BACHELOR OF MANAGEMENT WITH HONOURS

MAY 20XX

OUMM3203

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
 The definition of Professional Ethics refers to ethics in a professional profession and field.
Professionals can be defined as the ability and competence in performing a responsibility based on
knowledge and training as well as expertise. Professional ethics is interpreted as a set of guidelines
and procedures that determine moral, professional qualities and values. Professional ethics is a
guideline aimed at improving the level of quality, productivity and discipline in the service by
emphasizing all aspects related to rules and civilization, the role of values, as well as the conduct
of the profession in society. These ethical principles must be learned and practiced by every
individual in society in whatever they do. That level of discipline high and positive thinking
succeeds in making an individual a highly ethical person. The term ethics concerns to accepted
principles of right or wrong that govern the actions of a company, conduct of an individual or the
members of a profession. In other words, business ethics are the welcomed propositions of right
or wrong governing the conduct of business people. Ethical decisions are people who are in
accordance with those accepted principles of right and wrong, whereas an unethical decision is
one that violates accepted principles. this is often not as uncomplicated because it sounds. Besides
that, managers may face ethical dilemmas, where there are situations where there's no agreement
over exactly what the accepted theories of right and wrong are, or where none of the available
alternatives seem ethically acceptable. A toxic work culture is among one of where the workplace
is laid low with drama, fighting and unhappy employees. It is because of the purpose that
productivity and therefore the well-being of the people within the office is affected. As a
pacesetter, you want to prioritize the event of an honest work culture. It is one in every pillar
successful company like Facebook. When the weather of a poisonous work culture is right out in
the open, it's easier to fix; however, when it's buried, leaders must make constant attempts to find
it. Leaders who are unconcerned about taking bribes, distorting sales statistics and data, or pressing
staff or business associates for "favors" (personal or financial) will be unconcerned of
disrespecting and bullying their employees. With this emphasis in many organizations to rent for
“cultural fit,” a toxic culture is exacerbated by continually repopulating the corporate with like-
minded personalities and toxic mentalities. Worse, recruiting for "cultural fit" can be used as a
cover for discrimination, resulting in further ethical and legal repercussions. Ethical issues in
business cover a wide range of topics that fall within an organization's ethical guidelines.
Promoting behavior based on honesty and trust are fundamental ethical challenges in business, but
more complicated issues include accommodating diversity, empathic decision-making, and
compliance and governance that is consistent with the organization's basic principles. According
to the 2019 Global Business Ethics Survey, 25% of employees believe their top managers lack a
thorough awareness of critical ethical and compliance business risks across the organization. You
must first gain a full awareness of what ethical concerns in business can look like before you can
manage them in your organization. Understanding how to recognize and, more significantly,
prevent these issues from becoming a problem will allow you to focus on business growth and
success rather than remediation.

There are three characteristics of ethical problem. First, employees are scared of the
boss. There's a difference between having a healthy respect for your employer and being afraid of
him. When nobody but the boss speaks during a meeting, when people avoid taking place the
corridor where they may encounter the boss, there's an issue with the culture and it has to be
addressed immediately. Besides, the boss sets the tone for the workplace culture and their
management with a communication style. Hence, it can either cause a toxic work culture or the
other can make employees are happy. It follows that if the boss yells at employees, insults them
then scenarios just like the above are more likely to happen. a foul boss can make toxic work
culture even worse because he gives cues to others about how they will behave by variety of
‘endorsing’ bad behaviour and providing precedent for rude interactions. In short, if the highest
boss yells, it'll not be a surprise to seek out department heads and team leaders yelling. Second,
there are groups and cliques within the office and management. People naturally gravitate to a
different those that they have things in common with. Many folks have ally at work place and this
could not be a surprise. Hence, in an exceedingly toxic workplace culture, these groups and cliques
are full of tension, drama and dealing against each other. Besides, competition being good when
these cliques involve sabotage, backstabbing and black mail stops. In an exceedingly toxic work
culture, it is not surprising to hunt out bosses sitting on their own, eating alone and totally closing
the staff out and forcing them to also form their own cliques. this may be only one of the things to
avoid when building your company culture. Third, people in middle management are just figure
heads. Ever gone to the boss or perhaps human resource manager with an issue that they recognize,
agree may be a problem but can only sympathize about? This can be a classic sign of a toxic work
culture for two reasons. the primary is that power lies within the hands of one or some inaccessible
employers. There is no delegation so employees do not seem to be empowered to grow and see no
hope of advancement. The second is that nobody is searching for the staff in order that they will
should look out for themselves. Employees do not have any thanks to get help should they have
it. This will either cause employee apathy or employees making up their own rules to bypass the
stifling and impossible policies founded by their bosses. An employee who knows they will be
unable to induce every day off for a legitimate reason will simply pretend to honk of constructing
a political candidate request.

