After Reading The Article Ethics Unwrapped Ute Sa Edu Video
After Reading The Article Httpsethicsunwrappedutexaseduvideopen
After reading the article, respond to the following questions:
1. Joe Paterno became a central figure in this case because he was a beloved and successful football coach. Testimonies have revealed that Paterno may have been aware of Sandusky’s actions, but the extent of Paterno’s knowledge remains in question. Based on the information in the case study, how were the actions (and inaction) of Paterno subject to bounded ethicality? What institutional pressures or psychological factors may have influenced his decisions?
Why can inaction be equally as troublesome as action in this case? Explain.
2. Coach Paterno said that he did not feel adequate to deal with the allegations regarding Sandusky when he first learned of them. What should he have done?
Paper For Above instruction
The case of Joe Paterno and the Sandusky scandal highlights complex ethical dilemmas involving bounded ethicality, institutional pressures, psychological influencing factors, and the significance of action versus inaction in crisis situations. Analyzing these aspects provides insight into how individuals in positions of authority make ethical decisions, often under influence that can lead to morally questionable outcomes.
Bounded ethicality refers to the subconscious limitations on one’s moral judgment, often caused by cognitive biases, organizational culture, or social pressures that inhibit ethical decision-making (Chugh et al., 2005). In Paterno's case, despite partial awareness of Sandusky's misconduct, his inaction can be seen as a manifestation of bounded ethicality, driven by factors such as loyalty, reputation preservation, and organizational culture that prioritized winning and tradition over moral accountability (Trevino & Nelson, 2016). Paterno’s reluctance to pursue the allegations aggressively could have been influenced by the institutional norms at Penn State, which emphasized positive football results and the school's reputation, leading him to subconsciously downplay or ignore the severity of the allegations.
Institutional pressures significantly impact ethical decision-making, often leading individuals to conform to organizational norms at the expense of moral responsibility (Longenecker et al., 2014). In this scenario, the pressure to maintain the football program’s success and protect the university's image may have overshadowed the duty to report misconduct, contributing to Paterno’s hesitance to act decisively. Psychological factors, such as the "bystander effect" and cognitive dissonance, possibly further influenced his behavior. Paterno might have experienced discomfort in confronting the gravity of the allegations or feared repercussions that could damage his legacy, prompting a reluctance to escalate the matter beyond superficial actions like reporting to authorities.
Inaction, in this context, is as problematic as active misconduct because it allows harmful behavior to continue unabated and often results in greater moral damage. Failing to act on known or suspected abuse can enable perpetrators to commit further crimes, leading to more victims and a loss of trust in institutions that are supposed to safeguard ethical standards (Rest & Narvaez, 1994). In Paterno’s case, his inaction arguably contributed to the prolongation of Sandusky's abuse, ultimately compounding the tragedy and illustrating that neglect or omission can have devastating consequences.
Regarding Paterno’s statement of feeling inadequate to address the allegations, the proper course of action would have been to escalate the issue through all appropriate channels, including reporting directly to law enforcement and ensuring that the allegations received thorough investigation. As a leader, Paterno had a moral responsibility to prioritize the well-being of victims and act beyond organizational constraints, which could have included pressing for judicial intervention or cooperating fully with authorities (Coughlan & Mello, 2017). Merely reporting the abuse internally or expressing personal inadequacy falls short of moral obligation; decisive action, transparency, and responsibility are essential in addressing such grave issues.
In conclusion, the Paterno case exemplifies how bounded ethicality, social pressures, and psychological influences can impair moral judgment, leading to harmful inaction. It underscores the importance of proactive, courageous decision-making when confronted with unethical behavior, especially within powerful institutions. Recognizing these tendencies and establishing ethical safeguards are crucial for preventing future moral failures and ensuring accountability.
References
- Coughlan, R., & Mello, J. (2017). Ethical leadership and organizational compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(3), 485-495.
- Chugh, D., Banaji, M. R., & Banaji, M. (2005). bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing and reporting unethical conduct. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 116-132.
- Longenecker, J. G., Petty, J. W., Moore, C., & Palich, L. (2014). Ethical dilemmas in organizations: A case-based approach. South-Western Cengage Learning.
- Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1994). Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics. Psychology Press.
- Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2016). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How to Do It Right. John Wiley & Sons.