| Course | EDP 820 Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Doctoral leadership ethics paper |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 820 Module 3
Charisma Without Checks: Ethical and Destructive Leadership in a Research Center
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 820: Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Charisma Without Checks: Ethical and Destructive Leadership in a Research Center
Dr. Lang directs a well-funded research center in the psychology department of the composite Columbus university. His grants support a dozen doctoral students, and his name on a paper helps launch careers. In the past year, three students told Ruth, the associate director of the training clinic, that he had pressed them to exclude participants whose data did not fit his hypotheses, describing them as "noise." One student who objected was told he was "not cut out for science" and removed from a project. The others complied. Dr. Lang and his center are fictional. This paper analyzes the situation through research on ethics in leadership.
What Ethical Leadership Is
Brown et al. (2005) set out to define and measure ethical leadership. In their account, an ethical leader both behaves well and actively teaches good conduct: talking with followers about ethics, rewarding the right behavior, disciplining the wrong and making decisions in visibly principled ways. Their explanation rests on social learning. Leaders hold power and status, so followers watch them closely and copy what seems to succeed. Across several samples, the authors built a short scale and showed that employees who rated their supervisors high on it also saw those supervisors as honest, considerate and fair, were more satisfied and committed and said they were more willing to bring problems forward.
How Ethical Leadership Spreads
Mayer et al. (2009) asked whether ethics at the top reaches the front line. Surveying employees in many work groups, they measured how ethical people judged both senior managers and their own supervisors to be. Groups whose senior managers were seen as ethical tended to have supervisors seen the same way, and those supervisors' groups showed less misbehavior and more helpfulness toward colleagues. The effect of the top ran largely through the middle. In the department, the chair's handling of Dr. Lang will tell every lab head what the department really expects.
The Toxic Triangle
Padilla et al. (2007) argued that harmful leadership is a joint product of three elements, which they drew as a triangle. One corner is the leader, often charismatic, hungry for personal power, self-absorbed and shaped by a troubled history. The second is the followers who make the leader possible: some go along because they are insecure or want to belong, and others actively join in because they share the leader's ambitions. The third is a setting that lets harm grow, such as instability, a sense of threat, a culture that admires strong leaders and the lack of anyone with power to say no.
| Corner of the triangle | At the center | Protection |
|---|---|---|
| Leader | Charismatic, celebrated, controls funding and authorship | Data decisions reviewed by someone outside the lab |
| Followers | Students dependent for funding and careers; some conform, one senior student colludes | Funding guarantees from the department; confidential reporting route |
| Environment | Department values grant income; no independent oversight of lab practices | Preregistration and data audits; chair publicly states standards |
Analyzing the Case
Dr. Lang shows several warning signs: personal magnetism, control over money and careers and a habit of treating disagreement as betrayal. His students are susceptible because they depend on him for funding, authorship and recommendations; most conform, and one senior student, eager for a faculty position, colludes by pressuring junior students. The environment is conducive: the department values his grants, and no one reviews how data are handled in his lab. Brown and colleagues' social learning view explains why the practice spread: students saw that compliance was rewarded and objection punished.
Protections
Protections should work at each corner of the triangle and should not depend on Dr. Lang changing. For followers, the department will guarantee funding for students who leave a lab for ethical reasons and establish a confidential route to raise concerns with an ombudsperson. For the environment, the department will require preregistration of analysis plans for studies with students and periodic data audits by a faculty member outside the lab. For leadership, the chair, following the trickle-down evidence, will state publicly that excluding data to fit hypotheses is research misconduct and will refer the reported practices to the university's research integrity office.
Ruth's Role
Ruth, as associate director of the clinic, has no authority over Dr. Lang's lab, but she has a duty to act on what students told her. She reported the concerns to the department chair and the research integrity office, with the students' consent, and helped the student who had been removed find a new advisor.
The Colluding Follower
The senior student who pressured junior students is a colluder in Padilla and colleagues' terms: ambitious and aligned with the leader's goals. Colluders spread a destructive leader's influence and make it harder for conformers to resist, since pressure comes from peers as well as the leader. Addressing the case therefore requires attention to the senior student's conduct as well as Dr. Lang's. The department will include the senior student in the research integrity review, and the graduate program will discuss expectations with him directly. Brown et al. (2005) emphasized that people learn ethics by observing those around them, and the senior student had learned from his advisor that results come first.
The Chair's Dilemma
The chair faces a conflict of interest. Dr. Lang's grants bring the department substantial indirect cost funding and prestige, and acting against him carries costs. Padilla et al. (2007) identified the absence of checks as a feature of conducive environments; a chair who protects a high-earning faculty member becomes part of that environment. Referring the matter to the university's research integrity office, which is independent of the department's finances, removes the decision from the person with the conflict.
