course project apa unit 10 assignment

1COURSE PROJECT – ANALYSIS OF AN ETHICAL DILEMMA

Course Project – Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma

Yusef Ismail

Capella University

DPA8404-Ethics & Social Responsibility

[u10a1] Unit 10 Assignment 1


Introduction

The public service sector in the United States is in flux, due to the accelerated

pace of political, social and technological advancement. In recent years, high-profile

ethical and fiscal scandals have afflicted the sector. Reports of scandalous behavior

within the public sector has ranged from nepotism and corruption within government to

excessive compensation for top government officials (Fioramonti, & Thumler, 2011).

Subsequently, regulators have begun to announce strengthened accountability

standards formed to ensure that the actions of organizations don’t cause harm or

conflict with the public’s interests.

Now more than ever, public organizations and their leadership are being called

upon to prove that they are complying with high levels of ethical, and moral values.

Because important ethical issues have profound effects upon organizations, their

leadership, and the public at large, it is critical that leaders make decisions which are

carefully thought out and not made by intuition alone. The tenets of ethical decision

making are a crucial component in the effectiveness of leadership (Elm, & Radin, 2012).

There are a plethora of ethical decision making models which can help public

administrators make better ethical decisions.

Leaders within public organizations face ethical dilemmas on a continual basis.

Ethical issues in public administration is complicated, and often involves opposing

values and various ways to justify the right solution. Ethical decision making is a crucial

component in the effectiveness of leadership. An ethical decisions may be described as

a decision that is both morally and legally acceptable to the public at-large, whereas an


unethical decision is be defined as illegal or morally unsatisfactory to the community at

large (Thiroux, & Krasemann, 2012). Because important ethical issues have profound

effects upon organizations, their leadership, and the public at large, it is crucial that

these decisions are carefully thought out and not made by intuition alone.

Description of the Ethical Dilemma

As a leader within the public sector, this learner has worked within the public

sector for over a decade. Throughout his professional career, he has worked for, and

with various organizations. One of the learner’s experiences involves an issue that took

place during his tenure as a trustee for an unnamed charity in Newark, NJ. The agency

received substantial amounts of funding from the City of Newark Division of Economic

Development (DED). At one point, the director of the charity was contacted by a high

level official from the city who encouraged her to hire a friend of his. Initially, the director

was unsettled and sought out advice from the organization’s board of trustees.

The decision was set to be put to a vote at an upcoming board meeting.

However, there was not the required quorum to vote upon the issue at that time.

Subsequently, a number of trustees advised the director against hiring the official’s

friend due to budgetary restraints, and the apparent conflict of interests. Nevertheless,

the choice was hers to make as the agency’s director. As time passed, the city official

continued to put pressure on the director and also insinuated that he could cut her

agency’s funding if she did not comply with the request. The director eventually

conceded and hired the city official’s friend as a consultant. After working at the agency

for several months, the friend stopped reporting to the office, and did not prove his

worth to the agency.


It was also brought to the director’s attention that official’s friend had not yet

retired from his job as Chief Clerk with the County of Essex. When confronted by the

director about his double dipping and incompetence, he brushed her off and assured

that he was working diligently to raise money for the agency. Subsequently, the director

decided to give him more time to prove his worth to the organization. Over time, the

official’s friend continued the no-show job and requests from the official to hire others

under the same grant became too much for this learner to bear. The learner eventually

realized that the actions of the agency, and its leadership was ethically and legally

inappropriate. After just a few more months of serving in the capacity as a trustee, the

learner eventually stepped down from the position, and unfortunately, the level of

service at the agency began to dwindle.

Ethical Theories Analysis

During the duration of the Ethics and Social Responsibility course, this learner

was afforded with the opportunity to gain a more comprehensive perspective and

understanding of the broad fields of ethics, and moral decision-making. The learner was

also able to study and evaluate, traditional, and contemporary ethical theories, and

apply these theories to ethical dilemmas within public organizations which allowed him

to determine suitable ethical conduct. Ethics, morals, and values are all concepts which

are fundamental for leaders in the process of determining whether an action is morally

wrong or right in a host of situations. Each of the terms has been used interchangeably

at times, but they are not the same (Teulon, 2014).

