Cover of Public IntegritySuperior managers are known to be active in the preservation of good working conditions by observing the code of ethics of the organizations they serve. This implies ensuring the rules and regulations of the workplace are never violated and that all employees are treated with dignity and respect. In case of a malpractice where the company regulation has been broken by some employees with intent to cause problems, managers may feel obliged to take measures against culprits implicated in any act of wrongdoing that undermine company ethics.
As Yeager (2007) argues, “Supervisors can encourage employees to act both ethically and responsively, or they can emphasize political responsiveness without setting ethical limits.” Factors that undermine social change include kickbacks, preferential treatment, favoritisms based on familial relationships, and use of insider trading to garner wealth, bribery and other unethical and imperfect dealings that lead to low morale, frivolity, and diminished use of faculty of reasoning. In the past I witnessed the departure of a group of employees implicated in the collective theft of a refugee resettlement agency. These employees worked in cahoots with some managers to overcharge, steal, and distort important documents for their selfish gains. Eventually, the sword of Themistocles fell on them after thorough investigations by a new director leading to the termination of the group.
Reference
Yeager, S. J., Hildreth, W. B., Miller, G. J., & Rabin, J. (2007). The relative effects of a
supervisory emphasis on ethical behavior versus political responsiveness. Public Integrity, 9(3), 265-283.
No comments:
Post a Comment