TOPIC CLARIFICATION FOR APPLIED BRIEF 1
My professor clarified that there is no separate assigned case or scenario for this assignment. We are allowed to select our own organizational leadership/ethical issue, including the issue used in our Week 1 discussion.
Please use my Week 1 discussion topic as the basis for the Applied Brief.
Issue/Decision to Analyze
An organization is considering whether to promote its strongest technical performer into a leadership role. The candidate consistently produces strong technical results but has a documented pattern of concerning behaviors, including dismissing colleagues, withholding information, and reacting poorly to change.
The central leadership and ethical question is:
Should the organization promote this technically exceptional employee despite the behavioral concerns, reject the promotion, or delay the promotion until the employee demonstrates measurable leadership and ethical improvement?
My position in my original discussion was that technical competence alone should not justify promotion into leadership. Leadership also requires character, trust, accountability, communication, respect, collaboration, and the ability to create direction, alignment, and commitment.
Please Build on My Original Discussion
My discussion already addressed:
- The difference between technical/managerial competence and leadership ability
- Ethical leadership
- Character and moral authority
- Center for Creative Leadership's Direction–Alignment–Commitment (DAC) framework
- Employee trust
- Psychological safety
- 360-degree feedback
- Leadership readiness and people-management competencies
- Coaching and measurable behavioral expectations
- Confidential reporting and protection against retaliation
Please develop these ideas further rather than simply repeating my discussion post.
Three Alternatives for the Required Analysis and Matrix
Alternative A – Immediate Promotion: Promote the candidate because of exceptional technical performance while attempting to address behavioral problems after promotion.
Alternative B – Deny Promotion: Do not promote the candidate because the documented behaviors indicate that the individual currently lacks the character/interpersonal qualities required for leadership.
Alternative C – Delay/Conditional Promotion: Delay permanent promotion and require a structured leadership-development period involving coaching, written behavioral expectations, confidential 360-degree feedback, measurable leadership goals, and independent evaluation. Promotion would occur only after sustained improvement is demonstrated.
Please compare all three alternatives throughout the paper and use the same A, B, and C alternatives in Appendix A's Ethical Decision Matrix.
Ethical and Leadership Analysis
The professor requires at least three ethical lenses and two leadership concepts. Please actually apply the frameworks to the decision rather than simply defining them.
Appropriate ethical lenses could include:
- Consequences/benefits and harms (utilitarian approach): Which alternative produces the greatest organizational and employee benefit while minimizing harm?
- Duties and rights: What duties does the organization have to the candidate and existing employees? What rights should employees have to respectful and fair treatment?
- Fairness/justice: Is it fair to deny or delay advancement based on documented behavior? Is it fair to employees to place someone with problematic interpersonal behaviors in authority over them?
- Character, care, and common good can also be incorporated where appropriate.
Leadership concepts should include the DAC framework and concepts such as ethical leadership, moral authority, character, competence, accountability, trust, and the distinction between management authority and genuine leadership influence.
Likely Recommendation
My original discussion supports Alternative C: delaying the promotion while providing a structured opportunity for leadership development and evaluation.
However, the recommendation needs to be justified through the evidence, stakeholder analysis, ethical frameworks, leadership concepts, risks, and alternatives—not simply stated as my opinion.
The organization should establish measurable standards such as respectful communication, information sharing, collaboration, accountability, team development, and complaint patterns. A confidential 360-degree assessment and independent review could help determine whether improvement is sustained.
Sources
My discussion already used these four sources, which can be used again if appropriate:
- Center for Creative Leadership (2026) – leadership and the Direction–Alignment–Commitment framework.
- Fang et al. (2023) – ethicality, leadership competence, trust, and organizational citizenship behavior.
- Spinosa et al. (2023) – leadership behavior and organizational moral norms.
- U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2025) – leadership/executive competencies.
Additional credible sources may be added if they strengthen the analysis. The final paper must have at least three credible sources, including at least one peer-reviewed or authoritative institutional source, with APA 7 in-text citations and references.
Final Deliverable
Please complete the professor's 1,200–1,500-word Applied Brief template AND the entire Simplified Ethical Decision Matrix.
The completed matrix must be inserted at the end of the Applied Brief as Appendix A, and everything must be submitted as one Microsoft Word document. Do not submit the matrix separately.
Please preserve the professor's required section headings, remove all bracketed instructional text before submission, and make sure the paper, recommendation, sources, three alternatives, and matrix are completely consistent with one another.
Please review the template below. Thank you so very much
I will sepreatly add my discussion post.