What do you think about the notion presented by Terris that Lockheed’s ethics program does little to prevent ethical breaches at the highest level of the organization? <br>Are the efforts put forth—such as making sure higher level executives participate in training—enough to help executives navigate what Terris calls the ‘ethical minefield’ faced by leadership in such an organization? <br>What are some things that could be done to address the issue related to ethics at higher executive levels of the organization?<br>Terris points out that the company’s program is overly focused on individuals and that it doesn’t really address group dynamics that can impact ethical situations. For instance, there can be a tendency for groups to ‘go with the flow’ of the group decision making process and overlook ethical issues in the process. What would you recommend that Lockheed Martin do to address this situation? <br>(Hint: reviewing p. 128 and the following pages – before section headed “Personal Responsibility, Collective Innocence” – of the text might be helpful).<br><br>References:<br>For this Module’s Case Assignment, please read Chapter 4, pages 117-154, of the following book in our e-library.<br>Terris, Daniel. (2005) Ethics at Work: Creating Virtue at an American Corporation. Brandeis University Press. Waltham, MA. Retrieved from ProQuest ebrary.<br>For your SLP assignment, please read the following article.<br>Popa, M., & Salanta, I. (2014). Corporate social responsibility versus corporate social irresponsibility. Management & Marketing, 9(2), 137–146. Retrieved from Trident University Library.<br>Here is some additional reading material that may be useful:<br>Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010, March). Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews. pp. 1-7. Retrieved from the Trident Online Library.<br>Mujtaba, B. G., & Cavico, F. J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability model for global firms. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 10(1), 58-75.