AN ANTHOLOGY
OF
DOCTORAL WRITERS
______________
Volume Four:
Ethics, Leadership,
and
Globalization
Edited by
Dr. Cheryl A. Lentz
The Refractive Thinker™ Press
Smashwords Edition, License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
The Refractive Thinker: An Anthology of Higher Learning Volume IV: Ethics, Leadership, and Globalization
The
Refractive Thinker™ Press
9065 Big
Plantation Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89143-5440 USA
Orders@lentzleadership.com
Websites:
www.lentzleadership.com
www.refractivethinker.com
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, Web distribution or by any informational storage and retrieval system without written permission from the publisher except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review or scholarly reference.
Books are available through The Refractive Thinker™ Press at special discounts for bulk purchases for the purpose of sales promotion, seminar attendance, or educational purposes. Special volumes can be created for specific purposes and to organizational specifications. Please contact us for further details.
*Individual authors own the copyright to their individual materials. The Refractive Thinker™ Press has each author’s permission to reprint.
Copyright © 2010 by The Refractive Thinker™ Press
Library of Congress Control Number: 2010903601
Volume ISBNs
Soft Cover 978-0-9823036-8-9
E-book/PDF 978-0-9823036-9-6
Kindle version available.
Refractive Thinker™ logo by Joey Root, The Refractive Thinker™ Press logo and cover design by Jacqueline Teng, final production by Gary A. Rosenberg.
Contents
CHAPTER
1
Ethics
in Educational Leadership
Dr.
Neysa T. Sensenig
CHAPTER
2
Have
We Tipped: Are We Ready to Demand Ethical Behavior from Our
Leaders?
Dr.
Sheila Embry
CHAPTER
3
Physician
Cultural Attitudes towards Hospice Services
Dr.
Karleen Yapp
CHAPTER
4
Behavioral
Integrity: The Precursor to Ethical Leadership
Dr.
Cynthia Ann Roundy
CHAPTER
5
How
Understanding Impacts Ethics and Privacy
Dr.
Tim Brueggemann
CHAPTER
6
The
Power of the River of Character in Organizations
Dr.
Ramon Benedetto
CHAPTER
7
The
Impact That Ethics and Values Have on Leader-Follower
Relationships
Dr.
Susan K. Fan
CHAPTER
10
Maximizing
Debt Collection Performance Through Organizational Design Changes
Dr.
Kaja Kroll
What lies behind us and what lies before us
are tiny matters
compared to
what lies within us.
—RALPH WALDO EMERSON
Foreword
This collection of new articles about ethical leadership in a global context provides insights from scholars that is as important to the practitioner’s world as it is to students and academics. In a world where Enron, WorldCom, and AIG have created cynicism about the integrity of the modern organization, the need to focus on the ethical duties of leaders and organizations is more important today than at any time in the last century.
The insights of these scholars offers a perspective about ethical duties that enables leaders to examine their day-to-day actions, claims about commitment to ideals, and the underlying assumptions that form the basis of true beliefs. This self-examination process is critical as we reflect on the integrity of organizations, the creation of trust, and the obligations of those who lead.
Leadership must be ethical if leaders are to pursue the active participation and cooperation of others. Only when leaders serve with integrity will they earn the followership of others. Leaders must become the personification of the ideals that they proclaim and become the benefactors of others in a world mired in self-interest.
Leaders have the moral obligation to challenge the thinking of those with whom they live and work, asking others to honor obligations to society in a way that creates value and sustains the future. The leader-follower relationship adds value only when leaders are trustworthy and act with a commitment to the welfare, growth, and wholeness of society and those whom they serve.
This volume provides the reader with the opportunity to examine ideas about leadership, the standards by which we must govern, and the obligations that we owe to others within a world that is facing constant moral pressures to compromise our values in the pursuit of self-interest. The message of this volume is that we must willingly examine the underlying foundations of our thinking as we reflect on the opportunities and duties that confront us.
Leadership is far more than an exchange relationship or a simple quid pro quo transaction. The leader’s obligation requires the leader to help an organization to become its best, but along the way the leader must also demonstrate a transformational commitment to employees, customers, and others served by the organization.
As stewards in a world that is struggling to survive, leaders owe others a profound set of covenantal responsibilities. Leaders must not only be the servants of others, but they must also teach correct principles so that others may govern themselves. Leaders not only inspire others but they build partnerships with others in the discovery and creation of new meanings and profound new truths about life and about organizational work.
The message of this volume is that we have much to learn about leadership; about ethical duty; and about a world that has become smaller, more interrelated, and more difficult to define. Although the authors of this volume do not profess to possess all of the answers about the topics addressed herein, their insights offer opportunities for discussion about principles that affect each one of us—both today and in the years ahead.
—Cam Caldwell, PhD
Preface
I think
therefore I am.
—RENÉ DESCARTES
I critically
think to be.
I
refractively think
to change the world.
Welcome to The
Refractive Thinker: Volume IV:
Ethics, Leadership, and
Globalization.
Thank you for joining us for the first 2010 edition, Volume IV, as we continue to celebrate the accomplishments of these doctoral scholars affiliated with many phenomenal institutions of higher learning. The purpose of this next offering in the anthology series is to share yet another glimpse into the scholarly works of these authors, specifically on the topics of ethics, leadership, and concerns within the global landscape of business.
In addition to exploring various aspects of ethics and globalization, the purpose of The Refractive Thinker™ is also to serve the tenets of leadership. Leadership is not simply a concept outside of the self, but comes from within, defining our very essence; where the search to define leadership becomes our personal journey not yet a finite destination. In the words of Dr. Thomas Woodruff (2009) “Change has no conclusion” (RT: Vol. III, p. 213).
The Refractive Thinker™ is an intimate expression of who we are—the ability to think beyond the traditional boundaries of thinking and critical thinking. Instead of mere reflection and evaluation, one challenges the very boundaries of the constructs itself. If thinking is inside the box, and critical thinking is outside the box, we add the next step of refractive thinking, beyond the box. As in our first three volumes, the authors within these pages are on a mission to change the world, never satisfied or quite content with what is or asking why, instead these authors intentionally strive to push and test the limits to ask why not. Join us on this next adventure of The Refractive Thinker™ where Volume IV continues the discussion specifically themed to explore the realm of ethics, leadership, and globalization. This offers yet another bite of the apple from the tree of knowledge upon an ever expanding canvas from which these authors choose to cast their paint, envisioning new horizons in which to move forward and explore the future.
