Ethical Credo

 Ethical Credo

The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘ethics’ as the moral values that regulate a person’s behavior when performing a task. Ethics are fundamental parts of our daily lives, while individual beliefs influence judgments and actions. My personal ethics credo has elements that always help me in making appropriate choices in problematic situations. Since childhood, I have preferred honesty, which manifested in my aversion to cheating in-class examinations or petty theft during my teenage years. I also believe in justice and supporting what I believe to be right, which I consider as part of my core identity. Furthermore, I identify hard work and sincerity as some of my greatest strengths. In this context, I believe that hard work and honesty have an intricate relationship, which has motivated me to pursue my ambitions regardless of the challenges encountered.

I believe in fairness, which involves treating others as I would like them to treat me. Therefore, I am always polite to everyone with whom I interact. Nevertheless, I also have my share of shortcomings based on the strengths mentioned above. The strong belief in justice means that I am not afraid to stand up for my beliefs. In some situations, the direct and honest nature may come across as rude, although unintentionally. The tendency to take the lead may also lead to labeling as a domineering person when working in team-based contexts.

Personal ethics are essential in everyone’s life. Personal ethics produces good leadership, which helps create better organizations and societies. Nevertheless, optimal choices in ethics are not always clearly defined. What one person may consider as right and justified, another would view as wrong. Like cultural differences, ethical standards apply across businesses. These values, beliefs, and morals allow people to adopt alternative perspectives on why someone behaved as they did.

Ethical Dilemma and Morally Relevant Facts

Years ago, I used to work for a large hotel chain with a relatively friendly and pleasant direct superior. When I was hired, the department had the overarching goal of improving the quality of its outputs. Consequently, my boss was supportive in the initial months, but then changed her tone. The improving departmental performance was noted by her superiors (upper management), which improved her on-book performance in addition to increasing the workers’ morale since their talents and efforts now received recognition. At approximately the six month mark, some of my colleagues outside the department warned me to be careful when dealing with the supervisor as she had a history of prioritizing her interests over others’. She also had a record of discriminating against successful men who she felt threatened her position. On the other hand, she had a different policy for the women in her department and others as she regularly promoted or advocated for their interest. Therefore, most males under her management usually ended up leaving. Subsequent investigation revealed that over 12 years, more than eight men in her department had either quit or been fired. In contrast, eight women were promoted, four were still present, and two left in the same period. Nevertheless, I took the advice in stride and continually improving my and the department’s performance. Moreover, I also made sure to credit my supervisors with all accomplishments, which would enhance her status with upper management.

Nevertheless, the pre-emptive measures to prevent conflict were ineffective as in my eighth month there, during a meeting with my boss, she began criticizing me for emailing a person in upper management. I explained to her than I had included the VP in the communication chain since the email’s contents involved her entire jurisdiction. My supervisor then proceeded to forbid me from communicating with anyone above her as it is “not in my place.” She then reiterated that only she was allowed to email these people, and if an email needed forwarding to upper management, I would have to send it to her, and she would forward it. Her discrimination was evident in her parting comments as he claimed that “you may be used to getting your way as a man, but that does not mean that you can take my job.” Based on the hostile reaction, I decided to follow her requests despite my concerns.

Over the next month, I only needed to send one email to a VP in upper management. The email was time-sensitive as it involved resource estimates for an upcoming project. The VP’s inclusion in the email was mandatory since the forecast had raised some budgetary issues, and only the VP had the authority to make final decisions on funds allocation. Therefore, I sent the email to my boss with a request to forward it within the next three days. After a week, I happened to meet the particular VP in the elevator. When she asked about the project and resources, I let her know that it was best she coordinates with my boss for the information. I followed up with my supervisor and let her know about the VP’s requests. However, she started yelling and berating me that it was not my position to talk to any person above her in the organizational hierarchy about any project. She even wrote me up for insubordination. At this point, I had the option of going to human resources and filing a formal complaint, although the likelihood of getting a positive outcome was minimal, considering that the particular manager had been at the company for ten years. In most cases, the HR department works to protect the company’s interests and not the employees. Therefore, I chose to forego reporting and began searching for another job on the side.

