CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
APPLE VS FBI SCANDAL............................................................................................................3
ETHICAL DILEMMA FACED...................................................................................................4
ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST THE ORDER...................................................................4
APPLYING THEORETICAL APPROACHES...............................................................................5
MORAL REASONING...................................................................................................................6
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ETHICS, LEADERSHIP AND DECISION MAKING.................7
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ENSURING ETHICAL DECISION MAKING...........................8
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................9
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION:
The following report is an attempt to understand ethics, leadership and decision making.
The first issue that was discussed was the legal battle between APPLE and FBI which garnered
much publicity in December 2015. The issue was analyzed from the perspective of both the
participants and ethical dilemma faced by APPLE was identified and analyzed. The legal rules
and regulations involved are identified and a reflection of arguments from both sides was
provided. The moral permissible of the action of APPLE was analyzed from different theoretical
approaches and alternative moral reasoning was used.
The relationship between ethics, leadership and decision making was explored and
discussed with views from different authors. The ethical decision making process was evaluated
with respect to different frameworks and an understanding of the practical implementation was
provided.
APPLE VS FBI SCANDAL:
There was a 43 days of legal battle between Tech giant Apple and Department of justice
of United States after federal magistrate ordered Apple Inc. to help FBI in cracking the iPhone
used by a terrorist in the San Bernardino attack that occurred in December of 2015 (Weise,
2016). The help that was ordered from court requires unlocking a feature that would completely
lock out investigators if more than 10 unsuccessful attempts are made in unlocking the iPhone of
the attacker.
The FBI asked Apple to create an alternative operating system that can be installed on the
iPhone that will disable the security features referred to as GovtOS. This request was declined
as Apple has a policy of never undermining the security features of its devices and products. It
argued that creating a backdoor would result in security risks towards the customers and an order
of such request was unprecedented. Apples opposition to this order was confirmed when the
Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook released an online statement address the customers
expressing the organizations stand on opposing the order.
This legal match ended when FBI has announced that it has cracked the security features
with the help of an outside companys help on March 28, 2015 (Grossman, 2016). But this
incident had focused on more important discussion that matched privacy of citizens against the
national security and tried to define the limits of legal agencies when dealing with private
organizations. This was termed by the legal experts as an epic fight between privacy and
national security.
There are two points of views that has created this ethical dilemma for the APPLE
organization. one being the argument from the legal department that the cooperation like this
would prevent the terrorist attacks against the country and the other argument is from the
advocates for privacy and APPLE supporters that any overriding of encryption would create an

easy access in future investigations and can significantly impact the First Amendment of
United States Constitutes (New York Times, 2016).
This has created a huge debate across the Globe where Tech giants like Google, Amazon,
Facebook and many more came in support of APPLE on March 3. The fear of creating a
permanent back door which would then be used by investigators to bypass the encryption and
protection was expressed. The privacy has become a huge issue after the Snowden leaks which
has exposed the mass surveillance program under took by National Security Agency (NSA) in
2013.
ETHICAL DILEMMA FACED:
PRIVACY VERSUS NATIONAL SECURITY
The ethical dilemma that is faced by the organization APPLE INC. can be understood as
the fight between security and privacy which are two legitimate values. The security here is at
the national level as the iPhone was used in a terrorist activity and the privacy corresponds to the
responsibility towards the customers of the Apple whose private data can be accessed once there
is a backdoor that is developed in order to bypass the security features.
ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST THE ORDER:
The order that was issued mandating APPLE to create and provide the required software
was issued under the All Writs Act of 1789 which authorizes Federal courts to issues all
orders that are necessary in aiding the justice department provided it is agreeable to principles of
law. This law however has many limitations like the judge must have no legal options available
and the order target (APPLE in this case) must be closely associated with the case and the order
or writ must not impose an undue burden (Gross, 2016).
APPLE argued that several limits corresponding to the All Writs Act were ignored by the
Judge (Sherri Pym) and points out that the creation of new operating system (backdoor) would
create an additional unreasonable burden on the Company.
APPLE further puts forward the First Amendment argument where it points out to
several court cases where the code has be considered as a form of speech which results in
violation of the freedom of speech if the order is carried out.
The government officials point out the CALEA (communications assistance for law
enforcement) act of 1994, which states that telecom service providers must provide their
assistance in law enforcement with surveillance and under proper conditions.
APPLE points out to a subsection in the CALEA act which says that the manufacturers of
equipment cannot be forced into specific designs and the FBI was asking for a specific design of
their operating system (Patel, 2016).

