 2021 (AY 21-22)

What do you tell Lt Gen Ryan? What if he already knows and tacitly approves of Dokes’ gift- giving practices? Potentially, you tell him as little as possible if you can fix the problem at your level with a legal workaround and performance counseling. If you determine Colonel Dokes’ actions are more serious in nature than you initially suspected, with deliberate acts to deceive superiors and hide illegal activities, then you need to inform Lt Gen Ryan as soon as practical once you assess the situation. Given the nature of Colonel Dokes’ actions, is it reasonable to assume Lt Gen Ryan does not know specific details about Dokes’ gift giving? If he does, you must be prepared to explain your ethical reasoning to him and hope that he concurs with your recommendations and, if not, be prepared to go to the IG or CID. Who is the best judge of one’s virtue, the individual carrying out the action or an observer watching the action and assessing the individual? This question highlights the challenge with using the ethical triangle as a “scorecard” for determining what actions to take in solving ethical dilemmas. The virtues approach requires understanding the motives of others and then making a character assessment to determine one’s virtuousness. It is hard enough to decipher one’s own motives, let alone the motives of others. Each of the approaches has similar challenges as one attempts to determine the “universal rule” to apply to principle ethics or second- and third-order effects associated with consequentialism. The point is, balancing the ethical approaches is much more art than science, and leaders must use their judgment to draw reasoned conclusions. Who decides it is okay to ignore regulations? As you assess the actions of Colonel Dokes, you will find it easy to paint him as a villain for ignoring or circumventing regulations on property accountability. You should consider times you have been in similar situations, especially when deployed, and elected to overlook or bypass rules or regulations you felt were restrictive or unreasonable, or overlooked the actions of others who violated rules They probably considered their actions a form of disciplined initiative based on the principles of mission command. Make sure you ask what made their actions “disciplined initiative” and Colonel Dokes’ actions unethical. Ethical dilemmas are choices between two or more options derived from competing ethical approaches involving competing values. Most ethicists consider ethical dilemmas as “right versus right” choices. “Right versus right” means competing courses of action are ethically correct when analyzed from one of the three major ethical approaches. Note: Choices between right and wrong are more about moral courage than ethical dilemmas. L102 Advance Sheet 19 June 2021 (AY 21-22)