This image came from businesstimezone.com
Trying to Make Sense of Ferguson: Ethical Leadership Reflection & Analysis
My Initial Thoughts & Ideas on What It Means to Be an Ethical Leader:
Ethical Leadership is leading in a way that is guided by one’s conscience or moral compass, with regard for others’ feelings and future consequences, good or bad. I think ethical leaders lead with integrity and walk the walk as well as just talk a good talk. Ethical leaders are thinkers who consult outside sources to make the best decisions for their organization or group. Ethical leaders are not easily swayed by culture’s societal hierarchy or finances specifically, but allow these elements to play a small part when necessary.
Ethical leaders don’t get to pick and choose when to be thoughtful and listen to their moral compass-- it’s a daily process to prioritize smaller tasks or concerns. By practicing daily and making decisions that are helpful and not manipulative, decision-making may sometimes become easier. They are not emotional, impulsive decision-makers. They tend to think about the big picture, but don’t forget about the smaller steps it will take to get there. They are typically questioners, who take time to seek answers to important questions regarding the tasks at hand and the end goals. Ethical leaders seem to me to listen well and take time to absorb the information and decide what the best plan of attack will be.
When leaders do not consistently make ethical choices and seem to be out for themselves and not for the group at large, trust is lost within followers or group members. I will support a leader as long as I know he or she has my best interest at heart, but if I start to see quick decisions and flippant responses, I start to question the why/intent of that person. I start to question our relationship. On the flipside, if you show me that you will consistently work hard for a mutual cause and you hear others’ concerns and are transparent in your business, trust can be established quite quickly and people will be supportive and helpful from that point forward.
Applying Ethical Leadership to Ferguson, Missouri & Michael Brown/Darren Wilson Case:
Part A: In such large issues, it’s important to separate and define issues. Name and explain some of the concerns in the issue that you view are/were immediate and critical.
Immediate issues that come to mind are racism and double-standards. In this case, a white police officer shot a young black man, believing him to look like a criminal he had been made aware of earlier. At least six shots were fired, one fatal shot to the head. There was no video of this occurrence but there were a number of witnesses. The officer, Darren Wilson, believed Brown to be a threat and moving aggressively toward him.
There is also the issue of violent force or perhaps excessive force. It is claimed the events conspired in under two minutes and ended in death. At what point does excessive force become part of the conversation, as well as the race of the victim? Certainly many people feel that race tied into the forced used, but regardless of race, swift action that involved multiple gunshots seems worthy of discussion.
Now, police officers do have specific training, I know that, but I’m not sure to what extent ethics plays a part. Their first instinct is to protect the community at large and then, of course, themselves. I know that oftentimes situations escalate and become bigger than ever intended. If a threat is made, the body and mind react in impulsive ways sometimes and decision making becomes a bit clouded in ways it normally would not. I do think, however, that had a more open dialogue been exchanged, assumptions may have been cleared up and both sides could have resolved the situation without excessive force of any kind. I definitely think their races played a factor in their altercation-- both assuming things of the other without communicating.
I think there needs to be more accountability and diversity in police teams. If the community is made up of a certain race majority, that should be represented in the public servants who serve that community. Partners should rely on one another to keep each other safe and to ensure good decision making. Policemen and women are often allowed to make quick decisions without punishment for making accidental wrong choices-- at least that is what we hear about in the media. We assume they are protecting the citizens at all costs, but we don’t know for certain and data is not provided to us from the city or state showcasing those numbers/arrests/convictions/etc. We hold them to ethical standards but we can’t be sure they’re holding up their end, most of us do assume that if they are in such a position, they have taken proper training to act calm in high-stress situations and trust their authority.
Part B: It's important to look at long-term and philosophical concerns ethical leaders must consider when trying to problem solve.