There are three methods of analysis for the toxic workplace culture in a management. First is
Utilitarian The utilitarian approach to business ethics was developed in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Although it's been superseded by more modern approaches, it's also a part of the tradition upon
which newer approaches are constructed. Thus, it is important to review this approach. The
utilitarian approach to ethics holds that the moral worth of actions or practices is decided by their
consequences. An action is judged to be desirable if it results in the simplest possible balance of
excellent over bad consequences. Utilitarianism is committed to the maximization of excellent and
therefore the minimization of harm. Besides that, utilitarianism recognizes that actions have
multiple consequences, some of which are good in a social sense, and some of which are harmful.
As a philosophy for business ethics, it focuses attention on the necessity to carefully weigh all
social benefits and costs of a business action and to pursue only actions that have more benefits
than costs. The best decisions, from a utilitarian perspective, are people who produce the best good
for the best number of individuals. Many firms have used utilitarian-based tools like cost–benefit
analysis and risk assessment. Managers often weigh the benefits and costs of a course of action
before deciding whether to pursue it. Utilitarian philosophy has some serious drawbacks. One
problem is measuring the advantages, costs, and risks of a course of action. Second is Rights
Theories. It was developed in the 20th century. Rights theories recognize that citizenry have
fundamental rights and privileges. The concept of rights establishes a minimal standard of moral
action. A basic right, according to one well-known definition, is anything that takes precedence
over or "trumps" a communal good. Thus, we might say that the right to free speech is a
fundamental right that takes precedence over all but the most compelling collective goals; it
overrides, for example, the state's interest in civic harmony or moral agreement. Moral theorists
argue that fundamental human rights form the idea for the moral compass managers should
navigate by when making decisions that have an ethical component. In a business setting,
stakeholder theory provides a useful way for managers to frame any discussion of rights. As noted
earlier, stakeholders have basic rights that should be respected, and it is unethical to violate those
rights. Along with rights come obligations. Because we have the right to free speech, we are also
obligated to make sure we respect the free speech of others. Within the framework of a theory of
rights, certain people or institutions are obligated to supply benefits or services that secure the
rights of others. Such obligations also strike quite one class of ethical agent (amoral agent is a
person or institution that's capable of ethical action, like a government or corporation). Who bears
the obligation for protecting the rights of workers and residents to safety in a case like this?
According to right theorists, the obligation rests not on the shoulders of one moral agent, but on
the shoulders of all moral agents whose actions might harm or contribute to the harm of the workers
and residents. Both the government and multinational corporations appear to have failed to realize
their basic responsibilities to protect others' fundamental human rights in this case. Third is Justice
Theories. Justice theories specialize in attaining a just distribution of economic goods and services.
A just distribution is one that's considered fair and equitable. John Rawls, a philosopher,
established one of the most prominent conceptions of justice. According to Rawls, all economic
products and services should be divided equally unless an unequal distribution would benefit
everyone. According to Rawls, valid principles of justice are those to which all people would agree
if they could freely and impartially consider the situation. The veil of ignorance is a conceptual
device that Rawls uses to ensure impartiality. Under the veil of ignorance, most are alleged to be
unaware of all his or her particular characteristics (such as race, sex, intelligence, nationality,
family background, and special talents). Rawls next questions what kind of society individuals
would devise if they were blinded by ignorance. Rawls’s answer is that under these conditions,
people would unanimously agree on two fundamental principles of justice. The fundamental
principle is that each person should be given as much basic liberty as is compatible with other
people's liberty. Political liberty (such as the right to vote), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty
of conscience and freedom of thinking, freedom and right to carry personal property, and freedom
from arbitrary arrest and seizure are roughly what Rawls considers these to be. The second
principle is that when equal basic liberty is ensured, inequality in basic social goods such as income
and wealth distribution and opportunities is to be allowed as long as it benefits everyone.
Inequalities can exist, according to Rawls, as long as the system that creates them is beneficial to
all. More precisely, he formulates what he calls the difference principle, which says that
inequalities are justified if they benefit the position of the smallest amount advantaged person One
could argue that a well-regulated market-based economy benefits the poorest segments of society
by supporting economic growth. The inequities inherent in such systems are thus, at least in theory,
just. In principle, at least, the inequalities inherent in such systems are therefore just. In the context
of business ethics, Rawls’s theory creates an interesting perspective. Managers could ask
themselves whether the policies they adopt would be considered just under Rawls’s veil of
ignorance. Is it just, for instance, to pay foreign workers but workers within the firm’s home
country? Rawls’s theory might suggest that it is, so long as the inequality benefits the least
advantaged members of the global society. Alternatively, it's impossible to picture ignorant
managers designing a system in which employees are paid subsistence rates to work long hours in
sweatshop conditions and are exposed to harmful materials. Such working conditions are clearly
unjust in Rawls’s framework, and thus it's unethical to adopt them. Similarly, operating under a
veil of ignorance, most people would probably design a system that imparts protection from
environmental degradation, preserves a free and fair playing field for competition, and prohibits
self-dealing.