APPLE also puts forward the Fifth Amendment argument which protects the U.S
residents right to liberty and the order requesting APPLE to provide a backdoor would violate
the core principles of the organization.
APPLYING THEORETICAL APPROACHES:
The action that was taken by APPLE is not to cooperate with the FBI in breaking its own
security and this was done in the view of providing better services and duty towards its
customers. It was however accused of not cooperating with the legal department for providing
better national security.
This action when viewed through the approach of consequentialism approach (J.S.
Mill), which says that the result must be an overall good for a maximum number of people for
the action to be ethically justifiable and correct, provides a greater good for all the people who
are using the iPhones by providing them security of their personal information. The privacy was
utmost priority for all the tech companies since the SNOWDEN leaks. But in terms of national
security it does not provide maximum good to maximum number of people as this rejection of
assistance may lead to loose valuable data against terrorist. The argument for privacy is greater
as the possibility of terrorist information on the iPhone was very less since it was not a personal
one and provided by the San Bernardino County. So APPLEs refusal to help can be said to have
created a greater good in terms of privacy.
From the ethical point of view of Deontology which says that the focus should be on the
action and not on the outcome, APPLE can be subjected to many arguments. The best theory in
analyzing this situation is Kants theory which states the rightness or wrongness of an action
performed can be determined by the fulfillment of his or her duty. APPLE has a duty to provide a
product which offers security of data on their devices and it can be said that it has satisfied its
duty to provide security to the customers data.
According to Rawls (1989) an action can be morally permissible it satisfies the four
stages of identification, universalization, establishment and using it as a law. The first stage
identification deals with identifying the action which is denial of assistance in un-securing its
device. The universalization of this action implies that all the devices offer security of
information corresponding to each customer. If this is established and followed by everyone
there will be good impact on the world. The fourth stage states that this action should be
converted into a law which implies that a company does not have to provide any backdoor
options for security. From the Kants ethical theory the action of APPLE can be justified as a
morally right and does server the moral duty towards its customers.
The action here is admirable due to its stand against the government pushing boundaries
to achieve national security. This type of attitude was seen in the previous years where privacy of
every citizen was violated in achieving the national security in the case of Edward Snowden

where the leaks provided by him exposed the US spy program ("Edward Snowden: Leaks that
exposed US spy program - BBC News", 2016).
The issue here was providing a back door to the security features but the solution was
aimed at obtaining the data on the iPhone 5C used by one of the shooter. This situation could
have been handled without providing a back door and retrieving the information through other
means. The outcome of this case study was not a positive one for the APPLE INC. because the
security of the iPhone was breached with the help of third party organization (Epstein, 2016)
which ultimately exposed the failure to provide complete security of the user data.
The social responsibility of APPLE towards its customers can be explained by using
shareholder theory (Friedman, 2002) which outlines the social responsibilities of an
organization. Its main focus is on the responsibility towards the shareholders. In this case of
APPLE vs. FBI the responsibility towards its shareholder was upheld as the entire organizations
reputations and brand name was built on security. It further focused on long term goals of
providing better services. So in protecting its security features APPLE has upheld its duty
towards its shareholders.
MORAL REASONING:
Alternative moral reasoning has four basic approaches which try to define ethical action
based on different set of principles and approaches. These four are known as individualism,
justice, moral rights and utilitarian views. The moral correctness or ethical correctness can be
understood by viewing it from these four views.
The APPLE vs. FBI case will be analyzed by using the individualism view and the moral
rights view. The individualism view focuses on action that is in ones own best interest when
long term goals are considered. In this present case the long term goal is to provide security of
the user data for every customer which ultimately will help APPLE to be one of the leading
security experts. The individualism view corresponds to individuals striving to perform better by
using self-regulation with a focus on self-direction. In the process of achieving the long term
goals, this view promotes traits such as honesty and integrity which are the driving force behind
a successful organization. APPLEs refusal to provide a backdoor helped its employees in not
changing their long term goal of providing better device with high security features.
The moral rights approach emphasis on the rights and liberties of individuals and the
action is determined ethical if the action does not violate any rights and liberties of any
individual. It advocates the rights of individual for having liberty and fair treatment (John Locke;
Thomas Jefferson). Its main focus is on free consent, privacy, speech and safety.
In the case of APPLE vs. FBI, the free consent was violated by the courts order which
forced APPLE to cooperate with government authority. The freedom of speech in this case was
not upheld due to a writ issued by Judge which issued the order without hearing the APPLEs

