Some Derogatory Comments On Social Media †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Some Derogatory Comments On Social Media? Answer: Introducation It is seen that in a reputed organization, a valuable employee of that organization whose production level in the organization is beyond the expectation of the management has posted some derogatory comments on social media that harmed the reputation of the organization. He was given chance first time and then again he did the same and the organization fired him. In every situation, firing the staff might not be the ideal choice, and there lies the purpose of this report. In this report it is thoroughly discussed how the managerial body of any organization can analyze this type of issues usig multiple ethical frameworks and decide what to do for the betterment of the organization. After a detailed analysis, a brief recommendation regarding the solution of this type of issues is provided in this report. In an organization, it is seen that a valuable sales person of that organization has posted such comments on social media website that it has affected the reputation of that organization. The complex part in this case is that the person who has committed this act actually loves his job, his organization and in his field, he is the best and most effective employee of the organization. His employers has already given him a second chance and second time he did something offensive. Now the problem that the management is facing is whether to terminate his service or to penalize him and make an example of him or they should talk and clear things out. For this particular reason, an ethical business framework can be utilized to solve the issue. A detailed discussion on that ethical framework is provided below. Briefly, it can be said that ethics gives a set of standards for conduct that helps individuals to decide how they should act in certain situations. It can also be said in this context that, ethics is all about making the right choices and providing valid reasons behind the making of those choices (Ariely and Jones 2012). The traditional field of ethics can be categorized into three parts. First part is meta-ethics and this basically deals with the nature of the situation whether it is right or good and also the nature and the valid justification of the ethical claims. The second part is normative ethics and this part sheds light on the standards and principles those are used to determine whether something is good or else correct. Finally, the last part, applied ethics, deals with actual application of the ethical principles in a specific situation (Iphofen 2016). Apart from these, the ethical theories can be divided into three major categories and those are Consequentialist theories, Non-consequentialist theories and finally Agent-centered theories. Consequentialist theories deal with the ethical consequences of any specific actions. The nonconsequentialist theories are concerned with the intentions of the individuals making ethical decisions about any specified actions. The Agent-centered theories are largely concerned with the ethical status of the persons and these theories are a reduced amount of concerned about the identification f the morality of specific actions (Ariely and Jones 2012). These three main theories have various approaches to ethics and in this report, as per the case studies the approach of consequentialist theories and the approaches of non-consequential theories would be appropriate to discuss. Utilitarian approach is among one of the most widespread approaches in making ethcal decisions, and specially the decisions with consequences that concerns huge groups of individuals in part, as it directs to weigh various amounts of good and bad those can be produced by the actions of the individuals (Johnson 2017). This conforms to the feelings of the decision makers that either good or bad would necessarily be the result of the actions, and the action that generates the best things or causes less harm can be referred to as the best action. Ethical environmental action is the one that generates the most goods and the least bads for all the affected individuals or organizations. A variation of utilitarian approach is widely known as ethical egoism. In this type of approach, individuals often use utilitarian calculation to generate the most amounts of good for him or herself. In most of the cases, it is seen that, the best society must be guided by general will of the population, which would produce the best for the individuals as a whole (Iphofen 2016). This variety of ethics underscores the networked aspect of society and emphasizes respect and empathy towards the other members of the society and especially to those who are vulnerable. There are four types of approaches included in the Non-consequentialist theories and in this section those approaches are discussed thoroughly. Duty-based approaches are sometimes referred to as deontological ethics and are most widely associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant (Hershfield, Cohen and Thompson 2012). Kants famous formula to discover the ethical duty is known as the categorical imperative. This approach has numerous visions, but Kant had a belief that those all visions amounts to the same imperative. The basic form of imperative is to act according to the maxim by which individuals can at the same time will that it would become a universal law. Thus, for an example, it can be said that lying is unethical as individuals cannot universalize a maxim that says states individuals may always lie (Heizer 2016). Thus, such a maxim will render all speech meaningless. Individuals may universalize he maxim and may always speak the truth without getting into any logical contradiction. In short, it can be said that choosing to obey the universal moral law is the nature of acting ethically. The rights approach derives its current force as of duty-based ethics. This approach stipulates that best ethical action is the one that protect the ethical rights of the individuals who are affected by the action (Heizer 2016). It sheds light on the belief that all individuals have a basic right to dignity. The list of ethical rights is a debatable issue and there have been many arguments that animals as well as other non-humans may also have rights. The most impressive version of this Justice approach can be found in the works of John Rawls who stated that ethical principles are individuals, which might be chosen by rational and free people in an initial situation of equality (Epstein 2013). This hypothetical contract is generally considered as just as it provides a system for what counts as a reasonable action, and not necessarily concern it with consequences of those actions. Fairness of the starting point is the main principle for what is widely considered as just. According to the name, Divine command approach approach concentrates on what is right as the same as that God commands, as it is believed that the ethical standards are created by the will of God. It is also widely believed that following the commands of God is the ethical action (Clemen and Reilly 2013). It is also believed that God may change what is considered as principled and God is not at all bound by any standards of right or wrong, good or bad or any kinds of logical contradiction. Source: (Salvia, Ysseldyke and Witmer 2012) From the picture above it is evident that there are specified steps following which individuals can take proper steps for solution of any complex situations within the organization (Bardach and Patashnik 2015). The individuals need to feel the situation rationally and then they need to analyze how grave the situation is. After that, they need to clear things out with the person who has committed the offence with compassion and search the reason behind the deed. It is a matter of fact that management needs to understand that what might causing the disruption or what exactly is the reason behind any sort of unwanted actions taken by the individual (Ariely and Jones 2012). Then they have to analyze the situation and take decisions accordingly for the benefit of the organization as well as for the workforce, as it is a well-known fact that the general workforce is the nucleus of any organization. The more motivated and loyal towards the company will be the workforce, the more productivit y and profitability the organization can expect. This to conclude, it can be said that individuals must know the proper ways to solve an issue in within the workplace using the techniques and the theories mentioned in this report to maintain harmony and positive ambience within the workplace. It is a matter of fact that choosing the right techniques of solving the issues within the workplace, individuals can see remarkable improvements in solving any kind of ethical complexities in the workplace References Ariely, D. and Jones, S., 2012.The (honest) Truth about Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone, Especially Ourselves(Vol. 336). New York, NY: HarperCollins. Bardach, E. and Patashnik, E.M., 2015.A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. CQ press. Clemen, R.T. and Reilly, T., 2013.Making hard decisions with DecisionTools. Cengage Learning. Epstein, R.M., 2013. Whole mind and shared mind in clinical decision-making.Patient education and counseling,90(2), pp.200-206. Heizer, J., 2016.Operations Management, 11/e. Pearson Education India. Hershfield, H.E., Cohen, T.R. and Thompson, L., 2012. Short horizons and tempting situations: Lack of continuity to our future selves leads to unethical decision making and behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,117(2), pp.298-310. Iphofen, R., 2016.Ethical decision making in social research: A practical guide. Springer. Johnson, C.E., 2017.Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow. Sage Publications. Laudon, K.C., Laudon, J.P., Brabston, M.E., Chaney, M., Hawkins, L. and Gaskin, S., 2012.Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm, Seventh Canadian Edition (7th. Pearson. Rios, M.C., McConnell, C.R. and Brue, S.L., 2013.Economics: Principles, problems, and policies. McGraw-Hill. Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. and Witmer, S., 2012.Assessment: In special and inclusive education. Cengage Learning. Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. and Griffin, M., 2013.Business research methods. Cengage Learning.