Checking the Protections
The department will track how many concerns are raised through the ombudsperson, how long responses take and how many students change labs for ethical reasons with guaranteed funding. A rise in concerns raised in the first year would suggest that students feel safer, not that the department has become less ethical.
The Student Who Objected
The student removed from the project had done what ethical leadership research hopes followers will do: he raised a problem. His experience showed others the cost. Helping him find a new advisor, with funding guaranteed, sends the opposite message, which Brown et al. (2005) would predict others will learn from.
Conclusion
Brown and colleagues showed that followers learn ethics from leaders, Mayer and colleagues showed that ethical leadership flows down through levels and Padilla and colleagues showed that destructive leadership requires susceptible followers and conducive environments. For the department, protections at each corner of the triangle can make it safe for students to act on their ethics.
References
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001
Reading the EDP 820 Module 3 assignment instructions
Module 3 of EDP 820 usually asks for a paper on ethics in leadership. Follow your Aspen course's Module 3 instructions; the center is a composite. Say what ethical leadership is and how followers come to copy it. Review evidence on how leadership ethics spreads through organizations. Analyze a case of unethical or destructive leadership, including followers and context. Propose protections that do not depend on the leader's good will. Use APA 7, and address the roles of followers and organizations rather than attributing everything to the leader's character. Consider the position of followers who depend on the leader, and explain what would make it safe for them to act on their ethics.
Inside the EDP 820 Module 3 example
Dr. Lang, the composite director of a research center, presses doctoral students to exclude inconvenient participants and dismisses a student who objected as "not cut out for science." Brown, Treviño and Harrison build a measure of ethical leadership and link it to honesty, fairness and followers speaking up. Mayer and colleagues show senior leaders' ethics reaching employees through supervisors. Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser describe harmful leaders, the followers who go along or join in and settings with no one to stop them. A three-row table maps the triangle onto the center and proposes protections at each corner. Sections address the colluding senior student, the chair's dilemma about a high-earning faculty member and how the protections will be checked.
Where the marks sit in the EDP 820 Module 3 rubric
A strong leadership ethics paper defines ethical leadership with evidence and analyzes destructive leadership as a system. This example uses the social learning view to explain why students imitate their director, the trickle-down evidence to show why department leaders matter, and the toxic triangle to analyze leader, followers and environment together. Protections are structural, such as independent data review and alternative reporting routes, so they work even if the leader does not change. It also examines the colluding follower and the chair's conflict of interest, since a department that depends on a leader's grants faces pressure to protect him. Protections are checked against outcomes, such as concerns raised and resolved, rather than assumed to work. The student who objected is not forgotten: the paper tracks what happened to him.
EDP 820 Module 3 help from the desk
Leadership ethics papers often focus only on the leader's character. Analyze followers and context too. Use evidence on how ethical leadership spreads. Propose protections that work without the leader's cooperation. Consider why followers comply, including dependence for funding and careers. Avoid assuming that removing one leader solves the problem. Analyze colluding followers as well as conformers. Address conflicts of interest in the organization's response, such as dependence on a leader's funding. Check whether protections work by tracking outcomes. Remember the people harmed and what the organization does for them. Show what the organization owes those harmed, such as help finding a new advisor.
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 EDP 820 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 820 Module 1: Ethical Principles and Professional Standards
- EDP 820 Module 2: Ethical Judgment and Decision Making
- EDP 820 Module 4: Organizational Ethics
- EDP 820 Module 5: The History of Research Ethics
- EDP 820 Module 6: Institutional Review and Informed Consent
- EDP 820 Module 7: Protecting Research Participants
- EDP 820 Module 8: An Ethics Plan for a Research Study
- EDP 810 Module 3: The Human Resource Frame
- EDN 818 Module 8: Ethics of a Health Care Innovation
- EDN 814 Module 5: Planning the Self-Study
- EDO 816 Module 2: Planned Change Models and Their Limits
EDP 820 Module 3 questions, answered
What does EDP 820 Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 820 covers ethics in leadership in this module, so a paper analyzing a leadership case and proposing protections is typical. Your Module 3 prompt has the details.
What is ethical leadership?
In Brown, Treviño and Harrison's account, it means acting with integrity and actively teaching good conduct, through what a leader says, rewards and decides.
Does ethical leadership trickle down?
Mayer and colleagues found that work groups whose senior managers were seen as ethical had more ethical supervisors, and those groups behaved better.
Where can I find a free EDP 820 Module 3 sample paper?
You can read it all here: what ethical leadership is, how it spreads, the toxic triangle applied to a research center and protections.
What is the toxic triangle?
Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser's model holding that harmful leadership needs a harmful leader, followers who comply or collude and a setting that fails to check them.