| Course | EDO 820 Ethical Issues in Leading Organizations |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Doctoral ethical argument |
| Length | About 1,032 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDO 820 Module 5
Credit Earned, Credit Misspent: When, if Ever, a Leader May Break a Rule, Tested on a Nonprofit's Payroll Crisis
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDO 820: Ethical Issues in Leading Organizations
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Credit Earned, Credit Misspent: When, if Ever, a Leader May Break a Rule, Tested on a Nonprofit's Payroll Crisis
This course keeps returning to one question: can the special position of a leader ever license an act that would be wrong for anyone else? Earlier modules examined why Kinloch Family Services' chief executive believed he was justified in moving $1.9 million of restricted grant money into payroll. This paper asks the normative question directly: could such an act ever be justified, and under what conditions? It then applies the answer to the case. Kinloch and every figure in it are fictional.
The Strongest Case for Exceptions
Rules are written for foreseeable situations. Leaders, more than others, face situations no rule writer anticipated, and they carry responsibility for people who may be harmed if they follow rules rigidly. A hospital administrator who violates a staffing rule to keep an emergency department open during a disaster, or a nonprofit leader who uses restricted funds to keep foster children housed when the state's payments stop, may serve the purpose behind the rules better than strict compliance would. On this view, leadership sometimes requires judgment that goes beyond rules, and a leader unwilling ever to break one fails those who depend on him.
The argument has force. The chief executive's act kept 900 people paid and services running, and the money was returned.
Why Leaders Misjudge Their Own Exceptions
Price (2000) identified the weakness in this argument. Ethical failures of leaders, he argued, are often failures of belief: leaders sincerely think that the special features of their role, such as the importance of their goals and their responsibility for outcomes, justify them in deviating from moral requirements. The difficulty is that these same features make leaders especially likely to hold such beliefs mistakenly. Leaders are surrounded by evidence of their own importance, focused on goals they care about and rarely challenged, so the conditions under which they judge whether an exception applies are the conditions most likely to distort that judgment.
The case for exceptions, then, is weakest exactly where it is made: by the leader, about himself, in the moment. That does not prove no exception is ever justified, but it means a leader's own conviction is poor evidence that one is.
Latitude Earned and Its Limits
Hollander (1958) proposed that group members accumulate idiosyncrasy credit, a store of positive impressions earned by competence and by conforming to group expectations, especially early in their membership. Members with high credit are allowed more latitude to deviate from group norms without sanction, and leaders, who typically have the most credit, can introduce change that would be rejected from others. Credit is spent when members deviate, and it can be exhausted.
Hollander's theory explains why Kinloch's staff and board accepted the chief executive's act. Fourteen years of growth and competence had given him enormous credit. But the theory also marks a limit. Idiosyncrasy credit concerns latitude within a group, departures from the group's own expectations. The restriction on the grant was not a norm of Kinloch's staff; it was a promise to an outside funder and to the young people the housing program would serve. Credit earned with insiders cannot license breaking promises to outsiders who never granted it.
How Success Sets the Trap
Ludwig and Longenecker (1993) examined ethical failures by highly successful leaders and named the pattern after the biblical story of King David and Bathsheba. Success, they argued, brings conditions that invite failure: complacency and loss of strategic focus, privileged access to information and people, unrestrained control of organizational resources and an inflated belief in one's ability to manipulate outcomes. Leaders who had risen through discipline and judgment could lose both at the height of their success.
The chief executive's path fits. His success brought control of resources, a board that deferred to him and the confidence that he could move the money and restore it before anyone was harmed. The very record that earned him credit also prepared the overconfidence behind the act.
What an Open Exception Would Have Looked Like
Suppose the chief executive had been right that the payroll emergency justified using the grant. A defensible path existed. On Friday, he could have called the board chair and the foundation's program officer, explained the delay and asked permission to borrow from the grant for eight weeks with a written repayment schedule. He could have convened the board's executive committee by phone over the weekend, as Kinloch's bylaws allow. And he could have described the transfer accurately in the records, as a temporary use of restricted funds approved by the funder. Foundations often agree to such requests in emergencies. Had the foundation refused, he would have known that the exception was not his to make. What separates this path from the one he chose is whether others could see the exception and say no to it.
Conditions for a Defensible Exception
If exceptions can ever be justified, they should meet conditions that others can check, not only the leader's conviction.
| Condition | Meaning | Met at Kinloch? |
|---|---|---|
| Necessity | No lawful alternative could prevent serious harm in time | No: a bank line of credit and an emergency board meeting were available |
| Transparency | The exception is disclosed promptly and described accurately | No: the board learned in stages, the funder not at all, and the act was labeled a loan |
| Consent | Those whose rights are affected agree where they can be asked | No: the foundation could have been asked and was not |
| Accountability | The leader accepts review and consequences | Partly: he accepted the board's review once it came |
| No personal benefit | The leader gains nothing personally | Yes |
Conclusion
There may be rare cases in which breaking a rule is the right thing for a leader to do, but the leader is the person least able to judge whether a case qualifies. Price explains why, Hollander shows that latitude earned within an organization does not extend to promises made outside it, and Ludwig and Longenecker show how success itself feeds the confidence behind such acts. Kinloch's chief executive gained nothing personally, but his act failed the tests of necessity, transparency and consent, and so was not a justified exception.
