I agree with the Department of Defense that bad examples are more effective than good ones when it comes to teaching ethics. Firstly, the bad examples present consequences for unethical behavior. Mostly, the individuals who displayed unethical conduct were dismissed. Through the consequences, the Department of Defense intends to communicate that it does not want a repeat of the same conduct. Therefore, to a large extent, the bad examples represent conduct, which the department does not condone. It is crucial for organizations to stipulate rules, which employees need to observe as well as conduct that is not allowed. While employees will try their best to adhere to the rules, they will also be cautious not to cross the set limits. Therefore, use of bad examples reinforces an organization’s strict stand on its ethics policy.
The most offensive ethical behavior mentioned in the case study is that which involved a supervisor in the Bureau of Indian affairs who purchased large quantities of overpriced light bulbs and received kickbacks. Firstly, it was unethical to buy the light bulbs at a higher price than the market price. Secondly, he colluded with a company to defraud the state. It means the officer chose the North Dakota company purposely to engage in fraudulent deals. Lastly, he used his position inappropriately to misuse public resources. It is expected that federal employees use their positions to serve diligently and professionally since they are entrusted with public resources. The least offensive conduct was that of the Department of Homeland Security officer who used the department’s helicopter to visit his daughter in her elementary school. The officer had received permission from his superior, and his intention was not to waste public resources. Many people, too, use government vehicles to drop their children to school before heading off to work.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Certainly, government employees need to be held to a higher ethical standard than those working in the corporate world or private businesses. The most prominent reason is that government departments are funded by the public, mainly through taxation. The employees need to demonstrate efficient and effective use of public resources. Secondly, demonstration of high ethical standards by government employees sets a good precedence for employees working in other sectors. Overall, service delivery will be better and members of the public will register more satisfaction. Lastly, demonstration of high ethical standards will justify taxation. Some people evade paying tax citing reasons of poor service delivery and misconduct among government employees. This is one of the reasons government employees need to be held to a higher ethical standard.
One similarity of an ethical dilemma faced by public employees and those who work in private business concerns use of organizational resources for self or family benefit. Just like in government organizations, employees in the corporate world may use company vehicles or equipment to perform family functions. Presently, employees use work time and their employers’ computers to browse subjects that are not related to their work. The most significant difference concerns the favors. Government employees such as those working in the military may present their identification documents to receive favors but it is difficult for people working in private business to do the same.
If I were to create my own Encyclopedia of Unethical Behavior I would certainly include the issue of using the organization’s internet for personal issues during work time. It is unethical to browse through unrelated content when it is time to work. The same will also apply to the organization’s telephone. Secondly, employees would be punished if they go to work drunk or smoke in prohibited places of work. Lastly, I would include feigning sickness or creating false emergencies to abscond from work.