The philosophical questions at play might have to do with what lengths one is allowed to take in order to protect the safety of others and to what extent is violence a possible response to fear or danger. The officer pursued Brown who was walking down the street; Brown was not doing anything suspicious at time, but due to his race, Wilson believed he may have previously been involved in a local assault. What right did Wilson have to even approach Brown, let alone, continue to question? Also, at what point was it okay to shot Brown repeatedly, still not having proven any connection to the assault first assumed? It brings to light the question of life-- is the police officer’s more important? Were other community members in jeopardy/harm’s way? Does age, let alone race, play into this scenario- the fact that he was young and may have dressed a certain way?
Ought a conversation or back-up call seem like a logical response if in fact Wilson felt threatened? The events transpired so quickly there was no time for that, but I wonder if ethical leadership came into play, wouldn’t verifying both sides be the best way to move forward? Wouldn’t granting both parties respect be the first step to clearing the air of any danger? When things go one-on-one, the air and stories can become murky because there is no accountability. Therefore, I feel that neither party should have continued to engage with the other without others present to document and account for the dialogue that occurred.
Part C: What ethical leadership characteristics could have or should have been applied to this situation that may reflect a different result?
A protocol should have been enacted where information was exchanged in a civil manner in a well-lit place, with witnesses. This incident happened far too quickly and without proper documentation practices. The police have a job to do, but they ought not to be allowed to act discriminatory and accusatory, especially without cause or evidence. Back-up should have been called and action should not have turned violent until completely necessary (which I don’t agree ever truly happened in this case-- hearsay of course). The job of a policeman is to protect the citizens, but it is also to respect the dignity of all citizens and be just in their delivery. If the force was in pursuit or looking for an alleged thief or assailant, then more policeman should have been in close proximity, not leaving any one police officer in a possibly harmful situation. Actions happened too quickly and without enough evidence or discussion-- just a sequence of assumptions and actions taken, without both sides respecting one another enough to communicate the facts or fears before deathly action occurred.
Part D: Were there any costs to this choice of ethical leadership or lack thereof? Did choosing one solution alienate or oppress? How?
Certainly the cost for Officer Wilson may have been death, as he claims the reason he shot Brown. He was smaller in weight, but not height and he felt a danger to himself and possibly others nearby. He also loses his reputation by some in the police force in his city, while others stand by his decision making as they have seen it play out prior to that incident. Involvement in any death has a cost, a life, but whether or not the person taking the life feels justified or guilty is up to them. If he believes he was in a life-or-death situation and in harm’s way, his reaction is justified in his mind. However, other bystanders who feel the excess shot to the head and escalation of force was unnecessary and possibly deliberate feel differently. Physically, he could lose his badge and emotionally, the respect of the citizens he aims to protect.
Part E: How can the application of ethical principles provide great benefit to the situation?
I just think the situation got out of hand too quickly, due to improper or ineffective protocol in pursuing a possible suspect. Why was there not another officer present and why was more than one shot fired and not just the one to simply subdue him (the first shot to the arm would have semi-paralyzed him for the time being)? Why did a proper series of questions, given in a non-aggressive tone, occur first? Had both parties recognized a misunderstanding from the start, perhaps the situation may not have escalated. Each person needs to be given the benefit of the doubt or at the very least be heard before actions are taken. I truly believe that if the boy had been the same race as the officer, the conversation and assumption may have been internalized differently.
The first NY Time article “Racial Divide in United States Defies Easy Change” (http://messengertest.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RACIAL-DIVIDE-STUDY-GUIDE.pdf) explains, “This black-white divide was captured by a Pew Research Center survey released last week. Blacks were twice as likely as whites to say the shooting raised “important issues about race.” In addition, 65 percent of blacks said the police response went too far, compared with 33 percent of whites. Only 18 percent of blacks expressed confidence in the investigation.That sense is reinforced by the events in Ferguson. The town is two-thirds black, yet only three of the 53 police officers are African-American.” The demographics doesn’t match the police force and as a result, questions of race come into play may not in other areas. Ethical leadership means making the right choice based on moral beliefs, some of which may include the idea that violence ought not to the first answer and that truth should be the endgame.
Part F: Had it Been Me, What Would I Have Done Differently?
