What do you think about this statement? What do you like about it?
Leadership defines a culture. What the leaders prioritize will set the tone for employees to follow. In the Army, this translates into a culture where everything must be done "yesterday." The Army prides itself on developing leaders, but what really happens is you have several different bosses who all think their pet projects are the main event, and everything else you have going on can take a back seat.
Needless to say, the only way to get by is to cut corners and do things in an ethically questionable manner. As an example, when the mandatory sexual harassment or suicide training comes down, everyone has the code to punch in the web browser that lets you bypass the whole thing and get your certificate, so you can get back out to the motor pool and get your vehicles prepared for the field problem you just found out you were going on.
Leaders must promote a culture of ethics by making demands realistic, so that employees aren't forced to bend rules in order to meet demands. At first, this bending may seem harmless, but eventually, integrity corrodes, and ethically questionable becomes the new normal. (Sekerka, 2012, pg 289)
I read the article in the course material that says leaders must be ethical role models (Nguyen, 2011). I think that is true to some extent, but I think people put too much emphasis on the leader's personal qualities and not enough on what leaders actually demand of an organization. It's one thing to challenge people; it's another thing entirely when they have to lie, cheat, and steal to meet your ridiculous demands.
Widening the circle, we see that entire industries, such as big chocolate, perpetuate unethical labor practices simply because they cannot afford not to; no one wants to pay $3 for a Kit-Kat bar. Again, here, we see the ethical outrage but I wonder if people have the fortitude to accept the inevitable outcome: drastically increased prices.