Step-by-Step Guide + Sample: EHM2 Task 1: Ethical Theories, Leadership, And The Ethical Lens Inventory

EHM2 Task 1: Ethical Theories, Leadership, And The Ethical Lens Inventory

Introduction

Leadership is often defined as the ability to influence people. An effective ethical leader guides an organization and its employees to accomplish organizational goals. In the same vein, an unethical leader can guide an organization and its employees to act unethically, harming both the organization and the stakeholders. Being a leader is an exploration, a reflection, and a test of your leadership values. Seeking understanding of how you resolve ethical dilemmas, taking inventory of where an ethical weakness may lie, and examining the traits of an ethical leader helps you define, shape, and apply an ethical decision-making framework, while also taking into consideration all stakeholders who may be affected by your decisions.

For this task, you will respond to an ethical situation as well as analyze the results of the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI), which should be completed in the course. This task focuses on you as a leader by helping you to define, refine, and test your ethical boundaries through self-reflection and analysis.

Scenario

You are a sales representative for a medical device company that manufactures artificial joints. Your company has developed an artificial knee joint that is less expensive than the competition and will dramatically reduce healing time for patients. However, it is also known to produce a serious and potentially lethal infection in a small percentage of patients. The company refuses to disclose this potential side effect. You feel you have a duty to divulge this issue, but you signed a nondisclosure agreement when you were hired and worry about possible repercussions.

Requirements

Your submission must represent your original work and understanding of the course material. Most performance assessment submissions are automatically scanned through the WGU similarity checker.

Students are strongly encouraged to wait for the similarity report to generate after uploading their work and then review it to ensure Academic Authenticity guidelines are met before submitting the file for evaluation. See Understanding Similarity Reports for more information.

Grammarly Note:

Professional Communication will be automatically assessed through Grammarly for Education in most performance assessments before a student submits work for evaluation. Students are strongly encouraged to review the Grammarly for Education feedback prior to submitting work for evaluation, as the overall submission will not pass without this aspect passing. See Use Grammarly for Education Effectively for more information.

Microsoft Files Note:

Write your paper in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) unless another Microsoft product, or pdf, is specified in the task directions. Tasks may notbe submitted as cloud links, such as links to Google Docs, Google Slides, OneDrive, etc. All supporting documentation, such as screenshots and proof of experience, should be collected in a pdf file and submitted separately from the main file. For more information, please see Computer System and Technology Requirements.

You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.

Write an essay (suggested length of 6–8 pages) in which you do the following:

A. Select a nonfictional leader who you feel has exhibited exemplary ethical conduct and do the following:

1. 1. Discuss two ethical traits your chosen leader has

   2. Explain how your chosen leader has exhibited ethical

Note: The chosen leader can be someone you know personally or someone famous.

B. Compare the deontological and consequentialist perspectives and how each perspective would approach the dilemma from the scenario.

C. Identify and explain which level of cognitive moral development (i.e., preconventional, conventional, or postconventional) is represented in the scenario for each of the following questions:

• Which action would most likely serve the greater good in society?

• If I reveal this information, will I get into trouble and possibly even lose my job?

• Which action best aligns with my long-held belief in the principle of justice?

• What do the laws say, and what would a law-abiding citizen do?

• If I keep quiet, will I get some sort of reward?

D. Reflect on your Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI) by doing the following:

1. Explain your preferred ethical lens, relevant to the ELI

a. Analyze whether you have the same preferred lens in different settings (e.g., work, personal, social).

2. Explain one of your primary values and one classical virtue from the ELI

Note: If you are a Center Perspective, choose any primary value.

a. Compare your primary value from part D2 with one of your own self-identified or personal Then compare your classical virtue from part D2 with a different self-identified or personal value.

Note: Examples of personal values can be found in the attached “Clarifying Your Values” chart.

