WGU C206 EHM2 Task 1 Example – Ethical Leadership Analysis

Reading Time: 13 minutes

Updated on: Aug 23, 2026

C206 EHM2 Task 1 Example – Ethical Leadership Analysis

This sample is provided for educational reference only. Do not submit this document as your own work. Need a custom Task 1 written for your ELI results? Message us on WhatsApp: +1 564-544-6924

A. Selection of a Nonfictional Leader with Exemplary Ethical Conduct

Leadership is an integral part in the attainment of proper organizational success and progress. A key leader selected for this analysis is Howard Schultz. Schultz is the former CEO of Starbucks (Schultz Family Foundation, 2026). Schultz demonstrated exemplary ethical conduct throughout his tenure by prioritizing employee well-being and social responsibility alongside profitability. His leadership transformed Starbucks into a model of stakeholder-oriented corporate ethics.

A1. Two Ethical Traits Demonstrated by Howard Schultz

The first ethical trait Schultz demonstrated is integrity. Integrity entails acting in accordance with declared principles even when doing so is expensive. Schultz continuously promoted health insurance and tuition coverage for part-time workers, which is uncommon in the retail and service sectors. In order to fulfill his promise of justice, he reorganized corporate budgets (Schultz Family Foundation, 2026). The second ethical trait is compassion.

Recognizing the needs or suffering of others and acting to lessen them is a sign of compassion. During the 2008 recession, Schultz visited Starbucks outlets and saw that many workers were having financial difficulties despite working full-time (Schultz Family Foundation, 2026). Beyond what was required by law, he demonstrated real concern for his employees by prioritizing maintaining employee benefits over reducing expenses through layoffs.

A2. Explanation of How Howard Schultz Has Exhibited Ethical Conduct

Schultz demonstrated moral behavior by making tough choices that struck a balance between the rights of employees and the interests of shareholders. For instance, Schultz did not make a defense comment when racial tensions in the US increased in 2018 following the arrest of two Black men at a Starbucks in Philadelphia (Schultz Family Foundation, 2026). Rather, he shuttered over 8,000 businesses for a day in order to train about 175,000 employees on racial bias. Millions of dollars were lost as a result of this action, but it showed a dedication to equality and justice (Forbes, 2026).

Additionally, he introduced the Starbucks College Achievement Plan, which provides employees who complete an online bachelor’s degree program at Arizona State University with full tuition reimbursement. These acts demonstrate how Schultz led with compassion by actively enhancing the lives of his people and with integrity by keeping his word to them.

B. Comparison of Deontological and Consequentialist Perspectives on the Dilemma

The deontological viewpoint emphasizes obligations, laws, and moral precepts independent of results. According to this perspective, patients have the right to informed consent, hence the representative has an obligation to communicate the infection risk (Ateeq, 2024). Deontology requires honesty and respect for autonomy, even if disclosure results in lost sales or firing. Since there is no need to follow an unethical contract, the nondisclosure agreement is meaningless if it calls for hiding knowledge that could be fatal. Therefore, a deontologist would contend that since it is morally unacceptable to conceal known harm, the representative must inform surgeons, patients, or regulators about the danger.

The Consequentialist or utilitarian version of consequentialism emphasizes results: the greatest good for the largest number of people. A consequentialist would balance the advantages (reduced costs for many patients, quicker healing) against the disadvantages (small percentage of infections) (Ateeq, 2024). A consequentialist might defend nondisclosure if the percentage is extremely low (e.g., 0.5%) and the infection is treated in certain situations since more lives are saved by reasonably priced, quicker-healing knees than are lost.

However, a consequentialist would recalculate and probably demand disclosure or redesign if the infection were typically fatal (Ateeq, 2024). The main distinction is that consequentialism relies on empirical results, but deontology would require disclosure regardless of the math.