I invite you to join with me as we venture forward to showcase these authors of Volume I V. The goal is to offer a chance to bring to publication more ideas for which the audience may be interested in the expertise and guidance that they offer.
Please contact The Refractive Thinker Press for further information regarding these authors and the works contained within these pages. Perhaps you or your organization may be looking for their expertise to incorporate as part of your annual corporate meetings as a key note or guest speaker (s), perhaps to offer individual or group seminars or coaching, or require their expertise as consultants.
We look forward to your interest in discussing future opportunities. Let this continue our journey begun with volume I to which The Refractive Thinker™ will serve as our guide to this and future volumes. Come join us in our quest to be refractive thinkers and add your wisdom to the collective. We look forward to your stories.
Acknowledgments
The foundation of leadership embraces the art of asking questions—to validate and affirm what we do and why. Leaders often challenge this status quo, to offer alternatives and new directions, to dare to try something that has not yet been done as again proved true in this case with volume I V. This publication required the continued leap of faith and belief in this new publishing model by those willing to continue forward on this voyage. As a result, please let me express my gratitude for the help of the many that made this project possible.
First, let me offer a special thank you to Trish Hladek, my husband Bill Lentz, and Dr. To m Woodruff and his wife Diane for their unwavering support and belief that traversing unchartered waters is worthy of the journey. My gratitude extends to our Peer Review Board to include: Dr. Tom Woodruff, Dr. Laura Grandgenett, and Dr. Michael Elia; and our Board of Directors to include: Dr. Elmer Hall, Dr. Edward Knab, Dr. Judy Blando, Dr. Lisa Kangas, Dr. Tom Woodruff, (and myself); as well as our production specialist, Gary Rosenberg; Refractive Thinker logo designer, Joey Root; and cover and companion website designer, Jacqueline Teng.
Let me also extend my sincere thanks to all the participating authors who continue to believe in this project as we move forward with our eyes to the future. We appreciate their commitment to leadership, and to the concept of what it means to be a Refractive Thinker™.
Dr. Cheryl A. Lentz
Managing Editor
Las Vegas,
NV
April 2010
CHAPTER
1
Ethics in Educational Leadership
Dr. Neysa T. Sensenig
Educational leadership requires an educator to make substantive decisions that affect staff, students, and community. Good sound judgment and practical implementation support the social and economic influences that these decisions have on a school community. To accomplish this endeavor, an educational leader needs a personal ethical belief to support moral decision-making. Therefore, this chapter proposes educational leaders develop an understanding of ethical theory to form an ethical belief leading to sound judgments based upon personal, moral deliberation exemplifying best practices to facilitate good educational decision-making.
A REVIEW OF ETHICAL STUDY
In this first section, the philosophical theories of Plato, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill provide an ethical foundation for educational leadership. Ethical thought secures a foundation in ancient writings as early philosophers attempted to make sense of society and interpersonal relationships. The study of ethics is the “study of ideas, ideas about right and wrong” (Beckner, 2004, p. 25). Philosophers perpetuated the study of ethics as civilizations developed and matured into large nations and powers. The resolution of societal dilemmas is important to achieving happiness and the good life through “a more orderly, more thoughtful approach to solving problems” (Beckner, p. 48). The philosophical theories of Plato, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill provide a diverse foundation of ethical thought for educational leaders when looking for the best solution to solve difficult problems and carryout leadership responsibilities.
Theory of Morality
The early philosophical writings of Plato established a moral foundation for further development of ethical thought and action based on virtue. Plato emphasized a social order specifying a place for each person within society and a system for fulfilling personal obligations. However, he pursued a universal truth supporting the worthwhile endeavors of others in the public arena (Vassallo, 2004). In Plato’s view, an individual’s motivation for action is the virtue to do what is right as expressed by those select few who consider the whole society (Beckner, 2004). Plato referred to virtue as not innate; however, a person can be assisted by thinkers in recollecting what was known before the present life began (Klugman & Stump, 2006). Plato’s moral theory focused upon the what and the how of philosophical questions (Vassallo). Answers were not important, only the aspect of questioning (Vassallo).
Theory of Value and Virtue
In contrast, Aristotle focused more on the subject matter and his opinion of the subject (Beckner, 2004). Aristotle established values and virtues to assist the individual in making correct ethical choices; happiness guides an individual to two types of virtue: moral and intellectual (Vassallo, 2004). One achieved virtuousness through contemplation and calculation of issues and made the right choices by developing a value system (Beckner; Vassallo). This value system provided a person with the tools, or virtues, to discover the right action in the right situation somewhere between two possible variables (Beckner; Klugman & Stump, 2006). The individual then used the multiple disciplines of art, science, prudence, wisdom, and intuition to find the various avenues for seeking Truth (Vassallo). Educational leaders must develop value systems to support individuals to make correct ethical choices regarding behavior.
Theory of Moral Objectivism
Moral objectivists followed principles or rules that serve good reason as the best guidance in making practical decisions (Beckner, 2004). Immanuel Kant professed either divine law or natural law as the basic principle for guidance in acting ethically. However, natural inclinations must be subjugated to a law that was “universally binding on all rational beings” (Beckner, p. 53). Kant used the term categorical imperative to explain the universal maxims that one can reach through powers of reason by weighing principles against other moral principles (Beckner). This categorical imperative applied to all and denoted decision-making that applied to all. The ‘principle of ends’ referred to individual actions to treat all humanity as an end and not as a means to the end (Beckner). In educational settings, rules and laws guide all individuals to act according to the universal principles of the institution.
