e-learningsite.com

free essays
Uncategorized

Action of Moral Gravity

Actionof Moral Gravity

Actionof Moral Gravity

Thepractice of moral ethics is important in the workplace for thepromotion of a just organizational environment. In addition, moralethics provides a culture of social responsibility of an organizationto stakeholders by taking the right actions. To explore moral ethicsand social responsibility, this paper will discuss an action taken byXYZ College to suspend fraudulent staff, a situation I witnessedduring my internship. This paper will describe the situation thatnecessitated the measures and explore the reasons behind the action.This paper will present the stakeholders that were involved andaffected by the action and whether the action was justified.Moreover, the paper will explore ethical principles behind the actionand measure taken t prevent such situations in future.

TheSituation

Inthe institution, the supplies department delivers goods to the storesdepartment that is responsible for safe custody and release accordingto the demands of the institution. The store is manned by the stockofficer in charge of stock management at the institution. The officeris responsible for all the materials that leave the store, for bothinternal and external use. To fulfill its social responsibility inthe community, the institution has a feeding program to needyfamilies in the surrounding community. The institution sends a themmonthly supply through the office of the stock officer who monitorswhat is given out and which family is the beneficiary. He isresponsible for the list of the families and the amount of materialsprovided by the organization to them.

Thestock officer was however, involved in pilferage through collusionbetween him and the community worker who was the liaison personbetween the institution and the beneficiaries. In addition, the stockofficer involved the secrecy of a security officer as well as thedriver who were the accomplices in the crime of depleting theinstitution its stock and depriving the needy families their expectedreceivables. Through the collusion of the four people, the stockofficer had established a list of non-existent beneficiaries, whosereceivable was shared by the officer, the security officer thedriver and the community mobilize. However, they were discovered bythe director of supplies and the head of human resources was notifiedto take appropriate action.

Theaction of moral gravity that was taken by the head of human resourcesto punish the employees involved and prevents occurrence of the samein future. The action involved investigating and the consequentinterdiction of three employees who had questionable conduct. Thethree were fired and the community mobilize was reported to the localpolice for further action to be taken.

StakeholdersInvolved

Thefirst stakeholder involved was the employees. They were entrustedwith the social responsibility of the organization to the communityand the institution had laid trust on them. However, they did notcomply with basic social ethics of maintaining the integrity of theirown positions. They were affected by the decision through the loss oftheir jobs and association with the institution.

Thesecond stakeholder involved was the management of the institution.The management had a risk of losing its credibility had the scheme ofpilferage by the employees been realized by the community. Therecipients could have accused the management of the institution ofusing the program to deprive the organization its offer. Friedman(1970) arguesthat the management of an organization is mostly held responsible forthe actions taken by its employees. Friedman(1970) furtherargues that social responsibility programs by an organization shouldbe used and directed towards the real beneficiaries and not theorganization. The program should be used for the benefit of thecommunity and not people who are not part of the targeted group. Inthis case, the management was responsible for the pilferage that waspropagated by employees through the social responsibility program.

Themembers of the surrounding community were the other stakeholders.They were the beneficiaries of the social responsibility program thatthe organization organised to feed the needy members. The action wasfavourable to the community since the organization had taken stepsthat would prevent future pilferage and misappropriation of funds andfood supplies meant for the needy members of the community. Thecommunity was also affected by the interdiction of three people whowere rendered jobless by the action. As long as the institution wasdetermined to create employment opportunities to the community, itwas not ready to allow such members to perpetrate unethicalpractices.

Outcome

Theoutcome of the action was employment of three new employees at thefirm to take over the positions of those interdicted. This was as aresult of the unethical practices that the former employees did atthe institution. If the action was not taken, the unethical employeescould have continued with the pilferage that could have continued todeprive the institution its resources. In addition the program ofsocial responsibility could have failed due to increasedmisallocation of its resources by the employees (Freeman,2008).This could cost the institution its integrity as well as thecredibility in the program to assist those in need at the community.

Anyinaction by the management of the institution would have beenconsidered wrong. It would have been taken as a way of toleratingunethical behavior at the institution which would have cost theorganization its integrity. The inaction would have been wrongbecause the management of an organization should be in control of theeveryday decisions at the organization (Freeman,2008).This control is what will sustain a culture of ethical decisionmaking in the institution (Urbany, Reynolds &amp Phillips, 2008)

EthicalPrinciples Taken

Inmaking the decision, the head of human resources applied ethicalprinciples that guide the organization. The code of conduct that wassigned by the employees at the institution was the one applied by theorganization to suspend the unethical employees. It was against thecode of conduct of employees to take organizational resources forpersonal or related purpose. The head of human resources also usedprinciples of the institutional rules and procedures to terminate theemployment of the three employees. This is because according to theorganization’s rules, it was a crime to steal or misappropriateorganizational resources.

Thehead of human resources consulted with the supplies administrator andthe head security to come to a conclusion that these employees shouldbe relieved off their duties. This consultation and unified decisionmaking was done to ensure that the three had deliberated on theoutcome of the action made. According to Urbany, Reynolds andPhillips (2008), decisions should be in consultation with therelevant departments and individuals whose functions will be affectedby the anticipated decision. In this case, the supplies department,the security situation and the liaison with the community as well asthe transport department were affected. This was the effect of thesacking of the employees that worked in each of the listeddepartments.

Biases

Thebias of racial or tribal segregation could have taken over thedecision made by the head of human resources. This is one of themost common historical biases that many management decisions havebeen associated with. However in the case of the action taken by thehead of human resources at the institution, the decision was free ofracial bias. In addition, the management action could be risky of thebias of the past brilliant performance of each of the organization’sdriver and the security officer. This is because the head of humanresources was notified of their past record. However, the decisionwas based on their unethical actions and pilferage involved and nottheir past abilities.

Remedy

Theorganization would have set in stronger controls to monitor itemsthat enter and leave the organization. The controls at theinstitution’s stock management function were not strong enoughsince the control lf the inflows and outflows were left in the handsof the stock officer. According to management practices, distributionof functions should be made to ensure that no one person isresponsible for process or function in totality.

Conclusion

Intrying to be socially responsible, XYZ College engaged in a programto support the needy members of the community with financial andtangible supplies. Due to the trust that the management had on itemployees’ decisions, the institution gave the routine job ofrunning the program to a few effective employees. However, theirunethical practice of resource misappropriation and pilferage wasagainst the values, ethics and rules of the organization. This leftthe management with the need of an action, to interdict them.

References

Freeman,M. (2008). Managingfor Stakeholders. In EthicalIssues in Business A

PhilosophicalApproach, Donaldson,T. &amp Werhane,P.H. (ed.s).New Jersy: PearsonPrentice Hall.

Friedman,M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase itsProfits. TheNew

YorkTimes Magazine,September 13, 1970.

Urbany,J.E., Reynolds, T.J. &amp Phillips, J.M. (2008).How to Make ValuesCount in Everyday

Decisions.Ethics&amp Decision Making. SUMMER2008 VOL. 49 NO. 4