|← Professional Workplace Dilemma Paper||Ethical Dilemmas in Intelligence →|
Flowers versus eyes
It is very clear that most people act towards ethical behavior when there are being watched therefore, I will clearly state that it was not unethical for the professor to conduct the experiment without making them aware. If the professor had announced the experiment it was likely that his colleagues would be cautious and would have change the behavior of taking up the coffee without paying it up.
The result from this experiment are not surprising, it is often that most people seems to do what is good when they are been closely watched. The idea of putting "starring eyes" gives the impression that one is being watched therefore the staff acted towards ethical behavior due to the fact that they are been watched.
Kohlberg's level of moral development constitute on the adaptation of psychological theory, according to the experiment clearly refutes that there should be a correlation between the score of an individual and the general behavior of the people. It is evident that the staffs of this faculty are learned people therefore they should always be guided by their ethical behavior other than on the idea they are being watched. I think that there would be no difference if the coffee drinkers were either men or women.
In my view, I believe the scheme by the police department will work. This is because people will think that they are being watched therefore, it is most likely they will do what is right.
Promise versus lie
In my view, what the secretary did is considered as both personal and organizational level. Personal ethics go hand in hand with organizational level, for instance by her not telling her friends about applying for another job can be considered as lack of personal ethics whereas her giving her manager a two week notice because of her new job can be considered as ethical dilemma in an organizational level.
In the case on promise versus lie, there are very several ethical principles which can be at stake. On the issue of justice, the secretary did not act fairly on not advising her colleagues on applying for a job since they shared talks almost on everything. On the principle on rights, the secretary had the right to apply for a job and he acted accordingly through issuing the two weeks notice to her manager. The principle of caring is at stake due to the fact that the secretary did not care how the manager was going to replace her within the two week notice.
A person faced with this ethical situation in real sense should move if the other job opportunity if it offers better services compared to the current. It is good to tell other colleagues of opportunity especially in situation where you and your colleagues share almost all information. It also important that you give notices to your managers so that they can be made replacement for the vacancy you have created.
Higher goals, more pressure, lower ethics?
In this practical case there are various ethical issues affecting an individual and the company. For example, the issue on trust, it is very important that there should be trust between the sale representative and her supervisor the fact that the representative does not meet the required goals does not mean that she is not pushing for the sale of the products. Other ethical issues being faced are that of well being of others and basic justice.
This case illustrates both personal and organizational level of ethical issues due to the fact that it affects the sale representative in a personal and industrial level.
Should one meet her self in such a situation he should not succumb to the pressure rather she should talk to her supervisor and try to find if there are other ways to tackle the problems. There should be dialogue between the company and her employees.
It obvious that it is not a practical ethics for companies to come up with goals which forces people to achieve what is impossible by all means. In this case you should talk to the supervisor and let her know that selling in order to fix the situation will only damage the image of the company.