Theory of Utilitarianism
In the development of ethical study, the relativist theory followed utilitarianism to promote actions proportionally right to achieve happiness; that is, the greatest good for the greatest number (Patterson, 2005). Philosophers of the time associated utilitarianism with social Darwinism and the survival of the fittest. However, J. S. Mill did not make this connection between utilitarianism and social Darwinism because Mill rejected nature as an ethical model and placed “emphasis on human social and personal development” (Patterson, p. 74). Mill stated pleasure was the highest moral principle, albeit not a selfish or self-centered principle, but an aggregate happiness for all (Patterson). The measures of happiness were impartial with much regard for the happiness of others as for one’s self (Beckner, 2004; Patterson). When making ethical decisions, leaders should consider the pleasure and pain of others; and wise leaders make the best decision. The moral and intellectual development of people is important to produce a society of happy and ethical people (Beckner; Patterson). The emphasis upon individual equity is important to the relativist as Mill wrote women failed to reach full potential because they did not have equal educational opportunities (Patterson). Consequently, Mill believed women who advanced toward happiness would have a positive effect on the character of men (Patterson).
Recommendation: Ethical Study
Ethical study should provide educational leaders with the ability to develop reasoning skills to make up their own minds (Klugman & Stump, 2006). Leaders should resist following ethical teachings as one set of morals or values established as the one best ethically correct behavior. Leaders need to evaluate and reason what is best culturally in an ethically diverse setting of educational institutions (Klugman & Stump). Through an understanding of ethical thought, leaders can change core values and beliefs to increase moral reasoning ability when making decisions requiring analytical problem solving and various outcomes (Klugman & Stump). Lyndale (as stated in Klugman & Stump) reflected that understanding ethical theory supports critical thinking skills and allows one to participate in evaluating decision-making and developing moral reasoning skills. The next section recommends a practical approach to educational leaders in developing a personal ethical belief.
ON DEVELOPING A PERSONAL ETHICAL BELIEF
The ethical theories of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Mill espoused perspectives an educational leader can legitimately use to act ethically within the educational environment. In addition to an understanding of ethical theory, an educational leader needs a sound personal ethical belief for moral decisions. Three sound approaches to developing a personal ethical belief include rules-based thinking (deontology), ends-based thinking (teleology), and care-based thinking (value theory) (Kidder, 1995 as in Beckner, 2004).
Theory of Deontology
One theoretical perspective of ethical belief is the objective basis of duty to a higher organization like church, family, or society. Thus, deontology theory judges action on whether an action is right or wrong without individual interpretation (Beckner, 2004). Individual principles should benefit the society based on common needs to maintain continuity and stability in society (Beckner). Rules provide a system by which one can act morally without thinking about day-to-day actions.
The difficulty with deontology as the only ethical belief system is the stagnant state of affairs when personal action occurs through rote, unchanging, or universal behavior (Beckner, 2004). Human response becomes entrenched in an action based on a one-way-based rule system of an earlier society. The acceptance of a one basic set of principles can create difficulty when one basic rule comes in conflict with another basic rule (Beckner). No mechanism for handling stark contrasts in conflict exists, and the only method for change would be revolution. The educational leader should consider end-based thinking, or teleology, as a second ethical belief system when developing best practices in educational decision-making.
Theory of Teleology
Beckner (2004) said a consequentialist approach to ethical thought reflects an assessment of consequences and a forecasting of outcomes as the primary mechanism for action. The theory of teleology seeks to control an action through deterrent or preventive measures based upon consequences. Self-interest, for the teleologist, promotes social good because pleasing the self, leads to supporting society. This view of teleology is similar to the theory of egoism, which urges everyone to seek the good life so long-term interests will succeed over short-term interests (Beckner). The concept of utilitarianism is similar to the theory of teleology as utilitarianism includes consequentialism and the utility principle. Each individual seeks pleasure and an acceptance of individual action based on the extent that the individual derives pleasure, does not derive pleasure, or experiences pain (Beckner).
Because society cannot identify what is acceptable or universally ‘good’ behavior, teleology helps one avoid the total acceptance of following rules that deontology requires (Beckner, 2004). Teleology does not identify who will determine what is right or wrong rather teleology protects innocent people from being taken advantage of unfairly or treated inappropriately (Beckner). Beckner says those who fail to act appropriately are punished accordingly and “the punishment should fit the crime” (p. 66). For the educational leader, the ethical beliefs of deontology and teleology resolve some basic ethical dilemmas while leaving other dilemmas unresolved. Another ethical belief system for the educational leader to use in decision-making is value theory.
Value Theory
The ethicist who focuses on value theory incorporates some aspects of deontology and teleology in the description of a good person and how this good person develops (Beckner, 2004). A person who believes in a value system identifies the priorities in valuing the good life and develops a value system that guides the person’s action. First, an individual forms a value system within the family, and for some individuals this value system stays intact throughout life; however, for others a value system develops through life’s vast experiences of facing difficult situations that require thoughtful reflection and appropriate action.
Value theory focuses on virtues that provide one with the ability to recognize and do the right thing (Beckner, 2004). The ability to do the right thing translates into virtuous action that exemplifies one’s character (Beckner). In addition, value theory provides options for a leader to develop the skill in selecting principles or consequences as guidance for making ethical decisions based on a specific situation (Beckner). Over time, an individual will need experiences and wisdom to develop quality decisions without possessing basic rules or principles as guiding factors (Beckner). Deontology, teleology, and value theories form the foundation for a modern rationale of ethical thought in today’s society and for today’s educational leaders.
Theory of Blended Thinking
These three ethical beliefs provide an educational leader with the understanding of rules-based thinking (deontology), ends-based thinking (teleology), and care-based thinking (value theory). The limitations of these historical schools of thought require education leaders have a modern belief system to develop a personal ethics philosophy to facilitate decision-making processes in this complex society. A leader can combine a theory of personalism with servant leadership and transformational leadership to develop a cycle of moral problem-solving and moral deliberation in conjunction with other educational leaders to improve sound, reflective judgment within educational institutions. The next section explores educational leaders responding to ethical dilemmas using deontologism, consequentialism, and mixed consequentialism in an accountability era.
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
Educational leaders face a variety of issues that require ethical or moral decision making. Hardy (2004) cautioned educational leaders in measuring accountability by “promoting student achievement [and developing] stringent academic goals [to achieve the federal mandates of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) by stating] all students will pass state tests by 2014” (p. 17). Leaders face substantial ethical challenges to ensure students reach accountability measures by engaging learners and teachers (Starratt, 2004). The accidents of human life and human passion create situations requiring the application of moral behavior to bring about the best solution in this educational environment (Wienand, 2006). Educational leaders find themselves facing issues influenced by material selfishness at the root of human behavior (Micewski & Troy, 2007). To establish a successful learning environment, educational leaders respond to ethical dilemmas by understanding the multiple perspectives of deontologism, consequentialism, and mixed consequentialism.