point of view. But the actions of APPLE in refusing to do so uphold the individuals right for
privacy corresponding to their personal data. It further treated every individual as same by
refusing to create a backdoor for one individuals device.
The action of APPLE can be considered ethical as it did not denied its customers to have
the right to privacy and treated every individual as equal.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ETHICS, LEADERSHIP AND DECISION MAKING:
A good leadership has ethics at its heart and contains the traits of being ethical and
effective in its approach (Ciulla, 2004). The book Ethics, the heart of leadership written by
Joanne Ciulla in the year 2004 attempted at defining the leadership and explored the concept of
ethical leadership by understanding the relationship between the ethics involved and leadership
qualities. There are over three hundred definitions of leadership. The book further emphasizes on
how good leadership is impossible to achieve without ethics.
Leadership quality is endowed with the quality of having influence over other and can be
defined as the relationship that is built between different people aimed at driving them to achieve
a common goal. According William Hitt (ethics and leadership book) there are three important
requirements capitalizing the ability to influence ethical conduct in a workplace. They are clear
understanding of ethics, role model behavior and planning an action for promoting ethical
conduct.
In her book ethics, the heart of leadership Ciulla describes five stages to achieve
personal ethical behavior as staircase with ethics, virtues, morals, values and principles as five
floors in a building.
The relationship between ethics and leadership can be understood and defined as a
cause and effect relationship as effective leadership is a result of ethical behavior. The leadership
is generally determined by the relationship that is developed with other people. Ethics plays an
important role in developing traits of leadership such as integrity, authenticity etc These traits
are responsible for developing trust between different team members and trust is considered as
the glue that holds people together. Ethical leadership derives itself from the leaders
understanding of ethics, history of ethical decision making and ability to develop and execute
plan of actions which are built on empathy and integrity.
Ethical leadership can be considered as the process of unifying values, principles,
morals and virtues. These traits serve as guidance in an individuals life and drive him to become
a good leader.
Decision making is viewed as the foundation of every management and business activity
that takes place in an organization (vohs, 2014). This decision making to be successful it should

have a purposeful, consecutive and strategic thinking approach. A good decision is viewed as a
wise choice that is adopted from a group of many alternatives (Moss, 2011).
The integration of decision making and ethical behavior into leadership will produce a
logical and analytical decision (Manfredi pant, Pennington and Versmann, 2011). Effective
decision making in organization environment would require the leader to constantly upgrade his
style an approach (Govaerts, 2011).
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ENSURING ETHICAL DECISION MAKING:
Decision making can be understood by three general steps known as description,
reflection and prescription. These three steps will lead to ethical results. There are many
frameworks that are designed to understand ethical decision making. These templates serve as a
guide for promoting organized and creative solutions that are ethical.
Terry cooper (1998) in the responsible administrator has provided a framework which
contains the following steps. The first step is known as descriptive task in which the problem is
defined and the information regarding the problem is gathered. This data or information
collection must be impartial and based on facts.
The second step is to define the ethical issue and the identification of ethical challenge is
easy but articulation of the specific values and principles that are at stake can be extremely
challenging (Cooper, 1998). If this step is not performed then decisions will be characterized
with disregard to values and principles.
The third step contains identification of alternative options which is very time consuming
process (Ciulla, 1998). The approach either or view must be avoided because it is considered
as a common trap in the process of ethical decision making.
The fourth step involves projection of probable consequences where positive and
negative consequences corresponding to each decision is calculated. This projection of
consequences heavily relies on imagination characterized by moral values. Ethical decision
making includes the elements of sensibility and emotional dimension when projecting probable
consequences.
The last step is to find the solution among the alternatives. This solution must be
characterized with a balance between duty and consequences with an obligation to ethical
principles.
This model creates a balance between theory and consequences guaranteeing satisfaction.
It further combines reason with emotion and can be used as template for most of the problems
encountered.