Three days later, I received a call from a senior vice president, (to whom the VP encountered in the elevator reported to), who asked me to attend a meeting the next day. Concerned about my boss’ recent overreactions, I informed her that while I was happy to comply, the SVP had to confirm with my boss to eliminate scheduling conflicts. I also requested the SVP to tell my boss of the upcoming meeting, to which she replied that it would not be necessary. Trying to conform to my boss’s regulations, I emailed her about the meeting. However, she came into my office and scolded me for 20 minutes with her voice so loud that it prompted some of my coworkers to call security. The next day’s meeting featured the SVP, and three additional Vps, the VP I met on the elevator, my boss’ direct supervisor, and a third VP who used to oversee my department. When asked about the project issues, I explained the best I could and also noted that I had prepared an email well in advance. However, the VP responsible for the project said that she never received the email to which I replied that I would not have originated from me but rather my boss since it was not my place to send emails to Vps. The statement triggered a round of questioning about what I meant as I explained my boss’ restrictions about communicating with her superiors. I also noted that my supervisor had created and consistently enforced the policy over the past month with witness accounts to confirm my story. The next day when I came to work, I learned that my supervisor had gone on extended leave, I was free to communicate with senior personnel as necessary, and report to the VP who used to manage the department. I would later learn that my former boss had been counseled out after HR investigations revealed a pattern of misconduct and discrimination under her administration.

Stakeholders

The primary stakeholder in this situation is me, as the employee accused of insubordination and the one most likely to get fired. While my efforts had contributed to the improving departmental performance, my direct superior was ultimately in charge of hiring and firing for her department. Furthermore, reporting her to upper management would likely have negative outcomes for me as she had the power to retaliate against me with minimal repercussions.

The second stakeholder is my direct supervisor, as her abusive behavior had created the dilemma. Her biased attitude towards successful men effectively meant that her best performers continued quitting, which reduced the department’s performance. Moreover, her 10-year tenure at the company indicated that HR personnel was more likely to support her position compared to an employee who had been there for only eight months.

The third stakeholder is my colleagues in the department. The supervisor’s abusive behavior had led to multiple high-performers quitting. The decreased performance demoralized the employees as their efforts went unrecognized. Moreover, streamlining the process had improved performance, significantly leading to increased motivation.

Courses of Action

In this situation, I faced a dilemma on whether to report my boss’s conduct to senior personnel or follow her policy. The first alternative was reporting the supervisor’s conduct to HR. This would have been the recommended action according to company policies, although its efficacy was in doubt considering the supervisor’s 12-year history of bias against men. However, this would have violated my ethical credo of integrity and loyalty as I felt I had a social contract with my boss. Loyalty in organizational contexts is essential as it allows leaders to develop trust with their subordinates, thereby enhancing collaboration and cooperation. Nevertheless, considering her long tenure at the company and previous cases of gender-based discrimination, it was unlikely that I would get positive outcomes from the process as HR focuses on protecting the company from risks. She was also likely to view it as a betrayal and work hard to tarnish my reputation, which would have affected my career progression after leaving the organization.

Another alternative was following her discriminatory policy. However, this choice would perpetuate the discrimination against men, which conflicted with my sense of justice. I prefer fairness in my interactions, which involves treating others as I would like to be treated. Continuing to work in a hostile environment demoralized me in addition to the rest of the department as their efforts went unrecognized. Furthermore, the supervisor’s egotistical behavior was directly affecting department and organizational performance as she had a tendency to cover up financial irregularities, among other cases of misconduct. Moreover, having to sidestep the VP questions in the elevator also created an ethical dilemma as I was torn between giving her the requested information, and protecting my job at the company.  It also conflicted with my values of loyalty to the larger company as some projects and processes depending on our output. While I prefer honesty in my interactions, I also needed to protect my job as I organized an exit plan. Being honest with the VP would have likely led to a cascade of negative outcomes for more people than necessary. Complaining about my boss’ abusive behavior to the VP or HR would have likely ended up in my termination as they sought to protect the company. As noted by previous researchers, the application of ethics is contextual.

I chose to obey the biased policies to minimize the fallout to me and my colleagues in my department. In the end, my boss’s egotistical actions came to light leading to further investigations that eventually led to her termination. While I had to balance between loyalty, honesty, justice, and integrity, I also had to evaluate the potential outcomes from any action I took logically. Violating the policy would have likely led to feelings of betrayal, leading to my termination and limited career prospects in the future. Therefore, I chose to obey my supervisor as employees owe loyalty to their employers. Furthermore, employing my ethical credo in the subsequent interactions with other upper management personnel allowed me to eliminate any liability for the following outcomes. Honesty in the final meeting was necessary to achieve justice for both past and future males in the company as it led to an objective evaluation of her conduct and how it affected organizational interests. Furthermore, the issue was resolved without having to explicitly violate my ethical values.