1

Ethical Issue Analysis

Jared Gregory

College of Social Work – University of South Carolina

SOWK 483: Practicum Seminar

Professor Michael Ottone

November 12th, 2023

 2

Part Two

One ethical principle I noticed when reviewing the situation with Jack is the Importance

of Human Relationships. As the National Association of Social Workers said, “Social workers

recognize the central importance of human relationships.” (NASW, 2008) Jack understands

Michael and his field supervisor have a close connection, with the field supervisor describing

Michael as her son. Jack recognizes this, and this fuels his conflict on what he should do. Jack

wants to report Michaels's behavior to his field supervisor but also wants to make a good

impression on the organization, as he supports their mission and objectives. This principle

impacts the issue because Jack knows his field supervisor and Michael have a strong connection,

and there is a chance his field supervisor will side with Michael over him. It would be a risk to

report him due to this relationship, so Jack must weigh his options and decide whether to take the

risk or not. If he does decide to report Michael, then Jack also runs the risk of damaging his

relationship with his field supervisor, which could make the rest of the experience at the

organization an uncomfortable one.

Another ethical principle I feel relates to this situation is Integrity. As the National

Association of Social Workers said, “Social workers behave in a trustworthy manner.” (NASW,

2008) Social workers are expected to act honestly, and they should act ethically. As Jack is a

social worker, his field supervisor should believe him if he talks with her about Michael, as Jack

should have integrity. This doesn’t mean she would believe Jack, but knowing Jack is a social

worker she should consider what he is saying to be true. With this being said, the field supervisor

has known Michael longer and formed a closer connection with him, so she may believe Michael

over Jack. It would be up to the field supervisor to choose who she believes, and if Michael says
 3

he wasn’t being inappropriate or rude then the field supervisor must determine who to side with

along with what is and isn’t factual.

While much isn’t said about the organization, it is said Jack is doing his field practicum at

a local organization with the mission of advocating for vulnerable children and young adults. I

felt this fell under the NASW Standards for Social Work Practice with Adolescents and am going

off their standards. The standard which stood out the most to me was the ninth standard, which is

work environment. It states, “Social workers shall assume an active role in contributing to the

improvement and quality of the work environment, agency policies and practices with clients,

and their professional development.” (NASW, 2008) When viewing the situation Jack is in with

his standard, Michael was not contributing to a positive work environment. Though Jack isn’t a

client, he is now a part of the organization and should be treated respectfully. Michael did not

show this when he insulted Jack and asked invasive questions which made Jack feel

uncomfortable. Michael did not follow this standard and failed to contribute to an increase in the

quality of the work environment. This impacts the issue because Michael isn’t a social worker,

but the IT lead, meaning he may not follow the same rules and standards social workers do. Due

to this, Jack may not have an argument using this standard, since it may not apply to Michael.

Another standard which caught my eye was the tenth standard, which is Advocacy. While

this standard mainly focuses on adolescents and policy changes, it also highlights “appropriate

working conditions for all workers.” (NASW, 2003) This can relate to Jacks's situation, as he can

advocate for himself to be treated better, as Michael treated him inappropriately and rudely. The

situation puts Jack in an uncomfortable spot where he must decide on what to do, and if Michael

never treated him the way he did then perhaps Jack would feel more confident his field would go

well. Maybe the reason Michael treated Jack the way he did is because he expects everyone to
 4

follow his directions perfectly and to do as he says and get upset when they don’t. If this is a

common occurrence, then there should be a conversation with Michael about treating others with

respect and not crossing boundaries.

Part Three

The problem in the situation is Micheal, the IT lead, is treating Jack, the social work

student intern, rudely and inappropriately. Micheal is short-tempered with Jack and asks him

personal questions which make him uncomfortable. The key people in the dilemma are Jack,

Micheal, and the field supervisor. The institution is unknown, but its mission is to advocate for

vulnerable children and young adults. The clients are also unknown, but I assume they are

children and young adults. The three professions involved are a social work student at the

University of Michigan, who is Jack, the field instructor who oversees Jack, and the IT lead,

Micheal. The support system isn’t clear for Jack, but the team he is working with is described to

be a “small, tight-knit community”, implying they are all close to each other and support one

another. There are no others named or involved in the situation.

