Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Moral courage, as defined in ADRP 6-22, is the willingness to stand firm on values, principles, and convictions. It enables all leaders to stand up for what they believe is right, regardless of the consequences. Leaders, who take full responsibility for their decisions and actions even when things go wrong, display moral courage. In most cases, one who displays moral courage is usually taking a stand against something that they know is wrong. Normally, it is not the popular decision. With physical courage, the fear factor is usually physical where with moral courage it is psychological. Often, a display of physical courage makes you the hero, while the same display with moral courage sometimes makes you appear to be the villain.
Position and personal power both have a strong influence on moral courage. With position power, a decision using moral courage is usually not popular, but relatively easy to make, unlike that same decision made under personal power. This is because we usually find compliance when leveraging positional power compared to commitment with the u...
According to Google.com courage says “The ability to do some things that frighten one (Noun) Mr. Frank showed courage by letting the Van Daans in the Secret Annex and Mr.Dussel too. Another way he showed courage was when a robber broke into the shop where the Annex was above,
Real courage is when you fight for what is right regardless of whether you win or lose. For example, while Jem and Atticus converse about Mrs. Dubose and her fight against morphine addiction, Atticus states, “I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what” (112). Courage, as defined by Atticus Finch, doesn’t mean that you have to do something beyond your capabilities and fears, but simply means following through with something you know will not be going in your favor. He demonstrates this in Tom Robinson’s case when even though the prejudice townspeople and jury were not in support of him, he followed his conscience and persevered through the fight. In addition, when Scout, Jem, and Atticus talk about this one-sided case and the prejudices involved, Atticus simply states, "Simply because we were licked a hundred years before we started is no reason for us not to try and won" (76). The best thin...
Courage is when you know you’re beaten. The character Atticus, for instance, who was a seasoned lawyer acted courageous defending Tom Robinson. Tom Robinson was a black man who was accused of raping a white girl. Atticus was appointed to defend him. Jem was happy because he thought his father had won the case but Reverend Sykes loathed telling Jem “Now don’t you be so confident, Mr. Jem, I ain’t ever seen any jury decide in favor of a colored man over a white man…”(Lee 208). Atticus was sure he wasn’t going to win the case, nevertheless he gave it a try. That didn’t stop Atticus from trying to defend his client Tom Robinson. Another part in the novel when Atticus was courageous was when he shot at the man street dog. Heck Tate the Maycomb Sheriff was not as courageous as Atticus so he handed Atticus the air rifles and with one shot Atticus took down the street dog. Miss Maudie says “I saw that, One Shot Finch” (Lee 97). Atticus was referred to as one-shot finch because of his shooting skills. The other incidence in the novel when Atticus portrays courage was when he was not scared when Bob Ewell threatened him. Bob Ewell was the man who accused Atticus’ defendant Tom Robinson of raping his daughter Mayella. Atticus thought Bob Ewell threatened him as some sort of revenge, but unfortunately Atticus was wrong because when Bob Ewell said ...
“Efforts and courage are not enough without purpose and direction,” declared John F. Kennedy, President and World War ll hero. This means if you go out and do something brave but it doesn’t have a purpose it is pointless. A lot of courage is shown in The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, To Kill A Mockingbird, Schindler’s List, and The Merchant Of Venice.
In the literary work, Speaking of Courage, Tim O’Brien highlights the trying struggle of a post-war solider attempting desperately to integrate himself back into American society. Paul Berlin’s trials and tribulations exemplify the “dominance of a citizen culture in the United States,” as mentioned by Dr. Decker in class. American society does not allow for the soldiers we have sent off to fight to return as warriors.
“Courage - a perfect sensibility of the measure of danger, and a mental willingness to endure it.” Courageous people understand the danger that they face when they act how they do. That is what courage is all about. Many historical events occur due to people having the courage to do what they think is right, or because of those who use their courage to do what they want. Having the courage to stand alone in one’s beliefs may be one of the hardest thing a person can do.
Many soldiers of today know what courage is. Courage is doing what is needed to do, not what absolutely must be done. In Tim O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried”, the soldiers were not what one would think of as courageous. The soldiers were courageous in the sense that their courage came from fear of dishonor. The soldiers did what must be done in order to keep their honorable reputation. True courage was not present until the end of the story.
“[Courage is] when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what” (Lee 149). In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, courage is an obvious overlapping theme that portrays radical, determined characters that have the willingness to defy common views. Likewise in The Help by Katheryn Stockett, the reader sees what happens when people persevere against the evils of society and take steps for the good of all. In both texts, the reader can see that courage is doing what is right without worry of the repercussions or opinions of others.