C. Levels of Cognitive Moral Development in the Scenario

• Which action would most likely serve the greater good in society?
  This question represents the postconventional level. At this stage, individuals reason based on universal ethical principles, justice, and the greatest good for society, not just laws or personal consequences. The representative asking what serves the greater good is stepping beyond company rules and personal risk to consider society’s welfare (Lind, 2023).
• If I reveal this information, will I get into trouble and possibly even lose my job?
  This question represents the preconventional level (specifically Stage 2: instrumental exchange). The focus is on personal consequences like punishment, job loss, and trouble. There is no reference to laws, company loyalty, or abstract principles (Lind, 2023).
• Which action best aligns with my long-held belief in the principle of justice?
  This question represents the postconventional level. Invoking a long-held belief in justice as a guiding principle, independent of immediate outcomes or rules, shows principled reasoning characteristic of postconventional morality (Lind, 2023).
• What do the laws say, and what would a law-abiding citizen do?
  This question represents the conventional level (Stage 4: law and order). The individual defers to existing laws and the role of a law-abiding citizen. Maintaining social order and following legal rules are primary concerns (Lind, 2023).
• If I keep quiet, will I get some sort of reward?
  This question represents the preconventional level (Stage 2: instrumental exchange). The focus is on personal reward like keeping quiet to gain a bonus, promotion, or approval. This is self-interested reasoning without regard for laws or abstract ethics.

D. Reflection on the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI)

D1. Explanation of Preferred Ethical Lens

The Relationship Lens with Mild Rationality and Mild Equality (MRME) is my preferred ethical lens based on the ELI results. In order to create just procedures that guarantee justice for every member of the community, this lens places a high priority on applying group reasoning. I concentrate on ensuring that underprivileged individuals are not overlooked and that institutions do not misuse their authority. Instead of focusing simply on what serves my interests or adheres to tradition, I often ask, “What is equitable?” in social, professional, and personal contexts (Andrade, 2025).

D1a. Analysis of Same Preferred Lens in Different Settings

Although my chosen lens is the same in social, professional, and personal contexts, how I communicate it differs. I support transparent, unambiguous processes at work to ensure equitable assignments and promotions. I apply the same perspective in interpersonal interactions by demanding accountability and collaborative decision-making. Socially, I tend to favor volunteer work that benefits marginalized communities. Even in stressful situations, I hardly ever switch to a totally autonomy-driven or purely sensibility-driven lens; the preference is still mild but steady (Andrade, 2025).

D2. Primary Value and Classical Virtue from the ELI

My primary value from the ELI is Equality. This entails respecting the community and ensuring that those in authority do not abuse power and that those on the margins are not forgotten. My classical virtue from the ELI is Advocacy. The virtue focuses on the use of reason and collective wisdom to speak up for fair processes and equitable distribution of resources, ensuring that all voices, especially the powerless, are heard.

D2a. Comparison of Primary Value and Classical Virtue with Personal Values

My primary value of Equality compares closely with my personal value of fairness. Both place a strong emphasis on treating people equally and rejecting partiality. However, my personal fairness occasionally prioritizes individual desert (e.g., rewarding hard work equally), whereas my ELI-driven equality is more community-focused. The distinction is that, while my personal fairness may be more outcome-blind, equality as a key objective forces me to look at institutional hurdles.

My personal value of loyalty is comparable to my classical virtue of advocacy. Loyalty is sticking by particular individuals or groups; advocacy is standing up for others, especially in the face of friends or authority. These may clash when my commitment to a team or manager prevents me from supporting an outsider. Understanding this conflict enables me to make sure that when justice is at risk, advocacy takes precedence over blind loyalty (Davis & Preece, 2022).

D3. Description of One Element from the ELI

The element from my ELI that I will describe is my blind spot: “believing that because you designed fair processes, the outcomes will be fair, while carving out privileges for yourself and your friends, you will convince yourself that the action you took really was fair.” This means I can become so confident in the procedures I help create that I overlook my own biases or advantages. I may assume that because a process was transparent, the result is just, even if I benefit disproportionately.

D3a. Two Steps to Mitigate the Blind Spot

To mitigate this blind spot, I will take two practical steps. First, I will invite a neutral third party to review process outcomes before I finalize decisions. For instance, when assigning project tasks or resources at work, I will ask a coworker who isn’t involved to see if the outcomes seem fair or if I or my close associates gained unfair advantages. Second, I’ll record decisions and results in a personal ethical journal, which I’ll check every three months to search for trends of unintentional self-preference.