3. Describe one of the following from your ELI:

• blind spot
• risk
• double standard
• vice

a. Discuss two steps you can take to mitigate the blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice described in part D3 in order to make better ethical decisions in the

4. Discuss how the information from your ELI could be applied to an ethical situation in the ELI

E. Submit a copy of the PDF file with the results from your ELI as a separate document

F. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized

Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

Step-by-Step Guide: EHM2 Task 1 — Ethical Theories, Leadership & the ELI

BEFORE YOU WRITE: Two Prerequisite Steps

Step 0A — Complete the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI) The ELI is an online self-assessment available inside your WGU course. You must complete it before writing anything. Once done, download and save your results as a PDF — you will need to submit it as a separate file alongside your essay.

Step 0B — Note your ELI results From your ELI report, record the following — you’ll need all of them for Section D:

• Your preferred ethical lens (e.g., Rights/Responsibilities, Results, Relationship, Reputation, or a combination)
• Your primary value (e.g., autonomy, equality, rationality, sensibility)
• Your classical virtue (e.g., prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance)
• Your blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice

SECTION A — Choose a Real Ethical Leader (2–3 paragraphs)

Step 1 — Pick a nonfictional leader Choose someone real — a historical figure, public leader, or someone you know personally — known for strong ethical conduct. Good examples: Nelson Mandela, Jacinda Ardern, a past supervisor or mentor.

Step 2 — Discuss two ethical traits they demonstrated Pick two specific ethical traits such as: integrity, transparency, accountability, fairness, compassion, or courage. For each trait, give a concrete example of how this leader showed it. The rubric requires this to be “logical and well supported.”

Step 3 — Explain their ethical conduct overall Summarize how this leader’s actions, decisions, or character reflect ethical leadership in a broader sense. Connect their behavior to ethical leadership principles from your course material.

SECTION B — Analyze the Scenario Using Two Ethical Theories (1–2 paragraphs each)

The scenario: You are a sales rep who knows a company’s knee implant causes a potentially lethal infection — the company refuses to disclose it, and you signed an NDA.

Step 4 — Apply the Deontological Perspective Deontology (Kant) is about duty and rules, regardless of outcome. Ask: What is the right thing to do based on principle alone? Write how a deontologist would argue you have a duty to disclose — because honesty and respect for patient autonomy are moral obligations, regardless of NDA consequences.

Step 5 — Apply the Consequentialist Perspective Consequentialism (utilitarianism) is about outcomes and the greatest good. Ask: What action produces the best result for the most people? Write how a consequentialist would weigh patient lives and public safety against your personal job risk, and likely conclude disclosure produces the greatest good.

Step 6 — Compare the two Explain how each theory approaches the dilemma differently — one focuses on the act itself (duty), the other on the results (outcomes). Note where they agree or disagree in this scenario.

SECTION C — Classify the Five Questions by Moral Development Level (1 paragraph each)

Use Kohlberg’s three levels:

• Preconventional = self-interest (avoid punishment / gain reward)
• Conventional = following rules, laws, social expectations
• Postconventional = universal principles, justice, greater good

Step 7 — Work through each question:

For each one, name the level and explain in 2–3 sentences why it fits that level.

SECTION D — Reflect on Your ELI Results (4 subsections)

Step 8 — D1: Explain your preferred ethical lens Describe which lens your ELI identified as your primary lens. Explain what that lens emphasizes (e.g., Rights lens = individual autonomy and rationality; Results lens = greatest good for the group). Explain why this resonates with how you naturally make decisions.

Step 9 — D1A: Analyze consistency across settings Reflect: Does your ethical lens shift between work, personal life, and social situations? Your ELI report may show a primary lens and a secondary lens — use that information here. Discuss whether you are consistent or context-dependent, and what that means.

Step 10 — D2: Explain your primary value and classical virtue Using your actual ELI results, explain what your primary value is and what it means in practice. Do the same for your classical virtue. Connect them to who you are as a decision-maker.