There is another framework provides the necessary understanding so that the decision
making is ethical. This framework is provided in the book Business Ethics (Ferrel, Fraedrich &
Ferrell, 2005).
This framework mainly relies on four stages known as ethical awareness,
intensity of ethical issues, individual factors, organizational factors and opportunities.
The practical implementation of ethical decision making can be ensured by following the
five stages of implementation which are recognition of ethical issues, gathering the facts,
evaluation of actions, decision making and testing, and taking action and reflecting on the action.
Ethical awareness corresponds to proper identification of ethical dilemma and it can be
improved by providing adequate training. Ethical issues intensity corresponds to understand the
depth of issue with respect to values, beliefs and perception corresponding to a particular
situation. Individual factors correspond to organization and social forces that play a vital role in
handling ethical issues. Organization values have impact on every individual which ultimately
reflects on his decision making. Opportunity corresponds to reward culture, unethical behavior
barriers measures that provide an environment to develop ethical decision making. These five
stages can ensure ethical decision making.
CONCLUSION:
The present report provided an opportunity to understand the importance of ethics in
organizational functioning. It further provided a deep understanding of the relationship that exists
between ethics, leadership and decision making. An ethical problem faced by APPLE in the year
2015 provided an understanding of the organizations responsibility towards its stakeholders and
customers. It further focused on decision makings in an ethical way. A couple of frameworks
were analyzed that served as a guideline for implementing ethical decision making in an
organization.
REFERENCES:
1. Grossman, L. (2016). Here's Who Really Lost in the Apple-FBI Showdown. TIME.com.
Retrieved 14 October 2016, from http://time.com/4275033/apple-fbi-iphone-case/
2. Weise, E. (2016). Apple v FBI timeline: 43 days that rocked tech. USA TODAY.
Retrieved 14 October 2016, from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/03/15/apple-v-fbi-timeline/81827400/
3. Gross, G. (2016). Apple vs. the FBI: The legal arguments explained. Computerworld.
Retrieved 14 October 2016, from
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3038269/security/apple-vs-the-fbi-the-legalarguments-explained.html
4. Patel, N. (2016). Really understanding Apple's legal brief in the FBI case. The Verge.
Retrieved 14 October 2016, from http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11120760/applevs-fbi-legal-brief-explained
5. Patel, P. (2015). Engineers, Ethics, and the VW Scandal. IEEE Spectrum: Technology,
Engineering, and Science News. Retrieved 10 October 2016, from

http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/at-work/education/vw-scandal-shocking-but-notsurprising-ethicists-say
6. Lurie, Y. & Mark, S. (2015). Professional Ethics of Software Engineers: An Ethical
Framework. Sci Eng Ethics, 22(2), 417-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9665x
7. Levine, M. & Boaks, J. (2013). What Does Ethics Have to do with Leadership?. Journal
Of Business Ethics, 124(2), 225-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1807-y
8. Waggoner, J. (2010). Ethics and Leadership: How Personal Ethics Produce Effective
Leaders. Retrieved from http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1025&context=cmc_theses
9. Emery, E. (2016). Ethical behavior, Leadership, and Decision Making. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2990&context=dissertations
10. Ciulla, J. (1998). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books.
11. Rost, J. (1995). Leadership: A Discussion about Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1),
129. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3857276