Values are what an individual believes to be of merit or importance in his or her

life. Values are types of beliefs (central to a total belief system) that guide and motivate


our attitudes and actions, whether good or bad. Values, therefore, are part of a complex

set of attitudes which affect our behavior and the behavior of the individuals with whom

we interact. Morals are values that are attributed to a belief system, generally a religious

system, but it may be a political system or some other set of beliefs. These values are

generally believed to derive from a higher authority. Thus, morality is the condition of

being in accord with good and right conduct, or a system of concepts which fall into

similar categories. It is a complicated system of principles and judgments based on

religious, cultural, and philosophical beliefs (Thiroux, & Krasemann, 2012).

In general, when people conform to the beliefs, they are considered to be moral.

And so this system of standards and beliefs are utilized to produce decent, honest, and

ethical results which are considered to be moral. Ethics, on the other hand, is a branch

of philosophy which involves arranging, defending, and recommending theories of right

and wrong actions, or greatest good. As such, ethics essentially puts our morals and

values into practice. These ethical principles mean that as a professional, leaders

should minimize the risk of harm to the public, and avoid using deceptive practices

(Brecher, 2014).

Virtue Ethics

The theory of virtue ethics is devoted to a certain kind of morally comprehensive

excellence. Virtue-based theories in ethics place very little emphasis on the rules

individuals should abide by, but instead emphasize helping people cultivate good

characteristics, like generosity and kindness. These characteristics will, subsequently,

allow an individual to make good decisions later in their lives. Virtue theorists also

encourage the need for people to determine how to break destructive habits and


characteristics, like anger and greed. These habits are known as vices and may stand

in the way of becoming a righteous person (Hursthouse, 2013).

Virtue ethics dates back to prominent thinkers in ancient Greece and is one of

the oldest types of ethical theories in Western philosophy. The primary organized

description of virtue ethics was posited by Aristotle in his renowned work dubbed

Nichomachean Ethics. He considered four essential virtues: wisdom, temperance,

courage and justice. According to Aristotle, people who acquire correct habits of

character are better at regulating their emotions and reasoning. In turn, this may help

individuals reach morally appropriate decisions when they are faced with crucial choices

(Kucukuysal, & Beyhan, 2011).

The fundamental attributes of virtue ethics highlight the importance of specific

generally accepted virtues or characteristics. It is through nurturing and perfecting these

virtues that people can become truly ethical. Moreover, the existence of a vigorous

community which nurtures these virtues is encouraged. According to Thiroux and

Krasemann (2012), the successful recognition and emulation of moral role models is

paramount for the diffusion of morality within the aforementioned community. Virtue

ethics makes clear that in a noble life, individuals cannot merely rely on guidelines or

rules. The ability to display sound ethical judgment is needed.

There are a couple of basic approaches to the integration of virtue-ethics within

the public sector: the agent-based, and the action-based approaches. The traditional

action-based approach focuses on the development of guidelines and rules to constrict

management conduct. These guidelines generally exhibit themselves in corporate

codes of ethics, or codes of conduct (Martinez, 2009). Contrarily, the agent based


approach does not focus on rules of governance, but on the fundamental motivations

and character of an individual.

Under this approach, ethical behavior is not confined to the adherence of rules

but involves the individual agent pursuing moral excellence as the objective. Thus the

virtuous individual is involved in a constant search to find balance in decision-making.

Such an individual does not apply explicit rules in decision-making, but instead attempts

to make decisions which are aligned with the quest for a specific form of excellence.

These decisions must entail the employment of sound moral judgment based on such

virtues as integrity, wisdom, courage, and fairness (O'Neill, & Bourke, 2010).