Step 11 — D2A: Compare ELI values to personal values Take your ELI primary value and compare it to one of your own personal values (e.g., loyalty, family, faith — use the “Clarifying Your Values” chart in the course supporting documents). Then take your ELI classical virtue and compare it to a different personal value. Highlight similarities and differences.

Step 12 — D3: Describe your blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice Pick one from your ELI results. Describe what it is and how it could negatively affect your ethical decision-making. Be honest and specific — graders want genuine self-reflection.

Step 13 — D3A: Two mitigation steps Propose two concrete steps you could take to address the weakness described in D3. These should be actionable (e.g., seek feedback from others, pause before deciding, use an ethical decision-making framework).

Step 14 — D4: Apply your ELI to a workplace ethical situation Describe a realistic workplace scenario (real or hypothetical) and explain how your ELI insights — your preferred lens, value, virtue, or blind spot — would shape how you navigate it. Demonstrate self-awareness and practical application.

FINAL STEPS — Wrapping Up

Step 15 — APA citations and references Any course materials, textbook content, or outside sources you reference must be cited in APA format. Include in-text citations and a reference list at the end.

Step 16 — Length and formatting Target 6–8 pages, double-spaced, 12pt Times New Roman, 1-inch margins. Use clear section headings that map to A, B, C, D1, D1A, D2, D2A, D3, D3A, D4.

Step 17 — Run Grammarly for Education WGU auto-checks your submission through Grammarly. Review and resolve all flagged errors under the “Correctness” category — the submission will not pass without this.

Step 18 — Submit two files

1. Your essay as a .docx file
2. Your ELI results as a separate .pdf file

Quick Rubric Checklist Before Submitting

• Two ethical traits of chosen leader discussed with support
• Ethical conduct of leader explained logically
• Both deontological AND consequentialist perspectives compared for the scenario
• All 5 Kohlberg questions answered with correct level identified and explained
• Preferred ELI lens explained
• ELI lens analyzed across different settings
• One primary value and one classical virtue from ELI explained
• Both comparisons to personal values completed
• One blind spot/risk/double standard/vice described
• Two mitigation steps discussed
• ELI applied to workplace situation
• ELI PDF attached as a separate file
• APA citations and references included
• Grammarly reviewed and errors corrected

Sample Expert Paper

Ethical Traits and Conduct of an Exemplary Leader

Leadership is far more than positional authority; it is a moral enterprise rooted in the consistent alignment of decisions with core values. Few leaders in modern history have embodied this alignment as visibly as Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani education activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate. From adolescence, Yousafzai demonstrated that ethical leadership does not require a boardroom title—it requires the courage to act on principle in the face of grave personal risk. Two ethical traits that Yousafzai has consistently demonstrated are integrity and moral courage.

Integrity, the alignment between one’s stated values and one’s actions, is perhaps the trait most essential to ethical leadership (Brown & Trevino, 2006). Yousafzai demonstrated integrity at an extraordinary level when, even after surviving a targeted assassination attempt by the Taliban in 2012, she refused to abandon her advocacy for girls’ education. She did not moderate her message to reduce personal risk; instead, she amplified it on an international stage. This unwavering consistency between belief and behavior is the hallmark of integrity. Her memoir and subsequent public advocacy are not performative gestures but the natural extension of values she held before global attention found her.

Moral courage, the willingness to act in accordance with ethical principles despite fear, opposition, or personal cost, is Yousafzai’s second defining ethical trait. Researchers have identified moral courage as a prerequisite for ethical action because knowledge of right conduct is insufficient without the will to act on it (Hannah et al., 2011). Yousafzai began writing her anonymous blog for the BBC at age eleven, documenting life under Taliban rule in the Swat Valley. Even after her identity was revealed and threats escalated, she continued speaking publicly. Her moral courage was not reckless; it was deliberate, informed, and sustained over years.

