What Do You Think About The Notion Presented By Terris

What Do You Think About The Notion Presented By Terris That Lockheed

What do you think about the notion presented by Terris that Lockheed's ethics program does little to prevent ethical breaches at the highest level of the organization? Are the efforts put forth—such as making sure higher level executives participate in training—enough to help executives navigate what Terris calls the "ethical minefield" faced by leadership in such an organization? What are some things that could be done to address the issue related to ethics at higher executive levels of the organization? Terris points out that the company's program is overly focused on individuals and that it doesn't really address group dynamics that can impact ethical situations. For instance, there can be a tendency for groups to "go with the flow" of the group decision-making process and overlook ethical issues in the process. What would you recommend that Lockheed Martin do to address this situation? (Hint: reviewing p. 128 and the following pages—before the section headed Personal Responsibility, Collective Innocence —of the text might be helpful.) Write a 3- to 4-page paper, not including title page or references page addressing the issue and upload it by the end of this module. Your paper should be double-spaced and in 12-point type size. Your paper should have a separate cover page and a separate reference page. Make sure you cite your sources. Use APA style, and proofread your paper. Upload your paper by the end of the module.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical landscape within large corporations like Lockheed Martin is complex, particularly concerning how organizational culture influences ethical behavior at all levels. Terris’s critique—that Lockheed’s ethics program does little to prevent breaches at the highest organizational echelons—raises significant questions about the efficacy of current ethical safeguards. This paper explores the limitations of Lockheed's ethics program, evaluates whether current efforts are sufficient, and proposes strategies to reinforce ethical integrity, particularly addressing group dynamics that can undermine individual accountability in ethical decision-making.

Terris’s assertion that Lockheed’s ethics program predominantly focuses on individual responsibility overlooks a critical aspect of organizational behavior: group processes. Ethical breaches at the executive level may often stem not merely from individual misconduct but from systemic issues rooted in groupthink, conformity, and shared organizational norms. Empirical research indicates that group dynamics considerably influence ethical behavior, often fostering environments where unethical decisions go unchallenged (“Groupthink,” Janis, 1972). In the context of Lockheed, heightened pressure to meet project deadlines, financial targets, or military specifications may create environments conducive to unethical shortcuts or concealment of misconduct, especially if leadership neglects to actively foster open, ethical dialogue.

While mandatory training for senior executives is a commendable step, it may not suffice to mitigate deep-seated group pressures or prevent unethical group decision-making. Such training often emphasizes compliance and individual responsibility but fails to address the collective nature of ethical lapses. Evidence suggests that organizations need comprehensive approaches that include fostering ethical cultures where dissent is valued, reinforcing collective moral responsibility, and establishing systemic checks on group decision-making (Trevino & Nelson, 2017). For example, implementing structured ethical decision-making frameworks can help teams identify ethical risks proactively rather than reactively responding to misconduct.

To effectively address ethics at the organizational level, Lockheed Martin should consider adopting strategies rooted in social and organizational psychology. One recommended approach is the integration of “ethical climate surveys” that assess perceptions of ethical norms within teams and departments regularly. This feedback can inform targeted interventions aimed at shifting organizational culture towards greater ethical awareness (“Organizational Culture and Ethics,” Schein, 2010). Furthermore, cultivating an environment where employees and leaders alike feel empowered to speak up about ethical concerns—a principle often referred to as “psychological safety”—is crucial for detecting and preventing unethical conduct before it escalates (Edmondson, 1999).

Additionally, addressing groupthink and conformity requires structural changes that promote ethical dissent. Lockheed could implement “red team” exercises, where independent groups challenge prevailing decisions and assumptions, encouraging critical thinking and ethical skepticism. Formalized whistleblower programs with protections against retaliation are also essential in enabling lower and upper management to report unethical practices without fear. These measures collectively foster a culture where ethical considerations are integrated into everyday decision-making, transcending individual training and focusing on systemic change.

Another critical recommendation involves leadership development programs that emphasize ethical leadership and collective responsibility. Leaders at Lockheed should be trained not only to model ethical behavior but also to recognize and address unethical group dynamics. As Trevino and Nelson (2017) emphasize, ethical leadership involves creating an environment where ethical behavior is normative, and group influences are aligned with the organization’s moral standards. Incorporating case studies, role-playing, and ethical dilemma discussions into leadership development can increase sensitivity to groupthink and other collective biases.

In summary, to strengthen its ethical defenses, Lockheed Martin must go beyond individual-focused compliance programs. Understanding and addressing group dynamics that influence ethical decision-making is vital. Interventions such as promoting open ethical dialogue, embedding ethical climate assessments, fostering psychological safety, encouraging dissent, and emphasizing ethical leadership are necessary steps. These measures can mitigate the risks of unethical conduct at the highest organizational levels and help transform the corporate culture into one that genuinely upholds integrity and accountability (“Ethics in Organizations,” Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015). Ultimately, fostering an ethical environment that recognizes the power of group influence and actively manages it will be crucial in safeguarding the organization’s reputation, mission integrity, and societal trust.

References

• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
• Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2015). Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. Nelson Education.
• Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
• Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. Wiley.