In some ways, I think I previously addressed that I think this situation escalated out of a lack of respect for Michael Brown in being pursued and then followed falsely under a false assumption. I think that another officer or officers should have been called before the pursuit even happened if there was any chance the person in question might in fact be a criminal on the run. I think communication and an open dialogue where both parties got to give their side needed to happen before violence, verbal or physical, would take place.
I think from the start, Michael felt discouraged or frustrated to be considered in the wrong, having committed no crime. I think Officer Wilson may have felt empowered in his position of authority and he also may have had some fear in making that assumption and mistake in questioning Brown. I think rash actions happened without proper protocol and training being followed. It seems to me that this exchange went “off script” and without a video documentation or other trust witnesses (those who came forward were said to have changed their testimony for various reasons), those in power to try and bring justice to Brown’s death were unable to do so. The irony for me in this case is that police officers are held to a high standard or respect and we as citizens assume they will act in our best interests for our safety at all times, but in this case, Wilson seems to have brought on this altercation and without proper cause. I think we as a country need to continue to hold authority figures in check and we need to be ensured that their work is honest and “by the book.” I hate that some police officers muddy the waters and public persona of the work they do to protect and serve. Plenty of policemen and policewomen do their jobs day in and day out without credit or celebrity and they act in ethical ways. However, the ones we sometimes hear about are those who have abused their power in some way, creating a distrust.
Perhaps we need to think about creating and testing new protocol for instances where possible assailants are pursued. Perhaps we need to ensure that the diversity of the police force matches the diversity of the community. I don’t know if that’s possible-- we want the best people for the jobs and we can’t discriminate by race, but maybe by talking about it openly, we can begin to enact change and get more policemen and women of differing races. Perhaps there need to be stronger punishments for those police officers who go off script. Perhaps we need not be so lenient on those with such power within our community. It is a weighty responsibility and one must understand that in wearing the uniform. We all make mistakes, but we ought to justly be served a proper measure to ensure similar occurrences are not repeated. Certainly a follow-up psychological evaluation should be done (and I assume it is) after the incident and he or she should be cleared medically before entering back into the community.
Ethical Leadership is leading in a way that is guided by one’s conscience or moral compass, with regard for others’ feelings and future consequences, good or bad. I think ethical leaders lead with integrity and walk the walk as well as just talk a good talk. Ethical leaders are thinkers who consult outside sources to make the best decisions for their organization or group. Ethical leaders are not easily swayed by culture’s societal hierarchy or finances specifically, but allow these elements to play a small part when necessary.
Ethical leaders don’t get to pick and choose when to be thoughtful and listen to their moral compass-- it’s a daily process to prioritize smaller tasks or concerns. By practicing daily and making decisions that are helpful and not manipulative, decision-making may sometimes become easier. They are not emotional, impulsive decision-makers. They tend to think about the big picture, but don’t forget about the smaller steps it will take to get there. They are typically questioners, who take time to seek answers to important questions regarding the tasks at hand and the end goals. Ethical leaders seem to me to listen well and take time to absorb the information and decide what the best plan of attack will be.
When leaders do not consistently make ethical choices and seem to be out for themselves and not for the group at large, trust is lost within followers or group members. I will support a leader as long as I know he or she has my best interest at heart, but if I start to see quick decisions and flippant responses, I start to question the why/intent of that person. I start to question our relationship. On the flipside, if you show me that you will consistently work hard for a mutual cause and you hear others’ concerns and are transparent in your business, trust can be established quite quickly and people will be supportive and helpful from that point forward.
Applying Ethical Leadership to Ferguson, Missouri & Michael Brown/Darren Wilson Case:
Part A: In such large issues, it’s important to separate and define issues. Name and explain some of the concerns in the issue that you view are/were immediate and critical.
Immediate issues that come to mind are racism and double-standards. In this case, a white police officer shot a young black man, believing him to look like a criminal he had been made aware of earlier. At least six shots were fired, one fatal shot to the head. There was no video of this occurrence but there were a number of witnesses. The officer, Darren Wilson, believed Brown to be a threat and moving aggressively toward him.