If I observe that I consistently gain from “fair” procedures, I will specifically change the process criteria to negatively impact my own standing, exhibiting a sincere dedication to equality rather than merely following the rules (Davis & Preece, 2022).

D4. Professional Application of ELI Information to an Ethical Situation in the Workplace

The scenario in this performance evaluation is directly applicable to the data from my ELI. My Relationship Lens would prompt me to question, “What is equitable for all stakeholders?” if I were a sales person dealing with a nondisclosure agreement and a hazardous product. This includes the corporation (which has financial interests), patients (who have a right to know dangers), surgeons (who require informed permission), and me (who have a career risk). I would gather a small, reliable group of coworkers to discuss the fundamentals of justice. I would investigate legal protections for whistleblowers and medical ethics standards using my analytical tool of authority (Lüdorf et al., 2025).

I would support establishing a fair internal procedure by asking for a formal ethics committee evaluation of the product’s labeling, as opposed to making a decision only on the basis of emotion or fear. Despite the nondisclosure agreement, I would have to escalate externally if the corporation rejected my commitment to equality, particularly for helpless patients who are unaware of the risk (Lüdorf et al., 2025).

The ELI data serves as a reminder that, if my procedure was fair, my blind spot might cause me to believe that a confidential internal letter suffices. In order to combat that, I would voice my concerns through the appropriate channels and, if need, to regulators, making sure the process is as fair as the result.

References

Andrade, G. (2025). Medical ethics and moral psychology: an integrative approach. Routledge.

Ateeq, A. (2024). Ethical paradigms at work: a comparative analysis of consequentialism, deontology, and Islamic perspectives. In The AI Revolution: Driving Business Innovation and Research: Volume 1 (pp. 605-611). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54379-1_53

Davis, R. W., & Preece, J. (2022). Individual valuing of social equality in political and personal relationships. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 13(1), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00527-8

Forbes. (2026). Howard Schultz. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/profile/howard-schultz/

Lind, G. (2023). The theory of moral-cognitive development: A socio-psychological assessment. In Moral development and the social environment (pp. 21-53). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003419273-3

Lüdorf, V., Meister, S., Mainz, A., Ehlers, J. P., Nitsche, J., & Busse, T. S. (2025, August). Developing a Concept on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) for Data Literacy in Health Professions: A Learning Objective-Based Approach. In Healthcare (Vol. 13, No. 17, p. 2108). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13172108

Schultz Family Foundation. (2026). Howard Schultz. Schultz Family Foundation. https://schultzfamilyfoundation.org/team-member/howard-schultz/

WGU C206 Task 1: How to Answer Perfectly and Pass on the First Attempt

If you’re working on WGU C206 Task 1, the biggest mistake students make is treating the assignment like a generic management paper. The evaluators are not looking for textbook definitions. They want to see that you can apply course concepts directly to the scenario and address every rubric criterion completely.

Whether you’re searching for a C206 EHM2 Task 1 example, C206 EHM2 Task 1 example PDF, or C206 EHM2 Task 1 example answers, the key is understanding what the rubric is asking rather than copying someone else’s work.

This guide explains exactly how to approach C206 Task 1 EHM, structure your paper, and avoid common mistakes that lead to revisions.

Understand the Scenario Before Writing

Before typing a single paragraph, identify:

• The main organizational issue
• The stakeholders involved
• The business challenge
• The leadership concerns
• The communication issues
• Any ethical considerations
• Any organizational behavior concepts

Create a one-page summary of the case.

Students who skip this step often write lengthy papers that never answer the actual questions.

Answer Exactly What Is Asked

A common reason students receive revisions on C206 EHM2 Task 1 is because they answer related questions instead of the actual question.

For example:

If the rubric asks:

Identify one leadership challenge

Do not identify three.

Do not discuss leadership theory for two pages.

Simply:

1. Identify the challenge.
2. Explain it.
3. Connect it to the scenario.
4. Explain the impact.

That is all.

Use the “Identify → Explain → Apply” Formula

Every rubric section should follow this pattern.

Identify

State the concept clearly.

Explain

Define or describe the concept.

Apply

Show how it relates to the scenario.

Example Structure

Identify:

The primary communication issue is employee resistance.

Explain:

Employee resistance occurs when workers oppose organizational changes.