The ethical conduct of Yousafzai extends beyond individual acts of bravery. She founded the Malala Fund, a global organization working to ensure twelve years of quality education for girls worldwide. This institutionalization of her values demonstrates what Brown and Trevino (2006) describe as the social learning dimension of ethical leadership—leaders who model ethical behavior inspire ethical action in others. Yousafzai’s conduct has influenced policy conversations at the United Nations and shifted international attention toward educational equity. Her leadership illustrates that ethical conduct, when exercised with integrity and moral courage, produces systemic impact well beyond the individual.

Dilemma Analysis: Deontological and Consequentialist Perspectives

The scenario presents a profound ethical dilemma: as a medical device sales representative, one possesses knowledge that an artificial knee joint marketed by one’s employer carries a risk of serious and potentially lethal infection, yet the company refuses to disclose this risk and the employee has signed a nondisclosure agreement (NDA). Two major ethical frameworks—deontology and consequentialism—offer distinct but instructive approaches to resolving this conflict.

From the deontological perspective, as articulated by Immanuel Kant, moral action is determined by adherence to universal duties and principles rather than by the outcomes those actions produce (Crane & Matten, 2022). A deontologist would argue that the sales representative has an absolute duty to disclose the defect because concealment violates the categorical imperative: one cannot universalize a maxim that permits deceiving patients about life-threatening risks without undermining the entire basis of trust in medical care. The NDA, from a deontological standpoint, does not override a higher moral duty to respect patient autonomy and dignity.

Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative holds that persons must never be treated merely as means to an end; allowing patients to unknowingly bear lethal risk for corporate profit reduces them to instruments of commercial gain, which is categorically impermissible. Therefore, a deontologist would conclude that disclosure is morally obligatory, regardless of personal consequence.

The consequentialist perspective, by contrast, evaluates the morality of an action based on the outcomes it produces, seeking to maximize aggregate well-being (Mill, as cited in Crane & Matten, 2022). A consequentialist analysis of the scenario would weigh the benefits and harms of disclosure against those of silence. Remaining silent protects the employee’s employment and avoids legal repercussions, but it allows ongoing harm to a potentially large number of patients who cannot make informed decisions about their surgical care. Disclosure, while costly to the employee personally, would prevent preventable infections and deaths, restore informed consent, and likely trigger a product recall that benefits public health broadly.

The aggregate utility calculation strongly favors disclosure: the harm prevented for many patients outweighs the harm incurred by one employee. While both frameworks reach the same conclusion in this scenario, they do so through fundamentally different reasoning. Deontology demands disclosure as a matter of duty independent of outcome; consequentialism demands it because the outcomes of disclosure produce greater overall good. The frameworks diverge in situations where doing the right thing produces bad outcomes—deontology would still require the dutiful action, while consequentialism might permit deviation if different outcomes were anticipated.

Levels of Cognitive Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of cognitive moral development identifies three levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level reflects a qualitatively different orientation toward moral questions, ranging from self-interest to universal ethical principles (Trevino & Nelson, 2021). The five questions from the scenario can each be classified within this framework.

The question, “Which action would most likely serve the greater good in society?” represents postconventional reasoning. At this highest level, moral judgment is guided by universal principles and abstract values such as justice, human dignity, and the welfare of all persons, transcending personal gain or social conformity (Trevino & Nelson, 2021). The orientation toward societal benefit rather than personal outcome or institutional rule reflects Stage 5 or Stage 6 reasoning within Kohlberg’s model.

The question, “If I reveal this information, will I get into trouble and possibly even lose my job?” reflects preconventional reasoning. Preconventional morality is organized around self-interest, specifically the avoidance of punishment and the protection of personal welfare (Trevino & Nelson, 2021). The individual is not asking what is right; they are asking what is safe for them personally. This corresponds to Stage 2 in Kohlberg’s framework, where the primary concern is one’s own interests.