Theory of Deontologism
When educational leaders face an issue that is clearly right or wrong and can use practical decision-making, the leader solves the problem using deontology (Beckner, 2004). Deontology suggests that an individual ought to respond in a certain way when faced with a black or white ethical decision (Micewski & Troy, 2007). One’s moral duty is to focus on the right and wrong of a situation and help others without regard for the self (Granitz & Loewy, 2007). To solve problems, the educational leader can use the laws and rules passed by a legislative body to guide the decision-making process (Micewski & Troy). The leader responds with respect for the laws; and therefore, stays within the boundaries of ethical behavior (Micewski & Troy). The educational leader following deontoligism in ethical decision-making process considers the rights of all people. The leader considers rights and freedoms of others to form a foundation of ideas for what is ethically right (Micewski & Troy). Ultimately, justice influences all human relations when individuals interact and meet the minimal requirements for ethical behavior (Micewski & Troy).
When individual rights and freedoms collide, an educational leader can base ethical decision-making on rules and laws (Micewski & Troy, 2007). A reconciliation of individual freedom forms a “universal tenet of transcendental equality of all people” as the basis of morality for the deontologist (Micewski & Troy, p. 21). Furthermore, the deontologist’s idea of universality of duty reflects the equal entitlement of others to enjoy rights and freedoms within boundaries of justice relevant for all (Micewski & Troy; Weinand, 2006) Deontologism is life affirming and does not deny the “transcendental right of every human being to strive for happiness and wellbeing” (Micewski & Troy, p. 23).
Theory of Consequentialism
To the educational leader, a consequentialist approach focuses the leader’s perception on weighing the costs of an action compared to benefit. Consequentialism offers a leader ethical decision-making to provide “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people” (Granitz & Loewry, 2007, p. 297). Hence, the focus on a good outcome relates “to the acting individual’s (or group of individuals) notion of good and bad” (Micewski & Troy, 2007, p. 18). The educational leader’s action should benefit the individual or a group of individuals, not because it is the right thing to do, but because the good of the action outweighs the right of the action (Micewski & Troy; Beckner, 2004).
Beckner (2004) said the consequence of a leader’s action is the end that justifies the means. This basic relativist tenet supports the concepts of egoism and utilitarianism. Egoism is self-interest as it urges each individual to pursue personal goals to benefit the social good (Beckner). For instance, the educational leader seeks to support the individual teacher who designs classroom curriculum that keeps students engaged and improves test scores. Likewise, utilitarianism emphasizes goodness or badness of an act as determined by the end-result of the act, which can be either good or bad (Beckner). Act utilitarianism requires the action to focus upon the individual act in a particular case to determine the goodness of the act (Milde, 2002). For example, a classroom teacher focuses upon content with highly skilled students to improve student performance on grade level exams and is successful in increasing student performance. However, the same teacher focuses on content with under-skilled students and is not successful in raising these students’ scores. Act utilitarianism does not include a universal perception or judgment for the goodness of the act (Beckner).
Similar to deontology, rule utilitarianism requires the action focus upon the rule as a basis for the goodness of the act (Milde, 2002). Rule utilitarianism does not guide actions to provide the best rules for people to follow all the time because the rules are good for “a single society and certain kinds of situations” (Beckner, 2004, p. 65). For instance, grade level teachers can develop curriculum guidelines that support the study of local history through visits to local farms and orchards. As the farms and orchards are sold to developers, the teachers keep their curriculum focus on local farms and orchards refusing to change direction with the community. The visits to the local farms cease and teachers resort to pictures and stories about the farms and orchards with no reference to the changes within the community.
Consequentialism focuses upon ends-based thinking compared to the rules-based thinking of deontology (Beckner, 2004). Setting an absolute goal at all cost supports justification to use any means to achieve the goal (Micewski & Troy, 2007). Hence, consequentialism focuses upon the evaluation of an action based upon the consequences of the action determined by the degree of well-being and the happiness for the greatest number of people resulting from the action (Page, 2004). In education, consequentialism can focus ethical decision-making on a current action with a future effect; ecology classes can teach that the use of fossil fuels may cause ice caps to melt leading to a rise in ocean levels and the destruction of coastal communities. Sometimes, current actions may have a detrimental effect on a great number of people (Page).
Theory of Mixed-consequentialism
Ethical decision-making includes the process of an incentive, a means, and a result (Micewski & Troy, 2007). Both deontologism and consequentialism focus on a desired result that drives an action. This dichotomy between deontology and consequentialism reflects the difference between the right action that produces the consequence versus the justification of the act to achieve the end-result (Micewski & Troy). Fortunately, an ethical theory can be deontological in the recognition of a principle of justice and consequentialist in the recognition of a principle of utility (Nandi, 2006).
An educational leader using only deontologism or consequentialism to resolve ethical dilemmas will face unresolved conflicts. The deontologist will never use whatever means it takes to arrive at the desired end-result because the deontologist reflects on the concept of moral duty (Micewski & Troy, 2007). When duties are in conflict, the educational leader hinders the desired result when using deontology as the only moral determination (Milde, 2002). Furthermore, the consequentialist must resolve conflicts by appealing to the consequences of the actions and has no alternative method of action (Milde). The deontologist, on the other hand, can rely on a long-view perspective to a short-term dilemma by keeping the individual act within a legal boundary (Micewski & Troy).
The shortcomings of deontologism and consequentialism propel leaders to re-examine the context of ethical decision-making by reflecting upon ethical dilemmas (Ladkin, 2006). To develop a sound ethical approach, ethical leaders can rely on a mixed consequentialism approach. A mixed consequentialism approach can provide a leader with the ability to focus on personal moral development and incorporate an ethical relationship into the evaluation of the dilemma (Ladkin). The educational leader can attend to the “habits of judging and jumping to conclusions” and work to remain open by inquiring into the issues behind difficult decisions (Ladkin, p. 93). The development of relationships can evoke ethical sensitivities that will respond to the context of the dilemma (Ladkin).