Consequentialism and Non-Consequentialism

Consequentialism is an additional category of ethical ideologies which may help

leaders decide upon the moral rightness or wrongness of conduct. Consequentialism is

an expansive and diverse group of ethical theories that gives consequences a critical

role in deciding upon the moral rightness of acts. Thus, from the standpoint of a

consequentialist, morality of conduct should only be evaluated with reference to positive

outcomes or consequences (Segev, 2010). Subsequently, it is logical for leaders to

consider the consequences of their conduct before acting. The counterpart of

consequentialism is known as non-consequentialism.

Non-consequentialist theories are based on the moral reasoning or the

underlying standards of the motive of the decision-maker. Non-consequentialism

believes that actions are right or wrong because the underlying motives are morally right

or wrong, not due to consequences (Chakrabarty, & Bass, 2015). Immanuel Kant’s

moral theory is probably the most prominent of non-consequentialist approaches. In


Kant’s view, righteous conduct has moral worth only if it is done for the sake of duty or

goodwill. Kant believed that good will is the only basic moral worth. For Kant, a desire

that is right is one that abides by the maxim of doing goodness because it is the right

thing to do.

Under the theory of Kant’s categorical imperative, people are essentially required

to do good regardless of whether they want to do it or not, and even if other people

around them are insisting they do something differently. Non-consequentialist theory

bases its moral reasoning on the underlying standards of the motive of the decision-

maker (Shaver, 2014). Actions are right or wrong because the underlying motives are

morally right or wrong, not due to consequences. From a non-consequentialist

approach, one may conclude that certain unscrupulous behaviors are considered

ethically acceptable. This is due in part to the actions which are taken, that may emerge

under a duty and not the desire toward self-gratifications or a favorable outcome.

In terms of the agency’s director, this learner believes that she thought she was

justified in hiring the city official’s friend because it was for the greater good of the

organization. While the director may have been engaging in unethical practices, her

hiring of the friend may have helped ensure that much needed funding for the agency to

continue. Davis (2013) asserts that the determinant of whether conduct is ethically

permissible or not rests upon the premise that the agent acts only out of a duty to help

others, not a desire for self-gratification, or a sense of satisfaction.

Utilitarianism and Egoism

Utilitarianism and ethical egoism are two consequentialist theories which are

commonly used in leadership decision making. Both utilitarianism and ethical egoism


are considered consequentialist theories which give consequences a critical role in

deciding upon the moral rightness of acts. It is logical for leaders to consider the

consequences of their conduct before acting. Utilitarian theory is not only focused on

the happiness of one person, but on that of the entire community.

On the other hand, ethical egoism supposes that each individual or group should

augment their own good. Thus, it is ethical to behave on behalf of one’s own selfish

interests even if that behavior could potentially harm others (Burgess-Jackson, 2013).

Under the context of egoism, the director of the learner’s organization may have felt

justified in committing such ethical violations in the best interests of herself and/or her

family, even if her behavior could potentially harm others. Nevertheless, utilitarian

theory is not only focused on the happiness of one person (or group), but the

ramifications for society at large are of crucial importance (Shaver, 2014).

Absolutism versus Relativism

There are absolute and relative ethical beliefs that cross the boundaries of all

societies. These contrasting beliefs differentiate whether something is wrong or right

within ethics. Moral absolutism is a deontological ideology which determines whether an

act is fundamentally right or wrong. Absolutism is a moral duty that is objectively right or

wrong for everyone, at all times, cultures and places. On the other hand, moral

relativism is a teleological ideology which determines whether an act is right or wrong

on the basis of its consequences. This correlates with situation ethics and the theory of

consequentialism. Relativism posits that all truth is dependent upon the principles of an

individual or society. Therefore, there are various differences between moral absolutism

and moral relativism (Foshee, & Heath, 2010).