Apply:

In the scenario, employees demonstrate resistance by refusing to adopt the new process.

This simple structure works for nearly every section of C206 Task 1.

Use Course Concepts Correctly

Evaluators expect you to apply concepts from the course.

Instead of listing definitions, connect them directly to the scenario.

For example:

❌ Weak response:

“Transformational leadership motivates employees.”

✅ Strong response:

“The manager demonstrates transformational leadership by communicating a compelling vision that encourages employee support for the organizational change.”

The second example shows application.

Application earns competency.

Support Every Recommendation

Many students provide recommendations without justification.

Whenever you recommend a solution:

1. State the recommendation.
2. Explain why it works.
3. Connect it to the problem.
4. Explain the expected outcome.

Formula

Recommendation → Reason → Application → Result

This approach strengthens every section of your paper.

Keep Each Section Focused

Avoid discussing multiple unrelated ideas in one rubric section.

A focused section is easier for evaluators to score.

Bad example:

• Leadership
• Motivation
• Communication
• Ethics
• Culture

All discussed in one paragraph.

Better example:

Each concept discussed only where required by the rubric.

Use Scenario Evidence

Every major point should connect back to the scenario.

Ask yourself:

“Where in the case study is my evidence?”

If you cannot answer that question, your discussion may be too generic.

Strong papers consistently reference facts from the scenario.

Avoid Common Revision Triggers

Students searching for C206 EHM2 Task 1 example answers often focus on what to write instead of what to avoid.

The most common revision reasons include:

Missing Direct Answers

The evaluator cannot easily find the answer.

Fix

Use clear rubric headings.

Too Much Theory

Students spend pages defining concepts.

Fix

Keep definitions brief and focus on application.

Weak Scenario Connections

The paper discusses concepts without referencing the case.

Fix

Connect every major point to the scenario.

Unsupported Recommendations

Solutions are presented without explanation.

Fix

Always justify recommendations.

Multiple Ideas Instead of One

The rubric asks for one item but the student lists several.

Fix

Provide exactly what the rubric requests.

Use Professional Business Writing

For C206 Task 1, evaluators expect professional communication.

Use:

• Clear sentences
• Proper grammar
• Professional tone
• Logical organization
• Consistent terminology

Avoid:

• Bullet-point-only answers
• Informal language
• Excessive repetition
• Personal opinions not supported by the case

Final Review Checklist Before Submission

Before submitting your C206 EHM2 Task 1 paper, verify:

• Every rubric criterion has a dedicated heading.
• Every question has been answered directly.
• Every recommendation includes justification.
• Every concept is applied to the scenario.
• Every major claim includes scenario support.
• Grammar and spelling have been checked.
• References and citations are included where required.
• The paper focuses on analysis rather than definitions.
• No rubric section has been skipped.
• The document is original work.

Common Questions

Is a C206 EHM2 Task 1 Example PDF Enough to Pass?

No. Examples can help you understand structure, but evaluators assess your ability to analyze the assigned scenario and demonstrate competency.

Should I Look at C206 Task 2 or WGU EHM2 Task 2 Before Completing Task 1?

Not necessarily. Focus on completing C206 Task 1 first. Each task has its own rubric and objectives.

Does C206 Task 3 Build on Earlier Tasks?

Depending on your course version, C206 Task 3 or C206 EHM2 Task 3 may require concepts developed earlier in the course. However, Task 1 should be completed according to its own rubric requirements.

What’s the Best Strategy for Passing C206 EHM2 Task 1?

Follow this formula:

Read the rubric → Analyze the scenario → Identify the concept → Explain it → Apply it to the case → Support your recommendation → Review the rubric again before submitting.

Students who consistently follow this process generally produce stronger submissions than those who rely solely on a C206 EHM2 Task 1 example, C206 EHM2 Task 1 example PDF, or C206 EHM2 Task 1 example answers.

Related Resources

WGU C206 Task 1 Guide: Ethical Theories and Ethical Lens Inventory

WGU C206 Task 2 Guide: Organizational Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

WGU C206 Task 3 Guide: Code of Ethics Analysis

WGU C206 Ethical Leadership Guide: All Three Tasks Explained