Recommendations
Ethical behavior is paramount in this age of accountability. Educational leaders need to be a “cohesive unit, acting for the good of the entire district despite differences” (Hardy, 2004, p. 17) existing between individuals. Individual behavior influences a code of ethical conduct that self regulates and self legislates a mantra for doing the right thing “even when it is not exclusively in our self-interest” (Micewski & Troy, 2007, p. 23) to do so. The educational leader’s concern regarding relationships with humanity is the basis of an ethic of care rather than principles and perceptions of just behavior (Page, 2004).
An ethic of care focuses upon nurturing relationships with others as the guiding principle overriding all other “determinations of what is moral or right” (Page, 2004, p. 10). Educational leaders will need to take a long view of how participants in education will best resolve the issues of state and federal mandates. The best resolutions accommodate reform policies to ensure that all students learn in exemplary environments conducive to academic success (Starratt, 2004). Leaders will confront and survive the accountability. The next section relays the debate of educating special needs students in a full inclusion setting as one ethical responsibility of educational leaders. This debate reflects the need for leaders to evaluate and reason what is best culturally in an ethically diverse educational setting (Klugman & Stump, 2006).
INCLUSION: A CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL ETHICS ISSUE
Educators debate the issue of full inclusion versus continuing the current model of isolated special education placements (Gallagher, 2001). Advocates for full inclusion view the issue as a moral one. Even those who advocate for inclusion argue against full inclusion because these advocates question whether those deemed extremely medically or psychiatrically fragile should be in the regular education setting (Gallagher). In the last half of the 20th century, educators seek to identify and provide “an appropriate education for children with disabilities” (Paul, French, & Cranston-Gingras, 2001, p. 14). The education of special needs students is a “morally complex set of activities with many ethical challenges” (Paul et al., p. 14). Sensenig proposes the inclusion of special needs students in the general education programs in an ethical matter that requires a review of legal, social, and moral issues.
Legal Stance
In the early years of caring for disabled individuals, the institution-builders were promoting an ethic of care that provided decent accommodations and treatment for disabled individuals in residential facilities. However, the system fell apart and now strong accountability measures control existing residential facilities (Paul et al., 2001). In the 20th century, a new ethic of care promotes an integrated community program setting and inclusion in educational placements rather than institutions and alternative pullout programs (Paul et al.).
This advocacy came from family and friends of individuals with disabilities, and from professionals in the medical, social, and educational fields (Paul et al., 2001). These politically active individuals won Constitution arguments for the right to due process that led to successful litigation and the development of law and public policy (Paul et al.). One advocate for a morally responsible setting was Lloyd Dunn, a special education leader, whose support was for improving “the educational outcomes for children with disabilities” (Paul et al., p. 3).
The political support for children with disabilities is in the federal laws of PL 94–142. This first law, Education for All Handicapped Children Act, guarantees students with disabilities a right to receive a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) (Sack-Min, 2007). Fulfilling FAPE requirements in the least restrictive educational environment (LRE) requires leaders to education students with disabilities in the general education classroom (Rude, Paolucci-Whitcomb, & Comerford, 2005). The ideology of full inclusion promotes a responsibility of inclusive education to pursue the rights of the least restrictive environment (LRE). The values and principles of full inclusion permit all students with disabilities access to the general education classroom.
The impact of special placements and the type of services a student receives can strain local school budgets. A lack of sufficient funding can impact the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Sack-Min, 2007). The advocacy for IDEA supports the overemphasis on the process of providing the individualized educational plan (IEP) of the student. This emphasis on process overlooks the outcomes of the services provided (Sack-Min). The democratic view of individualism, privacy, and rational choice do not support the communal view of a disability community, special needs of minorities, and inclusion (Paul et al., 2001). The moral defense of inclusion requires a vision of a society that we hope to be an educational community that supports this vision (Paul et al.).
Societal Stance
The segregation of special needs students may perpetuate the prejudices that make separate schools desirable (Gallagher, 2001). To argue against the right of all individuals to make choices in education denies the right to self-determination (Gallagher). Advocates for special needs students state scientific research should resolve the debate for or against full inclusion because a method of neutrality is beneficial to settle the issue (Gallagher). Continuing the current method of placements makes sense to the traditionalists who emphasize disabilities as real, labels as necessary, interventions required, and difficulties confronting the general education classroom (Gallagher).
Advocates for full inclusion owe that disabilities are “social constructions” of certain human attributes (Gallagher, 2001, p. 643). Perceptions become reality because disability classifications are what we make of them (Gallagher). The social construction of disabilities is what meaning society brings to bear on the perceived differences of special needs individuals (Gallagher). Likewise, the strain and stress experienced by students and teachers in classrooms every day are genuine and the differences of special needs students should be a part of the classroom environment (Gallagher). The difference of the special needs student is a social construct that has social judgment implications. The classroom context in “teaching approaches, standards, assignments and assessment format, physical arrangements and content” can accommodate the difference associated with disabilities (Gallagher, p. 645). Perceiving a disability as a difference requires educators to take a closer look at the classroom context so we can alter how we teach.
The empiricist suggests educators deliver teaching interventions in separate placements (Gallagher, 2001). These interventions include “behavior modifications, task analysis, cognitive training, medication, the commercial Direct Instruction Programs, token economies, mnemonic strategies, self-management, peer tutoring and systematic formative evaluation” (Gallagher, p. 647). However, the foundation of behavior psychology supports these interventions, and these interventions can be effective in multiple settings, not only the separate placements advocated by the empiricist (Gallagher).
The advocates for separate placement state that general education classrooms cannot accommodate all students. In addition, the advocates for separate placements express the difficulty of the regular education setting in meeting the needs of the disabled student in “large classes, inadequate resources, accountability for standards, and the reluctance of general education teachers to welcome special needs students” (Gallagher, 201, p. 649). The advocates for separate placements view the benevolent humanitarianism of a separate placement as a caring more nurturing school experience for the disabled student (Gallagher).
However, the placement of the special needs student in the general education classroom advocates for moral choice in an appropriate general education setting (Gallagher, 2001). Special needs students have the opportunity to receive an education with their peers in the general education classroom. Educators need to face the responsibility for society, schools, and classrooms that we have constructed and make the moral choice to choose with care and deliberation the moral decision to teach all children in the general education classroom (Gallagher).
