Evaluating Leadership Behavior

I chose to evaluate my current leader’s behavior. My current leader is the Battalion Commander of a unit that has 1,200 Marines & Sailors. I am his direct senior enlisted advisor and by his side most of the day. I have worked with this commander for one year. As a follower, my perception of his “Perceived Leadership Integrity Scale” evaluation scored a 32, highly ethical. I was not surprised of the outcome of the evaluation results. My commander’s is a great leader and I have been blessed to serve with him. His “transformational leadership style”, character, and conduct reflect a respected, fair, firm and consistent leadership style that is ethically sound for the institution as well as the community. As a member of the organization you know what is expected from the commander as well as the understanding that he would not ask anything of one of his Marines that he himself would not do. The entire battalion [organization] knows that ALL service members WILL be treated with dignity and respect regardless of their rank or number of years of service.

Which ethical perspective best describes the PPI management's approach to outside audits by OSHA
officials (Utilitarian, Duty, or Virtue)?

I believe PPI's management officials have a duty approach because as PPI is a small company each of it’s employee’s are valuable.
There is no room for injury or inefficiency. A small company must run smoothly in order to survive the needs of the economy. I believe that it is PPI’s “duty” or responsibility to its employees to ensure that they are working under the best and safest conditions. Regardless if any repercussions that the inspection team may fine, it is better to find and fix those discrepancies rather than wait for something bad to happen. I think this initiative is a smart one, not only for the business but for the employee’s as well. I’m sure the employees are grateful that PPI cares enough to take these extra steps in ensuring the company remains successful and keeping everyone happily
employed.

I believe the conflict occurs because of any future lawsuits that may occur. This is somewhat “Utilitarianism”. The lawyers are looking at “the greatest good for the greatest number” Northhouse, 2007 point of view. I’m sure that if these safety inspections were conducted with no after action “fixing” then there would be some credibility to the lawyers’ advice. But if the safety discrepancies were annotated, fixed and re-inspected, I see that as a proactive initiative in preventative maintenance that should prove better for PPI if something was taken to court.
I encourage “on the spot” inspections. I want to know that all my commodities are following their orders and guidelines. After something has gone wrong is too late.