The disparity among philosophical opinions introduces much ambiguity and

complexity. An absolutist would believe that murder is always wrong in in every

situation. In contrast, a relativist may argue that murder could be seen to be right in

some situations, depending on the circumstances. For instance, if other peoples’ lives

were at stake, killing one to save a large number may be justified. Moral relativism as a

valid ethical theory comes into question because it posits that all moral ideals are proper

or incorrect in regards to the customs of a given group or society. Viewing ethical

standards as culturally determined and not generalized, denies that any moral

standards exist independently outside of a society. If this basis was logically sound,

then there would be no validity in the fact that there are some moral guidelines that

every society must share in order for society to exist (McDonald, 2010).

In essence, morality is absolute, objective, and universal. People may incorrectly

conclude moral judgments (as individuals or as a culture) but this does not prove the

relativity of morality. It clearly demonstrates our incapability to comprehensively lay the

foundation and enact the implementation of moral determinations. Subsequently, the

morality of an action or decision should be decided upon by whether or not it was

conducted out of respect for the absolute moral requirement, or the categorical

imperative (Thiroux, & Krasemann, 2012).

Ethical Decision-Making

In order to get a handle on these serious issues, many organizations have

created ethical codes to ensure that their officers, directors, and employees are

cognizant of and in adherence to standards of conduct which ensures that the

organization is represented in a responsible and ethical manner. Codes of ethics are a


vital component of an ethical public domain. They are guidelines that encourage ethical

conduct, and the enforcement of sanctions when such conduct is deficient. Although

these codes of ethical conduct offer the essential principles to guide the conduct of

public service leaders, they alone are not sufficient in dealing with tough ethical

dilemmas (O’Neill, & Bourke, 2010). Subsequently, many researchers have provided a

systematic way in which to evaluate and make ethical resolutions.

There are a plethora of ethical decision making models which can help leaders

within public administration make better ethical decisions. Enck (2014) identifies six

steps in ethical decision making which may be adapted to meet the specific needs of

public sector leaders in addressing ethical dilemmas. These steps include: (1) Define

the specific ethical conflict or issue. (2) Identify internal/external factors that may

influence the outcome. (3) Identify fundamental values. (4) Identify the individuals who

will be most affected by a decision and define the leader’s obligation to each. (5)

Choose the ethical guidelines that steer the decision making procedures. (6) Make a

decision and substantiate it.

The complex and constant change within the public sector requires more

effective actions from public leaders when faced with a growing number of varied

issues. This form or process of decision making is essential due to the number of

decisions and issues public sector leaders are faced with every day. These six steps

incorporate a process which will lead to the most efficient decision under given

circumstances. According to (Elm, & Radin, 2012), decision-making processes are not

meant to achieve identical solutions to issues, but to act as a model which promotes

organized, ethically profound, and creative solutions. The overall line of action is


identical, however essential details must be tailored to be appropriate for specific

situations and attainable for any leader.

According to Thiroux and Krasemann (2012), organizational culture is among

one of the most important determinants of how successful an organization (or team) will

be in implementing ethical decision-making. Organizational culture is essentially the

“personality” of an organization—the principles it lives by, its processes, and its systems

of communication. It is the arrangement of fundamental assumptions which a group has

developed in order to manage its issues of external adaptation and internal assimilation.

The culture of the learner’s organization is a direct reflection of the ingrained

political patronage which continues to flourish and has a corrupting effect on New

Jersey’s public service sector. Despite court injunctions and anti-patronage personnel

systems, various illegal and unethical violations continue to thrive within the political

system. These violations include the demand of political contributions for employment

and contracts, to the suppression of wrongdoing (Pelletier, & Bligh, 2006). As a result of

his silence, this learner may be denying his moral duty and essentially becomes a

contributor to the problem

Plan to Aid in Decision-Making

The course of action that would be followed by the learner under these

circumstances would be to essentially become what is known in some circles as a

whistleblower. According to Heumann, Friedes, Cassak, Wright, and Joshi (2013), the

number of whistleblowing incidents in the US and other countries has undoubtedly

increased in recent years. Whistleblowing takes place when employees report corporate

misconduct, usually within their organization, to agents of the law. The occurrence of


whistleblowing generally involves three actors in a communal setting, the perpetrator of

the offense, the whistleblower, and the authority to whom the violation is reported to.