Absence of Ethical Compass
Without an ethical compass, this conflict of full inclusion or specialized settings for students with disabilities would take the direction of minimal labeling or classification of students with disabilities. Students would attend general education classrooms based on age. Educators would place students unable to meet the demands of the general education setting in self-contained classrooms and disciplined appropriately.
The absence of an ethical compass would permit minimal adherence to the IDEA, FAPE, and LRE. The educator would seek to control the school community and advance individualism for the majority of the population. Educators would subdue the minority population of special needs students in self-contained classrooms to control costs with minimal specialized programs and assistance.
On occasion, special needs students would receive special programs if the courts ordered the school to provide them. The wealthy parents of special needs children will move to districts that have the best programs. The low-income parents will not know their rights and will remain silent about the student’s needs (Sack-Min, 2007).
Corrective Action
An ethical educational leader coming into a hypothetical school district in which no ethical compass exists in accommodating special needs students would bring in a qualified team of special educators to classify special needs students. Educators would place the students in appropriate multiple settings: inclusion, special classes, outside placements, and residential. The special education programs would attempt to meet the needs of classified students in the appropriate setting.
For those students placed in an inclusion setting, an ethical educational leader would begin to communicate personal values regarding rights of student with disabilities and social responsibilities of the educational community. Educational leaders would begin to overcome mythologies about disabilities, unchallenged and uninformed mindsets about what education is and how it occurs, race, gender, and class-biased models of what a classroom and school should look like (Paul et al., 2001). The practical interface of special and general education students in inclusive settings would focus upon the “instrumental efficacy of instructional practices and schooling” (Paul et al., p. 15).
An educational leader will need community participation and communication to support ideas about multiple settings for students with handicapping conditions. Several public forums will bring other leaders, parents, and students on board with these new ideas. If public forums are unsuccessful, educational leaders can request a state audit to turn the school district around. Ultimately, the outcomes of practice and the promises of the law would create urgency in providing the educational support for students with disabilities (Paul et al., 2001). Ample time would overcome disputes and dilemmas regarding unfair treatment of students with disabilities. Programs for early intervention services in the regular classroom could defray costs of educating classified students (Sacks-Min, 2007).
CONCLUSION
Educating students with disabilities is a moral and social responsibility of all educators. The cost of educating these students can be very high. However, with the appropriate accommodations and the appropriate placement, students with disabilities would become an integral part of the community. The education of students with disabilities is a “morally complex set of activities with many ethical challenges” (Paul et al., 2001, p. 14). Educators have an ethical responsibility to be proactive leaders within their educational institutions (Starratt, 2004).
Ethical leadership is the responsibility of all educational leaders. Current educational leaders must seek to establish an ethical education system that ties happiness to living according to a certain social order valuing virtue relative to the whole educational society. This chapter offers a rationale for good sound judgment and practical implementation of ethical decision-making to support the social and economic influences that decisions have on the school community. Educational leaders must weigh actions against moral principles when faces with ethical dilemmas. Therefore, educational leaders need a combination of ethical decision-making to focus on personal, moral deliberation exemplifying best practice in facilitating educational decision-making.
References
Beckner, W. (2004). Ethics for educational leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gallagher, D. J. (2001). Neutrality as a moral standpoint, conceptual confusion, and the full inclusion debate. Disability & Society, 16(5), 637–654.
Granitz, N., & Loewy, D. (2007). Applying ethical theories: Interpreting and responding to student plagiarism. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 293–306.
Hardy, L. (2004). The ethical school board. American School Board Journal, 191(5), 16–19.
Klugman, C., & Stump, B. (2006). The effect of ethics training upon individual choice. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(2), 181–192.
Ladkin, D. (2006). When deontology and utilitarianism aren’t enough: How Heidegger’s notion of “dwelling” might help organizational leaders resolve ethical issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 87–98.
Micewski, E. R., & Troy, C. (2007). Business ethics—Deontologically revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 17–25.
Milde, M. (2002). Legal ethics: Why Aristotle might be helpful. Journal of Social Philosophy, 33(1), 45–66.
Nandi, V. (2006). Model of neutral inclusivity. Retrieved from www.trinp.org/MNI/BoI/7/5/3.htm
Page, J. S. (2004). Peace education: Exploring some philosophical foundations. International Review of Education, 50(1), 3–15.
Patterson, W. R. (2005). The greatest good for the most fit? John Stuart Mill, Thomas Henry Huxley, and social Darwinism. Journal of Social Philosophy, 37(1), 72–84.
Paul, J., French, P., & Cranston-Gingras, A. (2001). Ethics and special education. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(1), 1–18.
Rude, H. A., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. E., & Comerford, S. (2005). Ethical leadership: Supporting human rights and diversity in rural communities, Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(4), 26–31.
Sack-Min, J. (2007). The issues of IDEA. American School Board Journal, 194(3), 20–25.
Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vassallo, P. (2004). Notes on the methods of inquiry of Plato and Aristotle. ETC: Review of General Semantics, 61(3), 373–380.
Wienand, I. (2006). Descartes’ Morals’. South African Journal of Philosophy, 24(2), 177–188).
About the Author
Dr. Neysa T. Sensenig holds an Associates in Applied Science Degree in Business Administration (AA) from the State University of New York (SUNY) Rockland Community College in Suffern; a Bachelor of Arts in English (BA) from SUNY Empire State in Saratoga Springs; a Master of Arts in English (MA) from the State University of New York at New Paltz, a Master of Arts Degree in Educational Administration (MAED) from the SUNY at Albany; and a Doctorate in Educational Leadership (Ed.D) from the University of Phoenix School of Advanced Studies.
Dr. Sensenig has been employed by New York Public Schools for the past 21 years and has been the Assistant Superintendent for Business at the Marlboro Central School District, Marlboro, New York for the last 8 years. Dr. Sensenig has also taught writing as an Adjunct Professor at SUNY Sullivan County Community College, SUNY at New Paltz, and Marist College in Poughkeepsie, NY.
Dr. Sensenig’s dissertation is entitled Impact of the 6+1 Trait Writing Model on Writing Instruction in Grades Three Through Eight. Previously, Dr. Sensenig has published a work entitled: Theory for the Desirability of All Games in the English Graduate Review SUNY New Paltz, December 1993. Dr. Sensenig contributed to the Robert Penn Symposium at Western Kentucky University in April 1994 a manuscript titled: Growth and Redemption: The Poetry of Robert Penn Warren.