The question, “Which action best aligns with my long-held belief in the principle of justice?” represents postconventional reasoning. An appeal to an internalized, abstract principle of justice—one that the individual holds independent of law, social pressure, or self-interest—is the defining feature of postconventional morality (Trevino & Nelson, 2021). The person is consulting a self-chosen ethical principle rather than social convention or fear of consequence.

The question, “What do the laws say, and what would a law-abiding citizen do?” reflects conventional reasoning. At the conventional level, moral behavior is defined by adherence to rules, laws, and social expectations (Trevino & Nelson, 2021). The individual looks externally—to the legal system and the behavior of a typical, conforming citizen—rather than to internalized principle or personal consequence. This corresponds to Stage 4 in Kohlberg’s model, law and order orientation.

The question, “If I keep quiet, will I get some sort of reward?” reflects preconventional reasoning. Like the punishment-avoidance question, this question is anchored entirely in self-interest, specifically the anticipation of personal gain (Trevino & Nelson, 2021). The ethical dimension of the situation is entirely absent; the individual is calculating personal benefit, which corresponds to Stage 2 instrumental exchange reasoning.

Reflection on the Ethical Lens Inventory

The Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI) is a self-assessment tool that identifies how individuals prioritize ethical values and approaches decision-making when values are in conflict. The reflections below are based on my own ELI results.

D1: Preferred Ethical Lens

My preferred ethical lens, as identified by the ELI, is the Rights and Responsibilities Lens. This lens prioritizes the rational analysis of duties, rights, and obligations when navigating ethical dilemmas. Individuals who operate from this lens tend to ask: What duties do I have? What rights must be protected? What would a reasonable, rational person determine is right, regardless of the emotional or relational pressures of the moment? The Rights and Responsibilities Lens draws from deontological traditions, emphasizing that persons possess inherent dignity that must be respected, and that moral reasoning requires consistency and universalizability (ELI Results, 2024).

This lens resonates with my natural inclination to approach ethical problems by first identifying what obligations are at stake, rather than starting from anticipated outcomes or relational harmony.

D1A: Consistency Across Settings

My ELI results suggest that I apply the Rights and Responsibilities Lens as a primary orientation across multiple settings, including professional, personal, and social contexts. In a workplace setting, this manifests as a commitment to procedural fairness—I am concerned with whether processes are applied consistently and whether individuals’ rights are protected regardless of their status or relationship to me. In personal relationships, this lens can be both a strength and a source of tension: I naturally honor commitments and expect others to do the same, which produces reliability but can occasionally generate friction when relational flexibility might be more appropriate than principled consistency.

In social settings, my Rights and Responsibilities orientation leads me to notice and name injustice, even when others prefer not to engage. While my primary lens is consistent across contexts, I recognize that the secondary influence of the Relationship Lens appears more prominently in personal settings, where relational impact carries greater immediate salience.

D2: Primary Value and Classical Virtue

The ELI identifies autonomy as my primary value within the Rights and Responsibilities Lens. Autonomy reflects the belief that individuals have the right to self-determination—to make informed choices about their own lives without undue interference, provided those choices do not harm others (ELI Results, 2024). I find this value central to my ethical orientation because it underpins the very logic of rights: if people cannot exercise genuine agency, then rights become meaningless. This value shapes how I approach decision-making in professional contexts; I am reluctant to make decisions on behalf of others without their input, and I am equally protective of my own right to deliberate freely before acting.

The classical virtue associated with my ELI results is justice. Justice, in its classical formulation, involves giving to each person what is due to them—a proportional and impartial distribution of rights, resources, and recognition (Crane & Matten, 2022). Justice connects naturally to the Rights and Responsibilities Lens because it provides the evaluative standard by which rights can be fairly adjudicated. I experience justice not as a cold abstraction but as a visceral commitment: when I perceive that a system or decision has produced an unfair outcome, I feel a strong pull to address it, even when doing so is costly.