Thus, each of the parties involved are crucial to explaining the whistleblowing

process. Whistleblowing essentially comprises of four steps. In the primary step, the

potential whistleblower has to decide whether an observed activity is truly an illegal or

immoral form of misconduct. An occurrence will be perceived to be a violation if it is a

conflict with either the stated values of the whistleblower or the organization (Svara,

2014). If this learner was forced to bring alleged whistle blowing to the surface he would

first have to weigh his options. The next step of whistleblowing is comprised of the

decision to report the activity or not. The whistleblower must first weigh the gravity of the

offense and whether blowing the whistle will stop the activity.

It would be prudent for the learner to first remind the director of how poor ethical

decision-making can destroy the reputations of individuals and organizations. In these

tough economic times, it would not be wise for the director to hire the official’s friend as

a favor. Accountability is both legally and ethically obligatory for organizations that

utilize public resources (Fioramonti, & Thumler, 2011). Whistleblowers should also know

to whom they should report the violation(s). This learner would contact the

organization’s board chair with hopes that he would encourage the board of trustees to

reach a decision about the issue. If the director still does not comply after the board’s

decision, she could possibly be fired.

The organization’s board has an affirmative ongoing responsibility to ensure that

the organization fulfills obligations to the law, their donors, clients, and the public at


large. At the least, nonprofit boards must be devoted to effective oversight of their

organizations while ensuring transparency from management (Hazen, & Hazen, 2011).

Unfortunately, in many events, if an employee or other agent blows the whistle,

they may be subjected to retaliation. Subsequently, it is typical for whistleblowers to be

demoted, dismissed, or otherwise treated negatively by their leadership after the

disclosure of corruption or malfeasance. The organization as a whole may decide to halt

the actions or they may choose to uphold the wrongdoing. They may also choose to

silence and vilify the learner for whistle blowing or choose to discredit the offense

against it by the whistle blower (Miceli, & Near, 2013). If the organization’s leadership

chooses to ignore the situation, nothing will change within the organization, and the

problem may never be dealt with.

The last resort for the learner would be to report the improprieties externally

through channels such as law enforcement or the news media. These types of external

whistleblowing cases will likely result in some form of remedial action. Yet, there are

numerous issues with this solution. This method will usually bring bad publicity to the

organization and cause the whistleblower to be deemed as disloyal. There is a good

chance that the whistleblower will lose their position and be ostracized for not being a

team player (Thiroux, & Krasemann, 2012).

Conclusion

In closing, it is paramount that public sector leaders be called upon to prove that

they are complying with high levels of ethical standards. In general, public sector

leaders, whether elected or appointed, must maintain a position of trust, and the

topmost standards are expected of them. This example and others has helped this


learner realize that it must be his duty to act with integrity, openness, and honesty while

encouraging a working environment that values fairness, and respect (Yukl, Mahsud,

Hassan, & Prussia, 2013).

At the core, these ethical principles stress the need to do what is good (known as

beneficence), and to do no harm (known as non-malfeasance). Public service leaders

should not take advantage of their positions of power or exploit others for their personal

benefit. They must inform the public whenever a real or possible conflict of interest

emerges and work to resolve the issue to protect the public’s interests (Brecher, 2014).

Thus, as a leader within the public sector, the learner must attempt to make decisions

which are aligned with the quest for a specific form of excellence. These decisions must

entail the employment of sound moral judgment based on such virtues as integrity,

wisdom, courage, and fairness (Ferguson, 2014).

A systematic approach to ethical decision making encourages individuals and

organizations to cautiously define an issue, collect information, apply ethical values,

identify and assess alternative forms of action, and follow through on their decisions.

