An administrator at a hospital is facing a challenge of dealing with a certain professional in his charge. This professional has been violating a number of ethical practices. These acts of misconduct have resulted in a repeated violation of the ethical policy laid down by the professional body and the organization. As an administrator, the employee will be handled by following the privilege of justice, beneficence and nonmaleficence.
The organization's policy allows for each worker to be given a fair hearing. The employee will be given this chance in order to make a just conclusion on the matter. Information will also be collected from his superiors and the subordinates whom he is accused of offending. Once this has been established, the employee will be issued with a verbal warning against his violations. Since this is a repeat violation, a written warning will also be issued as soon as the misconduct is repeated (Marcus, 2017). This will be followed by a verbal disciplinary meeting to determine the cause of the misconduct. This fulfills the principle of beneficence, as the best interests of the employee are under scrutiny.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The disciplinary hearing will then ascertain if the misconduct is deliberate. If the employee does not satisfactorily explain their actions, then disciplinary action will be taken. The action will vary depending on the policy procedures for such violations (Frederickson & Rohr, 2015). If the misconduct is as a result of the organization's short comings, then the employee will not be disciplined directly.
The disciplinary committee may recommend a leave of absence so as to allow the employee to remedy their mistakes. This leave will also help the organization to sort out any issues that may have contributed to the poor behavior. This is a move based on the principle of justice. Either move will be just to both the employee and the organization as it will be based on a fair representation from both the complainant and the accused employee (Shin et al., 2015). The organization will apply this move in uniformity. All employees in such a situation will be required to use similar criteria in the case of policy violation. At this point, the organization can review their policies to determine whether they are effective and fair. Policies that violate professional codes of conduct must be abolished in order to pave way for fair policy. Standardization must also be practiced to ensure that general ethical standards apply to all members of staff across the hierarchy.
Once the member of staff resumes their position, they will then be monitored. If he continues violating policy despite the verbal, written warning and disciplinary hearing, then termination of services will be recommended. As the administrator, a letter of recommendation will be forwarded to the human resources department. This will call for his professional removal based on the history of policy violation (Al-bar, 2015). If the violation is of a legal nature, then the employee will be reported to the authorities in order to remove culpability from the organization. The employee will not be reported to the professional body he belongs to unless the violation is too gross. This applies legally as well if the case can be handled internally. Simple misappropriation of petty cash can be handled by a salary deduction, while fraud must be handled legally (Al-bar, 2015). This follows the principle of nonmaleficence which seeks not to cause harm deliberately.
The course of action above applies the principles of justice, beneficence and nonmaleficence in every stage of the disciplinary process. This endures fairness to both the employee and the organization while setting a standard for the rest of the employees. The process also protects the organization from legal and and policy conflicts in labour disputes.
References
Al-Bar, M. A., & Chamsi-Pasha, H. (2015). Nonmaleficence. In Contemporary Bioethics (pp. 119-128). Springer, Cham.
Frederickson, H. G., & Rohr, J. A. (2015). Ethics and public administration . Routledge.
Marcus, B. (2017). Non-Ethically Relevant Emotional Content Affects Decision In Difficult Ethical Dilemmas.
Shin, Y., Sung, S. Y., Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. S. (2015). Top management ethical leadership and firm performance: Mediating role of ethical and procedural justice climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 129 (1), 43-57.