References
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65(2), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042501
Ludwig, D. C., & Longenecker, C. O. (1993). The Bathsheba syndrome: The ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(4), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01666530
Price, T. L. (2000). Explaining ethical failures of leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(4), 177-184. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730010335418
EDO 820 Module 5 instructions, in plain terms
Rule-breaking and exceptions are the theme of EDO 820's fifth module, and students are commonly asked to argue whether leaders can be justified in breaking rules and to apply that argument to a case. Your own Module 5 page in the classroom governs; the case is invented. State the question precisely. Present the strongest arguments for permitting exceptions. Explain why leaders may misjudge whether their situation warrants one. Propose conditions under which an exception could be defensible. Apply the conditions to a case and reach a conclusion, with APA 7 entries for the works you draw on.
How the EDO 820 Module 5 example is put together
The argument begins with the best case for the chief executive: leaders sometimes face situations that rule writers did not foresee, and rigid compliance can harm the people rules exist to protect. Drawing on Price's article in Leadership and Organization Development Journal, the paper shows why such arguments are dangerous in the hands of the leader making them: the same features of leadership that seem to justify exceptions also make leaders prone to believe in false ones. Hollander (Psychological Review) shows that the chief executive's fourteen years of success had earned him unusual latitude, and that this latitude covered departures from group expectations, not from promises to outsiders. Ludwig and Longenecker (Journal of Business Ethics) explain how his success fed the confidence behind the act. Five conditions are proposed: necessity, transparency, consent of those affected where possible, accountability and no personal benefit. The case fails on necessity, transparency and consent.
Where the marks sit in the EDO 820 Module 5 rubric
Ethical argument papers earn credit when the writer presents the opposing case at its strongest, uses scholarship to test it and reaches a reasoned conclusion. This example begins by making the chief executive's best argument, then shows why leaders are poor judges of their own exceptions, using Price. Hollander's theory adds a useful distinction between latitude earned within a group and obligations owed to outsiders. Ludwig and Longenecker connect the leader's success to the failure. The five conditions give the conclusion a principled structure that could apply beyond this case, and the test against them is clear about which conditions were met and which were not.
Common EDO 820 Module 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent flaw is declaring a verdict at the outset and spending the paper defending it. Present the strongest case for an exception, then examine it. Another weakness is arguing about exceptions in the abstract without saying who decides that a situation qualifies; the central problem is that leaders judge their own cases. Use scholarship on why leaders misjudge, not only ethical theory. Propose conditions that could be applied by others, such as a board, before or after the fact. Apply them honestly to the case, noting any conditions it meets. Finally, consider what process would have let a justified exception, if one existed, be made openly.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDO 820 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDO 820 Module 1: Leadership Ethics and Its Central Question
- EDO 820 Module 2: The Moral Psychology of Leaders
- EDO 820 Module 3: Power and Moral Disengagement
- EDO 820 Module 4: Followers and Toxic Leadership
- EDO 820 Module 6: Ethics in Public, Private and Nonprofit Governance
- EDO 820 Module 7: Preventing Dysfunctional Leadership
- EDO 820 Module 8: A Position Paper on Leadership and Rule-Breaking
- EDN 816 Module 6: Costing and Pricing a Service
- EDN 820 Module 8: Evaluating Improvement Results
- EDO 816 Module 2: Planned Change Models and Their Limits
- EDN 818 Module 1: Authentic Leadership Self-Assessment
EDO 820 Module 5 questions, answered
What does EDO 820 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDO 820 covers rule-breaking and exceptions in this module, so arguing whether leaders can be justified in breaking rules and applying the argument to a case is typical. Read your Module 5 prompt.
Can leaders ever justifiably break rules?
Possibly in rare cases, but Price argued leaders often wrongly believe their role exempts them, so any exception should meet conditions others can check.
What is idiosyncrasy credit?
Hollander's term for latitude group members, especially leaders, earn through competence and early conformity, allowing later departures from group expectations.
Where can I find a free EDO 820 Module 5 sample paper?
Above, free and in full: a doctoral argument on when leaders may break rules, tested on an invented nonprofit leader's use of restricted funds.
What is the Bathsheba syndrome?
Ludwig and Longenecker's term for ethical failure by successful leaders, whose success brings privileged access, control of resources and overconfidence.