The director of the learner’s agency committed a blatant violation of the public’s trust by

agreeing to hire the official’s friend in the first place (Garza-Mitchell, 2012).

Subsequently, the learner decided to take a stand against the decision and other

unscrupulous decisions of which he was not comfortable with. According to Eisenbeiss

(2012), all leaders have a responsibility that should be based on a system of morals and

values in which conduct and decision making is ethically justified. If decisions and

actions are detrimental to individuals or society as a whole, they should be considered

morally irresponsible.


References

Burgess-Jackson, K. (2013). Taking Egoism Seriously. Ethical theory and moral

practice, 16(3), 529-542.

Brecher, B. (2014). 'What is professional ethics?'. Nursing Ethics, 21(2), 239-44.

Chakrabarty, S., & Erin Bass, A. (2015). Comparing virtue, consequentialist, and

deontological ethics-based corporate social responsibility: Mitigating

microfinance risk in institutional voids. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 487-

512. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1963-0

Davis, g. (2013). Traces of consequentialism and non-consequentialism in bodhisattva

ethics. Philosophy east & west, 63(2), 275-305.

Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplinary integrative

approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 791-808.

Elm, D. R., & Radin, T. J. (2012). Ethical decision making: Special or no

different? Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 313-329.

Enck, G. (2014). Six-step framework for ethical decision making. Journal of health

services research & policy, 19(1), 62-64.

Ferguson, J. L. (2014). Excessive risk exposure: A question of ethical decision-

making. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2684-2685.

Fioramonti, L., & Thumler, E. (2011). The financial crisis and the nonprofit sector: Can

philanthropic foundations support the creation of a civic watchdog of international

finance?. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 13(3), 33.

Foshee, A. W., & Heath, W. C. (2010). Between absolutism and relativism: The


economist's search for a middle ground. Journal of Economic Issues, 44(3), 819-

829.

Garza Mitchell, R. L. (2012). Doing the Right Thing: Ethical Leadership and Decision

Making. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2012(159), 63-72.

Hursthouse, R. (2013). Normative virtue ethics. ETHICA, 645.

Hazen, T. L., & Hazen, L. L. (2011). Duties of Nonprofit Corporate Directors-

Emphasizing Oversight Responsibilities. NCL Rev., 90, 1845.

Kuçukuysal, B., & Beyhan, E. (2011). Virtue ethics in Aristotle’s Nicomachean

ethics. International Journal of Human Sciences, 8(2), 43-51.

Martinez, J.M. (2009). Public Administration Ethics for the Twenty-first Century. New

York: Peter Lang USA

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2013). An International Comparison of the Incidence of

Public Sector Whistle‐Blowing and the Prediction of Retaliation: Australia,

Norway, and the US. Australian Journal of Public Administration,72(4), 433-446.

O'Neill, J., & Bourke, R. (2010). Educating teachers about a code of ethical

conduct. Ethics & Education, 5(2), 159-172.

Pelletier, K. L., & Bligh, M. C. (2006). Rebounding from corruption: Perceptions of ethics

program effectiveness in a public sector organization. Journal of Business

Ethics, 67(4), 359-374

Segev, R. (2010). Hierarchical consequentialism. Utilitas, 22(3), 309-330.

Shaver, R. (2014). The appeal of utilitarianism. Utilitas, 16(3), 235-250.

Svara, J. H. (2014). Who Are the Keepers of the Code? Articulating and Upholding


Ethical Standards in the Field of Public Administration. Public Administration

Review, 74(5), 561-569.

Teulon, F. (2014). Ethics, moral philosophy and Economics (No. 2014-288).

Thiroux, J. P., & Krasemann, K. W. (2012). Ethics: Theory and practice. (11th ed.)

Pearson.

Kuçukuysal, B., & Beyhan, E. (2011). Virtue ethics in Aristotle’s Nicomachean

ethics. International Journal of Human Sciences, 8(2), 43-51.

Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). An improved measure of

ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,20(1), 38-48.

course project apa unit 10 assignment

Documents