There are two feasible recommendations to unravel the toxic workplace culture. First, is
humble yourself. Being humble does not imply you lack self-confidence or that you just never get
up for yourself. Rather, it involves recognizing that you just do not know everything--and being
able to learn from others. as an example, if you're younger or less experienced than colleagues or
clients, acknowledge that and keep it in mind. If you demonstrate a willingness to find out, you
may display humility and naturally earn respect. In contrast, if you are older or undergone, show
respect by not quickly dismissing new ideas or techniques. Instead, dignify those you're employed
with by soliciting for their opinions and perspectives--and actually listening once they
speak. Humility also means being willing to apologize. "I'm sorry" is the two most difficult words
to mention, but also the foremost powerful. When you're willing to admit your mistakes, you create
a giant statement about how you view yourself in respect to others. This naturally attracts others
to you, resulting in increased trust and loyalty. Second is be constructive. you'll begin to share
critical feedback. this can be often vital because many of us find it difficult to concentrate thereto
they need to reinforce on something. But if you are doing not share that feedback, they'll never
grow. If you create guaranteed to gain their trust first and deliver your feedback with emotional
intelligence, they will not interpret your critical feedback as a threat. Instead, they will see it as an
effort to help, to form them better. Remember, it all starts at the best. If you hold a leadership
position, whether you're the CEO, middle manager, or team lead, never underestimate the
flexibility of your influence. anytime you get down and dirty, every word of commendation or
thank-you note you give, anytime you set the instance, every mistake you admit, and every piece
of constructive advice you give will contribute to assembling deep and trusting relationships and
facilitate your turn toxic into thriving.

All of the steps discussed here can help make sure that when managers make business
decisions, they are fully cognizant of the moral implications and do not violate basic ethical
precepts. But we must remember that not all ethical dilemmas have a clean and obvious solution;
that's why they are dilemmas. At the best of the day, there are clearly things that managers mustn't
do and things they must do; but there are actions that present true dilemmas. during this sort of
cases, a premium is placed on the pliability of managers to make sense out of complex messy
situations and make balanced decisions that are as while possible.