To reach Dr. Sensenig, please email: neysasensenig@msn.com.
CHAPTER
2
Have We Tipped: Are We Ready to Demand
Ethical Behavior from Our Leaders?
Dr. Sheila Embry
“The most important element of good government
is to rule with
reason and order while
representing the ideal state”
—PLATO (REPUBLIC)
The decade that began on 2000 was known by many names—the ohs, the uh ohs, the double ohs, the 2000s, the aughts, the naughts, and the zeroes (Beam, 2009; Glossary, 2010). Tragedies during the 2000s included: the 2001 earthquakes in El Salvador killing 5,565 people; the 2001 terrorist attacks within the United States (U.S.) killing 2,752 people and creating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have killed over 140,000 others; the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia explosion upon reentry to the earth’s atmosphere killing 7 astronauts; the 2004 Hurricane Charlie that killed 10 people and caused more than $15 billion damages; the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami in the Indian Ocean, created by an ocean earthquake measuring 9.3 on the Richter scale, killing 230,000 people in 14 countries; the 2005 Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma’s devastations of towns and cities in the U.S. southern gulf states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida as well as in Mexico and Caribbean countries; and depending on how you counted in the decade, the 2010 earthquake in Haiti killing more than 200,000 people (America, 2009).
Despite these and other not listed here tragedies and despite thwarted terrorists’ attacks (the 2001 shoe bomber over Boston, Massachusetts, the 2007 attempt to blow up John F. Kennedy airport in New York City, and the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt over Detroit, Michigan), scandalous stories ruled American media as 2009 closed (America, 2009). Showcasing arrogance and lack of good moral character, many people who were perceived as leaders in their fields faltered under the bright spotlight of media scrutiny. The following famous names were found in many end-of-the-decade articles:
In 2009,
NASDAQ chair Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison after defrauding his clients out of more than $65 billion;
Golfer Tiger Woods, married and father of two, was sexually linked to at least 10 other women;
Late night talk show host David Letterman admitted to inappropriate behavior and affairs with multiple interns in his office;
South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, married, admitted to a long-term affair with a woman from Argentina, after being discovered returning from Argentina when he told his staff he would be hiking in Appalachia.
In 2008,
The U.S. paid $150 billion to American International Group (AIG) as a government bailout; then AIG executives distributed bonuses (including $5 million with a $15 million golden parachute to Chief Executive Officer Mark Sullivan) and attended a luxury retreat at St. Regis in Monarch Beach, California with $200,000 in rooms, $150,000 in meals, and $23,000 in spa services;
The U.S. paid $700 billion to the banking industry as a government bailout; then executives at some banks raised their customers’ interest rates and minimum payments to inappropriately high levels (e.g., raising minimum payments from $150 to $999 a month and interest rates up to 79.9%);
New York governor and former state attorney Eliot Spitzer resigned after it was discovered that he spent thousands of dollars on prostitutes and call girls;
Presidential hopeful senator John Edwards, married to a wife publicly struggling with breast cancer, admitted to a long-term affair that created a child. In a strange twist, Senator Edwards convinced his aide to take responsibility for the child.
Illinois governor Rod Blageojevich was arrested on corruption charges for selling the U.S. Senate seat formerly belonging to U. S. President Barack Obama;
Miss USA beauty pageant winner Tara Conner admitted to cocaine and alcohol abuse and was forced to check into rehabilitation center or lose her crown;
In 2007,
NFL quarterback Michael Vick served 18 months in prison and lost his NFL salary for running an illegal dog-fighting ring;
NASA astronaut and naval officer Lisa Nowak was arrested for attempted kidnapping with intent to terrorize Air Force Captain Colleen Shipman, burglary of a conveyance with a weapon, battery, and attempted destruction of evidence;
Five times Olympic gold medal winner track and field star Marion Jones forfeited all her awards and medals after admitting to performance-enhancing drug use.
In 2006,
Enron chairman Ken Lay was indicted by a grand jury for accounting fraud and corporate abuse. He would have faced 20 to 30 years, but he died before he was sentenced;
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 5 years and 10 months for fraud;
U. S. Representative Mark Foley resigned after admitting to sending inappropriate electronic mail and instant messages to teenage male pages;
In 2005, television celebrity Martha Stewart served 5 months in prison for lying about the sale of her ImClone stock;
In 2004, many prisoners were violently tortured and died at Abu Gharib prison in Iraq;
In 2003, reporter Jayson Blair admitted to fabricating events, locations, and comments for his stories during his 4 years and 600 articles with the New York Times; and
In 2001, U.S. Representative Gary Condit admitted to having an affair with Chandra Levy, a woman who worked for him and whose remains were found in the Washington, DC area (NBC, 2009).
A quick review of the list reminds us that leaders from all sectors—private, public, business, sports, and politics—failed the moral compass test (Thompson, 2009). The themes represented in the bullets above could each be chapters and studies of their own. For purposes of this chapter, the theme will be generally defined: an unbridled greed and an arrogance of entitlement that allowed people to ignore or deny their moral center. Yet, at the end of this decade of greed and arrogant entitlement, the author observed what is hopefully the beginning of a tipping back toward good moral character and ethical choices. There will be more about this observation at the end of this chapter.
LEADERSHIP ETHICS
Leadership
Formal leadership studies have existed for more than eighty years. Multiple models, discussions, and matrices can be categorized into these simplistic themes: (a) roles, skills, knowledge, abilities, values, and methodologies of leaders; and (b) is leadership learned or are leaders born? Basic leadership theory models include great man, trait, group, contingency, transactional, and transformational (Rost, 1993).
Great man theory, developed around the 19th century, held that leaders were born not made. Leaders were born into class positions that dictated leadership behavior. Trait theory was based on leadership in the 1920s through 1940s that posited that leadership was personality and skills based. Group theory emerged in the 1950s with the theory that if managers gave attention to their employees, employees would increase their production and performance. Famous group theories included Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y (Rost, 1993).