Looking at the first word in ethical leadership we see, as stated in the Webster-Merriam dictionary, ethical is defined as “following accepted rules of behavior: morally right and good”. When we think of someone who is ethical we, first, think of someone who ‘follows the rules’. By following the rules I mean someone who in the eyes of the majority is morally sound. Having strong morals is what I believe the key is to an ethical person. On the other side of the definition of ethical is defining it as having inside oneself the desire to do what’s right over what is wrong. When we speak about someone who is ethical this desire is one that is not dependent on external forces i.e. no one can sway an ethical person’s mindset.
My code of ethics helps determine what kind of decision I make as a leader. When making a decision not only the code of ethics affect what kind of decisions the leader will makes, but also the impact on power holders. The definition of power is the ability of one person to influence others or exercise control over them. (Nahavandi, 2015) There are two different ways how power impacts a leader, a positive impact and negative impact. Positive impact focuses on action-oriented where a leader is more sensitive and more generous. Negative impact is a leader who cannot empathize where a leader is addicted to power and take all the credits. When a leader is impacted positively with power, the leader is going to be successful making ethical decisions. For example, the leader will be able to obtain thoughtful information from his/her peers and make a valid and reasonable decision while account his/her subordinates. When a leader is impacted by negatively with power, the leader will abuse his/her power and make poor and unethical decisions. As a leader, leaders should avoid abusing their powers and maintain a positive impact on power
Moral courage is to raise your hand, overcome one’s fear, and claim for something that is wrong. A military leader exerts his power influencing with his positon power (in case of military the rank) and/or personal power (how does one person is seen in the organization). The leader, who has a position power, and doesn’t claim for something that is wrong or exerts moral courage, take the risk of loosing personal power and credibility within his organization. If the senior leader exerts moral courage within an cohesive organization he will probably gain personal power and credibility throught the organization. It means that his organization will support and trust on him. For this reason the leader should has to take into account many factors: The culture of his organization, if there is cohesion in his organization, what is his superior’s behavior, and how to built trust between superiors and subordinates. In both cases, a military senior officer will not loose his position power. On the other hand, the subordinate that doesn’t have position power (young officers, warrant officers, and enlisted officers) and claims for something that is wrong or exercise their moral courage, will probably gain personal power within his group or organization. So there is a close relationship between personal and position power and there always be risks if there is not communication and a cohesive organization. There is also a huge risk with a person that has power and claim for something that is wrong, in this person can loose the opportunity to log in better positions if the system is corrupt.
According to John McCain, there is no difference between moral and Physical courage, except, “in the occasions when it encounters risk” (Rosenstand, 582). That is, moral courage is to be brave enough to do what is right when nobody is watching. For example, return a return a cellphone, money, or other valuable item find it in the restroom. Physical courage is also needed to do a good action regardless of the critiques or consequences. For example, Oscar Schindler, a German industrialist, had physical courage to saves hundreds of Jews lives from the Holocaust by employing them in his ammunition factory (Rosenstand, 598-600).
(2005), describes ethical leadership as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (p. 120). Further, they engage in transactional efforts to communicate ethical standards, detect and deter deviant behaviours and make decisions that have important ethical implications. In addition, Trevino, Hartman and Brown (2000) assert that, there are three fundamental pillars which describes ethical leadership. The first one being termed as the personal integrity of the leader, also called as the moral person component of ethical leadership. The second one puts emphasis on the extent of the leader’s ability to cultivate integrity among his or her followers. The third one consists of the quality of the leader-follower relationship, which bridges the moral person and moral manager components and facilitate their effects on followers. Ethical leadership also addresses how leaders use their social power by being both moral individuals and moral managers (De Hoogh and Den Hartog,
Lennick D., & Kiel, F (2005). Moral Intellegence. Enhanching Business Performance and Leadership Success. Pennsylvania. Wharton School Publishing.
Moral leadership is based, to a greater extent, on the authority, not on power, the sources of which is coercion and punishment and its strength depends on the magnitude of these parameters. If we talk about the power, there is always the opportunity to buy or inherit it, but the authority is rather an intrapersonal entity, and the only way to get it is to earn by demonstrating the values being proclaimed in your behavior. The main mechanism of the influence of a moral leader is identification. Receiving a "credit of trust," the leader becomes an object of imitation for the subordinates who actually copy his behavior, launching an identification mechanism that takes the form of the desire to be like his leader. The influence of the moral leader lies in the ability to create, set and broadcast the standards of highly moral behavior. The identification with such a leader allows the subordinates to internalize his values ( i.e. to absorb social norms and assessments). The uniqueness of a moral leader lies in his ability to convey the values to employees at emotional and behavioral levels, to "materialize" these values.