D2A: Comparison to Personal Values

Comparing my ELI primary value of autonomy to one of my self-identified personal values, integrity, reveals both alignment and productive tension. Integrity, as I understand it, is the commitment to acting in accordance with one’s stated principles, regardless of external pressure. Both autonomy and integrity reflect a deep concern for authentic, self-directed action.

However, they can diverge: autonomy might permit a person to make a choice that violates my own principles, whereas my commitment to integrity might make it difficult to remain neutral when others’ choices conflict with values I hold strongly. This tension reminds me that respecting autonomy requires a discipline that integrity alone does not supply—namely, the willingness to allow others to arrive at their own conclusions.

Comparing my ELI classical virtue of justice to a different personal value, accountability, reveals strong congruence. Accountability is my commitment to accepting responsibility for the consequences of my actions and decisions, including when outcomes are unfavorable. Justice and accountability are deeply complementary: justice asks that consequences be proportional and fair, while accountability ensures that individuals do not evade those consequences. Together, they form an ethical posture oriented toward honest reckoning with reality, which I consider foundational to trustworthy leadership.

D3: Blind Spot

The ELI identifies my primary blind spot as the tendency toward overconfidence in rational analysis at the expense of emotional and relational attunement. Individuals operating from the Rights and Responsibilities Lens can become so focused on logical consistency and principled reasoning that they inadvertently dismiss the emotional dimensions of ethical situations (ELI Results, 2024). In practice, this blind spot may manifest as a failure to appreciate how a technically correct decision lands emotionally for those affected by it.

A policy that is procedurally fair may still be experienced as cold or uncaring if communicated without empathy. My commitment to principle can, in some circumstances, reduce complex human experiences to abstract categories, causing harm not through bad intent but through insufficient sensitivity to the affective dimensions of decision-making.

D3A: Steps to Mitigate the Blind Spot

Two steps I can take to address this blind spot are intentional perspective-taking and structured emotional check-ins during decision-making processes. First, intentional perspective-taking involves deliberately pausing before finalizing a decision to ask: How will this decision be experienced by those most affected? This is not a rejection of principled reasoning but an augmentation of it—by incorporating the experiential reality of others, my analysis becomes more complete and my solutions more humane. Research on ethical leadership supports the integration of empathic reasoning with rational analysis as a mark of ethical maturity (Hannah et al., 2011).

Second, I can introduce structured emotional check-ins in team or organizational settings by explicitly inviting stakeholders to share how proposed decisions feel, not only whether they are logical. Creating deliberate space for affective input counteracts the blind spot by institutionalizing the perspectives my natural lens tends to underweight. This practice also models inclusive leadership, signaling that emotional responses are data, not noise, in ethical deliberation.

D4: Application of ELI to a Workplace Ethical Situation

Consider a workplace scenario in which I am a nursing unit manager confronted with evidence that a colleague has been documenting patient care inaccurately—not to harm patients directly, but to meet unrealistic productivity metrics imposed by hospital administration. My ELI insights are directly applicable here. My Rights and Responsibilities Lens would orient me immediately toward the rights at stake: patients have the right to accurate medical records and informed care decisions; the colleague has due process rights that must be respected; and I have a professional duty to report unsafe practice under nursing standards. My primary value of autonomy would caution me against making assumptions about my colleague’s intent without allowing them to explain their actions.

My blind spot, however, would alert me to check whether my principled commitment to reporting is causing me to overlook the systemic pressures that produced the behavior. Justice, my classical virtue, would demand not only individual accountability but also upstream scrutiny of the institutional conditions that created the incentive to falsify records. A just response would address both the individual conduct and the structural cause. Applying my ELI in this way transforms a simple compliance decision into a comprehensive ethical intervention—one that is principled, empathic, and systemically aware.

References

• Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2022). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• ELI Results. (2024). Ethical Lens Inventory personal results report. EthicsGame.
• Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Relationships between authentic leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 555–578. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201121436
• Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (8th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.