As newly elected government officials, ethical dilemmas are a common challenge, especially when making decisions that will be considered fair and ensure equality for all. Many public officials are at a loss on how to act and deal with their family members and friends as they try to uphold fairness pertaining to serving in an unbiased and fair manner (Perry, 2010). There is a high tendency to favor family members, friends, neighbors and former acquaintances and colleagues over other people. An ethical dilemma presents the need to choose between issues that have two outcomes that are both right (Lewis & Gilman, 2012).
The ethical dilemma that the public official has been confronted with is on making the decision when hiring people to offer services and occupy board positions under his team. The difficulty on whether to award a contract to a friend or a relative or give other people whom he is unsure of their commitment and skills to work with him. Failure to give giving other people a chance to apply or bid for the available positions is unfair and while awarding friends is favoritism hence presents an ethical dilemma to the leader. Appointing a person to take up the job without biding or advertisement is time and money saving (Lewis & Gilman, 2012).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, as a public official, it would be fair to allow people to have an equal chance to participate in the available opportunities. The government leader now worries what friends and family will think of him if he announces the opportunities for bidding when he is fully aware that they qualify and can be able to deliver quality and convenience if awarded the contract. The nature of the ethical dilemma is that it violates public service and other civic leadership ethics (Lewis & Gilman, 2012). The process of hiring without allowing other people to participate shows that the leader is not open and honest and places a question on the leader's integrity honesty, fairness, and openness on performance (Perry, 2010). If, the trend persists the ethical dilemma can be seen as an ethical breach where the leader is termed unfair, unjust and accused of practicing favoritism which is against the code of ethics for leaders.
Breaching the code of ethics has severe consequences on the leader as people lose trust and faith. Dissatisfaction and lack of contentment from the people lead to an uproar and complains by the people of poor management. As a leader displaying favoritism will make people see you as an optimist who uses public office and funds for personal gains and benefits (Perry, 2010). People will feel alienated and disrespected which will lead to impeachment and loss of office. Defamation and termination of career despite his motives and vision for the society.
In addition, ethical dilemmas have severe consequences on the leaders as they affect them emotionally, physiologically and in behavioral aspects. The leader can become irritable, less tolerant, depressed or overwhelmed with feelings. They can withdrawal themselves socially due to physical exhaustion, experience insomnia, high blood pressure or immune disorders. The best ways to deal with the dilemmas is to practice humor, engage in physical fitness activities and focus on self-care so as to avoid being drained by the dilemma (Perry, 2010). It is advisable to focus on the tasks ahead and devise plans for actions. Others have been known to deal with the dilemmas through denial where they brush the issues off and proceed to the next task. The practice however eliminates opportunity to reflect and learn from the mistakes.
References
Lewis, C., & Gilman, S. (2012). The ethics challenge in public service: A problem-solving guide (3rd Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, J. L. (Ed.). (2010). The Jossey-Bass reader on nonprofit and public leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
