When Wilkerson was debating whether to file a complaint against Agua, she had to determine if he was doing anything to break the rules. If Agua was doing something sneaky or immoral to get out of teaching, then Wilkerson would have reported him. Wilkerson’s character has a high level of integrity, from the case study we can see that she has “honesty, openness, commitment, and trust,” which are some qualities for a person of high integrity (Eisenberg, Goodall & Trethewey, 2014). “Integrity is mentioned as a key element in most leadership[s]” (Palanski, Cullen, Gentry & Nichols, 2015). Wilkerson is a leader in her classroom, and this is partly because of the integrity she has. When Wilkerson did not report Agua she is still acting with integrity because she did not falsely accuse Agua with sex discrimination or demand that the school raise her salary to match his. She accepted that the extra work he does for the school earns him the $1000 …show more content…
The results from the Hawthorne Studies suggest that “increased attention raises productivity” (Eisenberg, Goodall & Trethewey, 2014). We can assume that because of the time Wilkerson dedicated to her students, she probably has higher grade averages compared to Agua. Agua does not give enough attention to his students, therefore they do not care as much about the work. Wilkerson, on the other hand, gives each student attention and encourages them to ask questions so they can progress in their education. “The Hawthorne Studies…experimentally questioned the prevailing assumptions or paradigms about organizational management and design, and brought an awareness of the need for greater attention to human needs, motives and relationships at work” (Harris & Nelson, 2008). Wilkerson understands the importance of relationships with her students, and that will give her students more success in the long