I believe Jack should be involved in the decision-making, as he must determine whether

or not to report Micheal. If he chooses to, then he is involving his field supervisor to step in, and

she would make her own decisions. This means Jack must decide to either report Micheal and let

his field supervisor step in and make her own decisions, or he decides to not say anything. Either

way, he is deciding, though he may not get the final say if he includes his field supervisor. The

field supervisor is the one who ultimately has the power to make a final decision which could
 5

impact Jack and Micheal, as she could either stand up to Jack or support Micheal. Jack could

also have the power to confront Micheal, but it doesn’t seem like he is interested in doing so.

Jack holds the values of service, as he is in his field to serve youth in need, and the

Importance of Human Relationships, as he recognizes how close the team he is working with is.

Michael seems to hold the value of Competence, as he seems knowledgeable in his position as

the IT lead. The organization's values seem to be Social Justice, as they advocate for vulnerable

children and young adults, Service, as they also serve the vulnerable population, and Dignity and

Worth of a Person, as the organization appears to help the vulnerable population through their

situations. The only three people mentioned in the situation are Jack, Michael, and the field

supervisor. There are others in the organization, as the team is described as small and tight-knit,

but they do not play a role in the conflict.

When viewing the goals and objectives, I believe the client's goals are to live better lives

and make changes to benefit their lives. Not much is said about the clients in the scenario, but

this is what I gathered when reading the mission statement. As for worker goals, I believe a

conversation with Micheal may go a long way. Perhaps he didn’t know he was making Jack

uncomfortable, or maybe he didn’t mean to come off as rude. By having a conversation, this

situation may be able to be solved. The field instructor could sit in if she wanted, and Jack could

be honest about how he felt. There isn’t anything else others wanted to accomplish, as there

weren’t any others mentioned in the scenario. However, I assume others would want for

everyone to get along and to work towards their organization's mission.

The first solution I have is for Jack to talk with his field supervisor about Michael and how

Jack was treated. One of the pros to this is the field supervisor is aware of the situation, and this

gives the field supervisor the decision to intervene or not. Another pro is after the situation has
 6

been reported, it can be traced. If Michael continues to treat Jack the way he did it can be seen he

has done it before, and this can help build Jack’s argument. A con I have is the situation would be

out of Jack’s control, as his field supervisor will do whatever she wants with the information. She

can choose to talk to both of them, decide to ignore the situation, tell Michael about what Jack

said, and more. Another solution I have is for Jack to not bring up the situation and to move on

from it. One of the pros to this solution is there is no confrontation, as the situation would be

ignored. Another pro is the supervisor doesn’t intervene, meaning Jack has more control of the

situation. A con is there is the potential for this behavior to continue, as Michael may not know

his behavior was inappropriate. Another con is Jack is in an environment where he feels like he

can’t speak up, and not doing so may strengthen the belief and prevent him from standing up to

future behavior like this. The final solution I have for Jack is to talk to Michael about his

behavior, which hopefully leads to a discussion. One of the pros to this solution is Jack is in

control of how the situation is handled, and he gets to decide how to talk to Michael about how

Jack was treated. Another pro is the issue gets talked about, which means Michael is aware of

how he affected Jack and Jack doesn’t have to hold onto how he felt. A con is Michael may not

care or may not like Jack's perspective and this can cause a conflict. Another con is once Jack

confronts Michael, he cannot take it back, which means this could forever impact his relationship

with Michael and others in the organization.