Contingency theory was based on leadership from the 1960s forward and included exchange, behavioral, path-goal, normative, situational, and principle-centered theories. It was not based on traits but rather on characteristics; the idea being that the leaders’ characteristics must have relevance to the followers, activities, and goals of the groups. Transactional theory was based on leadership from the late 1970s and was the first one listed as 21st century leadership. It was based on a political exchange, barter system. Because of the give to get dynamic, most transactional relationships are short-lived. Transformational theory was based on leaders and collaborators working together on mutual purposes to effect real change (Rost, 1993).
Leaders of organizations and governmental agencies have started abandoning the transactional (i.e., give and take) approaches to leadership and are adopting transformational approaches (Berkley, 2008). Transformational strategies were reciprocal, relied on trust, empowered employees, and encouraged ownership of organizational goals (Colbert, Kristoff-Brown, & Bradley, 2008). Burns and Bass, known for their work in transformational and visionary leadership, focused on strategies for supervisors to enhance the motivation, morale, and performance of employees. Collaborative, transformational leadership theory emerged as a way to influence employees’ perceptions, values, expectations, and aspirations. Because of the trust, empowerment, and engagement components, transformational leaders should have a high level of leadership ethics to ensure the highest level of ethical employee performance (Berkley, 2008).
In an analysis of poor leadership, Williams (2005) suggested, “If the leader is disengaged or absent, followers find themselves in a state of disorder and confusion with little hope of a vision for a way out of the mayhem” (pp. 6–7). Vivar (2006) warned managers not to leave employees feeling lost or abandoned. Several researchers showed workers strongly preferred visible communicators who were present and available (Rosengren, Athlin, & Segesten, 2007; Rouse, 2009).
A review of supervisor leadership literature indicated federal government employees regularly study supervisor and employee performance. Biannual studies and research were conducted to investigate the effectiveness of specific projects, but an analysis revealed a significant theoretical gap in the existing governmental literature. Historically, agency research lacked a conceptual framework to ground the analysis within the leadership literature. Data analysis consisted of basic frequency information with an executive summary. Few studies included an analysis of results within the context of contemporary theory, thereby hampering governmental leaders in the identification of meaningful, valid, and executable recommendations for improvement.
Ethics
Inside each of the theories listed above are the key tenets, components, and major proponents. In value-based and principle-centered leadership theories, the key tenets include integrity, trustworthiness, listening, respect, courage, persistence, and modeling ethical leadership examples (Rost, 1993). It is in these tenets that leadership ethics resides. According to Woodruff, “ethics and values are essential ingredients in the makeup of today’s global leaders. These leadership values should include behavioral integrity, which is leading by example, where the words of the leader match their personal actions. Leaders with a solid ethical foundation live this example which adds to the credibility of the leader and the organization” (2009, p. 11).
Leaders have a responsibility to their employees, to their organizations, and to society (Rouse & Schuttler, 2009). Leaders must be trusted and respected or it will not matter what they say. Talented employees will not continue to work for supervisors who are unethical and cannot be trusted. Trust has to be earned. One of the ways to build trust is to practice open communication, visibility, and attentiveness (Schuttler, 2010).
Information is key and should be shared whenever possible. “Positive visibility must be displayed in all actions—including e-mails, memorandums, meetings, and casual conversations—regardless of the audience” (Schuttler, 2010, p. 37). Attentiveness is being proactive, listening to your employees and being aware and in tune with what is going on around you. The attentiveness and visibility of leaders influence employees’ perception of a supervisor’s communication skills.
Kerfoot (2007) indicated leader engagement, as well as disengagement, was contagious. If leaders were not careful, they could inadvertently communicate poor attitudes and behaviors to their employees. Treat your employees professionally with dignity and respect, and strengthen your communications with your employees and you will improve your working relationships, your employees’ morale, and your organizations’ performances (Schuttler, 2010).
STUDY
Below are partial findings from a 2009 dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of requirements for a doctor of management degree. The online survey was conducted from May 31, 2009, through July 6, 2009, at a large federal agency within a United States cabinet-level department. The purpose of the current mixed-methods study was to examine the relationship between leadership, communication, and employee performance within one federal agency directorate. The mixed-methods study included a quantitative test of the relationship between leadership communication and employee performance and a qualitative exploration of recommendations to enhance communication and leadership competencies.
The descriptive design provided clarification within the study with detailed characteristics identified in the study (Cone & Foster, 2006). The goal was to test the correlation between the predictor variables of perceived supervisor leadership and communication and the criterion variable of employee performance. The population included national employees, supervisors, and executives who work within one federal agency directorate headquartered in Washington, DC.
Data Collection
Participating leaders were located within one directorate comprised of 201 field offices throughout the United States. Demographic data collection included: (a) the division and location where the survey respondent worked, (b) the rank of either general service or senior executive service the survey respondent held, and (c) whether the survey respondent supervised people. Open coding simplified the examination of the written data to identify correlations between responses. The mixed methodology study was conducted to assess the correlations between supervisor leadership, supervisor communication, and employee performance.
Instrumentation
The Supervisor Leadership Communication Inventory (SLCI) developed by Rouse and Schuttler (2009) was used for the study with the authors’ permission. The instrument was used to measure the study variables in a two-dimensional grid showing how supervisor leadership and communication could predict employee behavior. The SLCI contained 53 questions to measure supervisor leadership and employee performance, 3 demographic questions, and 3 open-ended questions to allow the participants to offer comments, suggestions, and recommendations for better leadership communication and better employee performance. The SLCI was tested for reliability several times (Rouse, 2009) with consistently high reliabilities reported (Rouse & Kaplan, 2008; Rouse & Schuttler, 2009; Schuttler & Rouse, 2008).
Agency officials granted approval to distribute survey announcement fliers in employee break rooms and cafeterias and through private social networks such as Linked In, Facebook, and My Space. One Uniform Resource Locator (URL) provided an incentive question asking for the name of the participants’ favorite charity and stating that the author would provide one dollar for each completed survey. The participants chose the American Cancer Society as their most listed charity. Participants who chose the other URL to complete the survey were asked to list their names and mailing addresses if they wished to participate in the Starbucks $20.00 gift cards raffle. Personal information was listed voluntarily and was not a requirement to complete the survey. The winning survey respondents, each 25th person, received gift cards. All gift cards were mailed to the winners by July 20, 2009.