What Do You Do When You Change Documents Do You Go Back

What Do You Dodo You Change The Documentsdo You Go Back And Confront

What do you do? Do you change the documents? Do you go back and confront your supervisor? What is your decision and why did you make it? What is your next course of action?

What other factors do you consider and what other actions do you take? ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS CASE ATTACHED BELOW

What ethical framework/Distributive Justice Theory best supports your decisions regarding the case and why?

Paper For Above instruction

In the complex landscape of ethical decision-making, professionals often grapple with situations that challenge their integrity, moral judgment, and sense of justice. The scenario in question involves a dilemma where an individual must choose whether to alter documents, confront a supervisor, or pursue another course of action. This paper explores the possible decisions, the rationales behind them, and the ethical frameworks that can support or inform these choices.

Initially, the decision to change documents raises significant ethical concerns. If the documents in question pertain to fraudulent activities, misrepresentation, or any breach of honesty, modifying them would constitute dishonesty and a violation of professional integrity (Kidder, 2005). Conversely, if the documents are inaccurate, outdated, or incomplete, updating them might be justified; the key is ensuring transparency and honesty in the process. Therefore, understanding the context of the documents is crucial.

Alternatively, confronting the supervisor involves ethical courage and a commitment to transparency. Approaching the supervisor with evidence of discrepancies or concerns demonstrates moral accountability and adherence to professional standards (Trevino & Nelson, 2017). However, the manner of confrontation must be measured and respectful, ensuring that communication fosters resolution rather than conflict. The decision to confront is often driven by the need to uphold integrity and prevent potential harm that might result from unethical practices.

Deciding between these options also requires considering the potential consequences of each action. Changing documents without proper authorization could lead to legal and professional repercussions, including job loss or damage to reputation. Conversely, confronting the supervisor could result in conflict, retaliation, or other workplace tensions, but it also aligns with ethical principles of honesty and accountability.

The next course of action depends on the assessment of the situation. If the ethical breach is severe and the supervisor is unresponsive or dismissive, escalating the issue through formal channels such as compliance departments or external regulators might be necessary (Kaptein, 2011). Additionally, consulting with colleagues or professional bodies can provide guidance and reinforce ethical integrity.

Several factors influence the decision-making process, including personal moral beliefs, organizational culture, legal considerations, and potential impacts on stakeholders. For instance, one must weigh the duty to obey organizational policies against the imperative to act ethically (Jones, 1991). Ensuring that actions align with both ethical standards and legal requirements is essential.

In selecting the appropriate ethical framework, Distributive Justice Theory offers valuable insights. This theory emphasizes fairness in the distribution of benefits and burdens among stakeholders (Rawls, 1971). Applying Rawls' principles, one might argue that maintaining honesty and transparency ensures fair treatment for all parties impacted by the documents, thus supporting actions that promote justice and fairness. Furthermore, deontological ethics, which focus on duty and moral principles, reinforce the importance of honesty and integrity regardless of outcomes.

In conclusion, the decision to either alter documents or confront a supervisor hinges on ethical considerations, potential consequences, and the overarching commitment to justice. Upholding honesty, transparency, and fairness guided by distributive justice principles provides a robust foundation for ethically sound decision-making in professional contexts.

References

• Kidder, R. M. (2005). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. HarperOne.
• Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human Relations, 64(6), 843-869.
• Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decisionmaking by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How To Do It Right. Wiley.