5 RESPONSES DUE IN 6 HOURS respond to at least two classmates KELVIN’S POST: An incompetent leader would not be able to trust an employee because they think that the employee is less competent than themselves. This would lead to a violation of trust. Ethical leaders have to put their trust in their employees. If trust is not established or broken, the leader is therefore unethical. Unethical leadership refers to leader behaviors or actions that are illegal or violate existing moral standards. The moral standards of trusting one another would be violated by an incompetent leader. Also, incompetent leaders tend to be arrogant or pridefully overconfident. This can lead to "classing heads" with employees in the work environment. EDWIN’S POST: Incompetent means to lack the training or skills to accomplish a task or to do something in particular with success. If a leader is incompetent, I believe it would be difficult for them to understand how to lead ethically. This may vary depending on the situation. If someone in a leadership position is lacking what they need to be successful it may not mean they will automatically make unethical decisions. For example, if I were to get a job as a manager at a welding company, in which I have zero experience, I would still attempt to run things as best as possible. My skills as a leader would still help me make decent decisions when it comes to things that involve the employees and that side of my job. Although, I may not understand the welding part, I would still understand certain things like, we should not cut corners on a project, we should follow all policies and procedures, and that we should perform jobs safely. This is a question that can be determined by a lot of variables so I would say yes, it is possible for an incompetent leader to still be ethical depending on what the leader is incompetent about and the circumstances. Now, if the leader was just incompetent about everything and simply unaware of their ignorance for some reason, that may be a bigger issue and that can cause them to act in an unethical manner.  respond to at least two classmates RUSSELL’S POST This is the first discussion question that I feel the book answers straightforwardly.  There are empirical positives and negatives to working within and being a part of a group that the book does an excellent job of laying out.  However, I was a little alarmed at how many of the traits of group work were negative.  Groupthink, illusion of invulnerability, inherent morality, rationalization, out-groups and in-groups (several of the negatives concerned this), pressuring dissenters, poly think, intragroup conflict, leaks, confusion, framing information, lowest common denominator, decision paralysis, limited review, non-reappraisal of dismissed option, mismanaged agreement, escalating commitment, excessive control, moral exclusion, and a few others I may have glossed over.  The main point is that groups have the potential to accompl.

1. 5 RESPONSES DUE IN 6 HOURS
respond to at least two classmates
KELVIN’S POST:
An incompetent leader would not be able to trust an employee
because they think that the employee is less competent than
themselves. This would lead to a violation of trust. Ethical
leaders have to put their trust in their employees. If trust is not
established or broken, the leader is therefore unethical.
Unethical leadership refers to leader behaviors or actions that
are illegal or violate existing moral standards. The moral
standards of trusting one another would be violated by an
incompetent leader. Also, incompetent leaders tend to be
arrogant or pridefully overconfident. This can lead to "classing
heads" with employees in the work environment.
EDWIN’S POST:
Incompetent means to lack the training or skills to accomplish a
task or to do something in particular with success. If a leader is
incompetent, I believe it would be difficult for them to
understand how to lead ethically. This may vary depending on
the situation. If someone in a leadership position is lacking
what they need to be successful it may not mean they will
automatically make unethical decisions. For example, if I were
to get a job as a manager at a welding company, in which I have
zero experience, I would still attempt to run things as best as
possible. My skills as a leader would still help me make decent
decisions when it comes to things that involve the employees

2. and that side of my job. Although, I may not understand the
welding part, I would still understand certain things like, we
should not cut corners on a project, we should follow all
policies and procedures, and that we should perform jobs safely.
This is a question that can be determined by a lot of variables
so I would say yes, it is possible for an incompetent leader to
still be ethical depending on what the leader is incompetent
about and the circumstances. Now, if the leader was just
incompetent about everything and simply unaware of their
ignorance for some reason, that may be a bigger issue and that
can cause them to act in an unethical manner.
respond to at least two classmates
RUSSELL’S POST
This is the first discussion question that I feel the book answers
straightforwardly. There are empirical positives and negatives
to working within and being a part of a group that the book does
an excellent job of laying out. However, I was a little alarmed
at how many of the traits of group work were negative.
Groupthink, illusion of invulnerability, inherent morality,
rationalization, out-groups and in-groups (several of the
negatives concerned this), pressuring dissenters, poly think,
intragroup conflict, leaks, confusion, framing information,
lowest common denominator, decision paralysis, limited review,
non-reappraisal of dismissed option, mismanaged agreement,
escalating commitment, excessive control, moral exclusion, and
a few others I may have glossed over. The main point is that
groups have the potential to accomplish much more than the
individual, but at what cost? Oftentimes that cost is the mental,
spiritual and emotional well-being of the members. Sometimes
the members themselves are sacrificed (dismissed from the
group or fired altogether) as a scapegoat. At a minimum, most
group members will feel a frustration with some aspect of the
work they have accomplished. We all want to feel like we were

3. not just a part of the event, but the lynchpin. "They couldn't
have done this without me suggesting that." That ego is natural
and healthy for the submission of innovative ideas, but it can
overtake you if you focus too long.
On the other hand, I can say that when a successful meeting has
finished or a project has been completed that I was a part of a
group effort, you do feel a different kind of pride in the
accomplishment. You head to your car at the end of the day a
little lighter when there were no arguments or you managed to
contribute something significant to the proceedings. That is a
good feeling, and it keeps people coming back. Leaders should
maximize these opportunities whenever possible.
BRITTANY’S POST:
I believe groups bring out the best in us overall because from
what I've seen in my life, working in a group setting forces us
to be accountable for our actions and our words. We can't shirk
our responsibilities even a bit because there are other witnesses
right there with us. That's not a bad thing whatsoever - if the
entire group holds each other accountable, the quality of the
product or content being produced by the group can be expected
to be greater than it could be otherwise.
Groups can also bring out the worst in us, definitely. Some
people tend to be a bit controlling when it comes to different
projects if they're over-excited; conversely, it can also give
other people an out in order to be a bit laxer with the quality of
their own contributions to the project itself.
Then, respond/reply to at least one other student (the best
response/reply will have
at least two (2) paragraphs with at least five (5) sentences each
).

4. ROLANDA’S POST:
My scores suggest that I am strong in all four components of the
assessment. I agree with it because the way my mother raised
me it's hard for me to not carry myself a certain way. We were
brought up in the church (every Sunday, Wednesday and
Saturday night) we played sports for the church team and when
my mom was work she would have the church bus come pick us
up. My internalized moral perspective was the highest score.
The book defined that one as "self-regulatory process whereby
individuals use their internal moral standards and values to
guide their behavior rather than allow outside pressures to
control them" (pg. 204).
On the SLQ assessment I scored high in the emotional healing,
conceptual skills, putting followers 1st, and behaving ethically.
I scored moderate in creating value for the community,
empowering, and helping followers grow and succeed. I believe
that the results support my view of myself because I'm not in a
leadership role as of now so I don't see myself as being able to
push people to grow or empower them. I do support them in
their choices and root for them to finish especially close
friends. The ones I scored high on are parts of my character
that's just the type of person I am.
I believe my best fit is the Authentic Leadership.