There is also the issue of violent force or perhaps excessive force. It is claimed the events conspired in under two minutes and ended in death. At what point does excessive force become part of the conversation, as well as the race of the victim? Certainly many people feel that race tied into the forced used, but regardless of race, swift action that involved multiple gunshots seems worthy of discussion.
Now, police officers do have specific training, I know that, but I’m not sure to what extent ethics plays a part. Their first instinct is to protect the community at large and then, of course, themselves. I know that oftentimes situations escalate and become bigger than ever intended. If a threat is made, the body and mind react in impulsive ways sometimes and decision making becomes a bit clouded in ways it normally would not. I do think, however, that had a more open dialogue been exchanged, assumptions may have been cleared up and both sides could have resolved the situation without excessive force of any kind. I definitely think their races played a factor in their altercation-- both assuming things of the other without communicating.
I think there needs to be more accountability and diversity in police teams. If the community is made up of a certain race majority, that should be represented in the public servants who serve that community. Partners should rely on one another to keep each other safe and to ensure good decision making. Policemen and women are often allowed to make quick decisions without punishment for making accidental wrong choices-- at least that is what we hear about in the media. We assume they are protecting the citizens at all costs, but we don’t know for certain and data is not provided to us from the city or state showcasing those numbers/arrests/convictions/etc. We hold them to ethical standards but we can’t be sure they’re holding up their end, most of us do assume that if they are in such a position, they have taken proper training to act calm in high-stress situations and trust their authority.
Part B: It's important to look at long-term and philosophical concerns ethical leaders must consider when trying to problem solve.
The philosophical questions at play might have to do with what lengths one is allowed to take in order to protect the safety of others and to what extent is violence a possible response to fear or danger. The officer pursued Brown who was walking down the street; Brown was not doing anything suspicious at time, but due to his race, Wilson believed he may have previously been involved in a local assault. What right did Wilson have to even approach Brown, let alone, continue to question? Also, at what point was it okay to shot Brown repeatedly, still not having proven any connection to the assault first assumed? It brings to light the question of life-- is the police officer’s more important? Were other community members in jeopardy/harm’s way? Does age, let alone race, play into this scenario- the fact that he was young and may have dressed a certain way?
Ought a conversation or back-up call seem like a logical response if in fact Wilson felt threatened? The events transpired so quickly there was no time for that, but I wonder if ethical leadership came into play, wouldn’t verifying both sides be the best way to move forward? Wouldn’t granting both parties respect be the first step to clearing the air of any danger? When things go one-on-one, the air and stories can become murky because there is no accountability. Therefore, I feel that neither party should have continued to engage with the other without others present to document and account for the dialogue that occurred.
Part C: What ethical leadership characteristics could have or should have been applied to this situation that may reflect a different result?
A protocol should have been enacted where information was exchanged in a civil manner in a well-lit place, with witnesses. This incident happened far too quickly and without proper documentation practices. The police have a job to do, but they ought not to be allowed to act discriminatory and accusatory, especially without cause or evidence. Back-up should have been called and action should not have turned violent until completely necessary (which I don’t agree ever truly happened in this case-- hearsay of course). The job of a policeman is to protect the citizens, but it is also to respect the dignity of all citizens and be just in their delivery. If the force was in pursuit or looking for an alleged thief or assailant, then more policeman should have been in close proximity, not leaving any one police officer in a possibly harmful situation. Actions happened too quickly and without enough evidence or discussion-- just a sequence of assumptions and actions taken, without both sides respecting one another enough to communicate the facts or fears before deathly action occurred.
Part D: Were there any costs to this choice of ethical leadership or lack thereof? Did choosing one solution alienate or oppress? How?
