Problem As a leader in situation, determining the course of action to successfully manage up and down during a crisis is needed. Currently our organization is dealing with severe financial difficulties that affect pleasing shareholders and the ability to pay salaries to employees due to the lack of customer retention. Secondly, our organization is currently under possible threats of production shutdown because manufacturing is met with local and federal safety concerns. Additionally, our employees depend on our organization to survive. This also raises concern with a CEQ's leadership effectiveness in the eyes of employees, setting the tone for what's acceptable behavior. Disapproval of my crisis action plan could conform employees into a strike. Finding the happy medium between managing up and managing down will without a doubt create friction among shareholders and employees. As leaders we must determine an ethical resolution for the greater good of employees, partners, shareholders, and customers by striving for fairness through honoring our commitment to others (Daft,2018). Ethical Principles and Option 1 According to the Utilitarian Approach, the first action could be considered acceptable. The theory of Utilitarian Approach emphasizes what actions we can take that will produce the greatest good and minimize the amount of harm for our actions (Brown, 2013). Utilitarianism also focuses on a concern for large groups of people and that some good will always be met with some bad. Despite the need for continuous production, it's ethically more correct to shut down production temporarily to bring the workplace up to OSHA standards. The good being that if we do shut down to implement safety upgrades, production will only stop for six to nine months. Additionally, upgrading safety protocols is morally correct because we prevent the possible greater harm of workplace injury or death. The cost of emotional and financial pain for workplace injuries in 2021 averaged $167 billion in fees and 70 million days of production lost in the U.S. (Injury, 2023). Even though a safety inspection isn't scheduled during the next 18 months, the obligatory good of employee safety outweighs the cost of continuing production. Ethical Principles and Option 1 According to the Utilitarian Approach, the first action could be considered acceptable. The theory of Utilitarian Approach emphasizes what actions we can take that will produce the greatest good and minimize the amount of harm for our actions (Brown, 2013). Utilitarianism also focuses on a concern for large groups of people and that some good will always be met with saome bad. Despite the need for continuous production, it's ethically more correct to shut down production temporarily to bring the workplace up to OSHA standards. The good being that if we do shut down to implement safety upgrades, production will only stap for six to nine months. Additionally, upgrading safety protocols is morally correct because we prevent the possible greater harm of workplace injury or death. The cost of emotional and financial pain for workplace injuries in 2021 averaged $167 billion in fees and 70 million days of production lost in the U.S. (Injury, 2023). Even though a safety inspection isn't scheduled during the next 18 months, the obligatory good of employee safety outweighs the cost of continuing production. Ethical Principles and Option 2 The issue with option two is that it doesn't solve any of the ethical issues at hand. Downsizing the workforce to save money for the purpose of establishing positive financials doesn't fix the issue concerning workplace safety regulations. Turning a blind eye to the greater good of all people goes against the theory of The Common Good Approach and toes the line of acting within a Virtue Framework. While layoffs may be considered impermissible, it is not wrong to layoff some workers for the benefit of production, but it is right not to do it based on the common good of the group who survives from its operations. Such an organization is only capable of success by the general will of the community and hiring temporary workers only promotes disrespect and lack of compassion for their commitment. The common good approach is entirely focused on the cause and effect of the most vulnerable (Brown, 2023), and in this situation the strength of canformity of employees is high, resulting in possible walkouts. Turning a blind eye to the safety regulations is still unethical and while downsizing staff displays that a leader is right by saving some jobs, its deceitfully supererogatory. My Choice: Option 1 or Option 2 Through the duty framework, we have an ethical obligation to the safety of our community and an abligation to our shareholders. When comparing option one to option two, only by adapting the duty framework do we successfully perform corrective action for safety protocals to secure the common good of all involved in our organization. The first option is focused on long-term goals which benefit the shareholder interests and continue to support the averall well-being of employees. Brown (2023) wrote, \"a duty framework works best in situations when were met with the obligation to consider why such course of action forbids another, even if there is a bad result\" (para. 30). Thus, the bad result is halting productions harming financial support of employees, but it's our moral duty to address the safety protocols to strengthen long-term organizational goals and community health. Will to Act | would have the will to act on option one because as ethical leaders we must maintain the concern for the greater good (Daft,2018). It would only be unethical to turn a blind eye to safety protocols through deception and risk. Turning a blind eye is also unethical through self-serving arrogance and lacks courage to confront shareholders of unjust acts. Ethical leaders stand up for what is right, even when met with backlash by followers. If we provide clear and straightforward communication on corrective actions to their safety, we encourage trust in our teams while showing how much we value them as members. A New Option An alternative approach to our scenario would be to create a sense of urgency in followers by use of change story (Yokala, 2014). Given that our organization is the main source of financial support for its community, we must assume that our current workforce expects that we can continue to provide to the community for future generations. Creating a sense of urgency for the safety concerns of employees by use of change story stresses the importance for corrective action to safety protocols to maintain the longevity of production and employee health. If we don't fix these issues now, operations will eventually slow down resulting in the loss of jobs. Additionally, instead of hiring outside contractors to fix safety protocals, current employees could be offered the task of upgrading current working conditions so they can continue providing for their families. Leadership Style The leadership style that represents this situation would be one who is transformational and a servant. Transformational leadership is needed to inspire followers to understand the importance of the overall grand vision of generational stability. Addressing safety protocols works in favor of providing followers with healthier working conditions for the future compared to previous standards. Daft (2018) wrote, \"it is in the vision that encourages others to take action and make followers aware of the importance for change goals and outcomes to transcend whole organizations\" (pg. 363). Furthermore, we are choosing to serve for the purpose of bettering the community, to help them develop materially, and emotionally with a focus on overall well-being (Daft, 2018)