In light of the course materials in Theme 1 this week (especially the articles on Ethical Leadership and Ethical Leadership as creating an ethical culture) consider a recent report by the U.S. Army War College, which published their finding of routine dishonesty within the Army regarding required reports on certain mandatory – but physically impossible – requirements.

– In light of the course materials in Theme 1 this week (especially the articles on Ethical Leadership and Ethical Leadership as creating an ethical culture) consider a recent report by the U.S. Army War College, which published their finding of routine dishonesty within the Army regarding required reports on certain mandatory – but physically impossible – requirements.Here’s the link to the initial report by Leonard Wong and Stephen Gerras:  ”” (Feb. 2015) – which is fascinating.Here’s the link to a February 2015 article in Time Magazine by Mark Thompson – ”s” – which also addresses the issue and the report.What ethical conclusions can we draw about the nature of the ethical leadership that allowed this situation to develop, and what might we expect to happen if this situation is allowed to continue, unchanged and unaddressed? Who is ethically responsible for the false reports – those certifying the false reports, the mid-level officers who condone the false reports, or those who issued the impossible commands?What ought to be done, ethically? As always – explain your reasons. From Theme 2, what do you think:  Is business bluffing ’ethical’?  Or no? Consider at least one argument from each of the two articles on the matter, explain and critique it. What is your view (and why)?   

Posted in Uncategorized