Certainly the cost for Officer Wilson may have been death, as he claims the reason he shot Brown. He was smaller in weight, but not height and he felt a danger to himself and possibly others nearby. He also loses his reputation by some in the police force in his city, while others stand by his decision making as they have seen it play out prior to that incident. Involvement in any death has a cost, a life, but whether or not the person taking the life feels justified or guilty is up to them. If he believes he was in a life-or-death situation and in harm’s way, his reaction is justified in his mind. However, other bystanders who feel the excess shot to the head and escalation of force was unnecessary and possibly deliberate feel differently. Physically, he could lose his badge and emotionally, the respect of the citizens he aims to protect.
Part E: How can the application of ethical principles provide great benefit to the situation?
I just think the situation got out of hand too quickly, due to improper or ineffective protocol in pursuing a possible suspect. Why was there not another officer present and why was more than one shot fired and not just the one to simply subdue him (the first shot to the arm would have semi-paralyzed him for the time being)? Why did a proper series of questions, given in a non-aggressive tone, occur first? Had both parties recognized a misunderstanding from the start, perhaps the situation may not have escalated. Each person needs to be given the benefit of the doubt or at the very least be heard before actions are taken. I truly believe that if the boy had been the same race as the officer, the conversation and assumption may have been internalized differently.
The first NY Time article “Racial Divide in United States Defies Easy Change” (http://messengertest.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RACIAL-DIVIDE-STUDY-GUIDE.pdf) explains, “This black-white divide was captured by a Pew Research Center survey released last week. Blacks were twice as likely as whites to say the shooting raised “important issues about race.” In addition, 65 percent of blacks said the police response went too far, compared with 33 percent of whites. Only 18 percent of blacks expressed confidence in the investigation.That sense is reinforced by the events in Ferguson. The town is two-thirds black, yet only three of the 53 police officers are African-American.” The demographics doesn’t match the police force and as a result, questions of race come into play may not in other areas. Ethical leadership means making the right choice based on moral beliefs, some of which may include the idea that violence ought not to the first answer and that truth should be the endgame.
Part F: Had it Been Me, What Would I Have Done Differently?
In some ways, I think I previously addressed that I think this situation escalated out of a lack of respect for Michael Brown in being pursued and then followed falsely under a false assumption. I think that another officer or officers should have been called before the pursuit even happened if there was any chance the person in question might in fact be a criminal on the run. I think communication and an open dialogue where both parties got to give their side needed to happen before violence, verbal or physical, would take place.
I think from the start, Michael felt discouraged or frustrated to be considered in the wrong, having committed no crime. I think Officer Wilson may have felt empowered in his position of authority and he also may have had some fear in making that assumption and mistake in questioning Brown. I think rash actions happened without proper protocol and training being followed. It seems to me that this exchange went “off script” and without a video documentation or other trust witnesses (those who came forward were said to have changed their testimony for various reasons), those in power to try and bring justice to Brown’s death were unable to do so. The irony for me in this case is that police officers are held to a high standard or respect and we as citizens assume they will act in our best interests for our safety at all times, but in this case, Wilson seems to have brought on this altercation and without proper cause. I think we as a country need to continue to hold authority figures in check and we need to be ensured that their work is honest and “by the book.” I hate that some police officers muddy the waters and public persona of the work they do to protect and serve. Plenty of policemen and policewomen do their jobs day in and day out without credit or celebrity and they act in ethical ways. However, the ones we sometimes hear about are those who have abused their power in some way, creating a distrust.
Perhaps we need to think about creating and testing new protocol for instances where possible assailants are pursued. Perhaps we need to ensure that the diversity of the police force matches the diversity of the community. I don’t know if that’s possible-- we want the best people for the jobs and we can’t discriminate by race, but maybe by talking about it openly, we can begin to enact change and get more policemen and women of differing races. Perhaps there need to be stronger punishments for those police officers who go off script. Perhaps we need not be so lenient on those with such power within our community. It is a weighty responsibility and one must understand that in wearing the uniform. We all make mistakes, but we ought to justly be served a proper measure to ensure similar occurrences are not repeated. Certainly a follow-up psychological evaluation should be done (and I assume it is) after the incident and he or she should be cleared medically before entering back into the community.