The intervention I feel is the best is the third one, where Jack talks to Michael about how

he was treated. I feel this intervention is the best because Jack is in more control of the situation

compared to the other interventions, and this is the reason why I chose it. It is better than the

other two proposed strategies because the other ones either have the field supervisor stepping in

and controlling how the situation is being handled or have Jack not saying anything and risking
 7

Michael's behavior continuing. I feel it best addresses Michael's behavior towards Jack because it

may mean more to Michael to hear how he affected Jack from him rather than someone else, and

perhaps he didn’t even realize how he made Jack feel and this could bring more awareness to his

actions and prevent this from happening again in the future. This advances Michaels's goals of

helping Jack with IT-related issues in the future because they would both have a better

understanding of one another and there wouldn’t be unresolved tension. This also advances

Jack’s goals of making the most of his field and not feeling uncomfortable speaking up if future

situations arise. I feel Michael and Jack talking about the situation takes precedence because it

supports the Importance of Human Relationships. The team they both work for is small, and they

are all close to each other. By talking and working through any issues or conflicts, I feel this can

lead to a more productive environment and strengthen the team’s relationships. The code of

ethics helped inform me of my decision, as I feel this strategy falls in line with the principles and

values.

I would know if the intervention is working if both Jack and Michael can have

interactions in the future which aren’t like the ones which started the conflict. I would pay

attention to Michael's behavior toward Jack, but also his field supervisor and other colleagues.

Though the hope is this intervention will work out for the best, there is a chance it won’t, and

others in the organization will side with Michael over Jack. I would measure how successful this

intervention is by how many interactions Jack has with Michael following their conversation

about the conflict and see how many are positive or negative. Success would look like Jack being

comfortable in the organization and having a friendly, or at least neutral, relationship with

Michael. Some anticipated consequences are Michael being angry at Jack and worsening the

situation, others at the organization disliking Jack because he confronted Michael, and Jack
 8

leaving his field and finding another because he doesn’t feel welcomed or comfortable in the

organization. Success will be reached when the conflict is settled and when Jack feels

comfortable and welcomed in his field placement and doesn’t have to worry about talking to

people about how he feels and can have a conversation with them when a boundary is crossed.

Part Four

Overall, I felt like this assignment helped put me in a scenario I had not thought about

before but could end up in one day. The scenario focuses on how Jack doesn’t know how to

proceed after being mistreated because of how close the organization's team is, and I feel this is a

very real issue which isn’t discussed a lot. We are all told about the chain of command and how

to report issues, but what do you do when the person you want to report closely connects with

the person you report to? It could cause a conflict of interest, and in this situation, the field

supervisor person may have to choose between their relationship or doing their job. I think this

can be a real moral dilemma, and a hard decision to make. Even if the field supervisor in this

situation did talk to Michael, there is no guarantee anything would change or Michael wouldn’t

hold resentment towards Jack. Regardless, it’s a sad situation since Jack was looking forward to

his field and supported the organization, but now feels conflicted because of an encounter he had

and because he doesn’t feel confident in reporting Michael because of his connections.

This assignment made me put myself in the situation and think about what I would do. I

felt like I would report Michael to my field supervisor, but the more I thought about it I felt like I

wouldn’t because of how close they were and because Jack didn’t want to start drama because he

was new. I considered ignoring it, but I don’t feel like it would resolve anything as the conflict

doesn’t get addressed. I felt I would talk to Michael later about how I was new to everything and
 9

was trying to learn and open about how I felt. This way he may have a better understanding of

who I was and how he came off. I feel a discussion can go a long way, though this is not always

the case, but I believe the conflict started as miscommunication. Though Michael knew Jack was

new to the organization, it seemed like he expected Jack to know everything and be competent in

everything he was doing. Perhaps Michael doesn’t know Jack is new to social work and the

organization's way of doing things, but perhaps a conversation about how Jack is just starting and

learning can go a long way.

I feel I have developed a better understanding of what it is to be a professional social

worker on a bachelor's level by understanding uncomfortable decisions may be the way to handle

things. I feel regardless of what I would do, whether it was talking to Michael, talking to my

field supervisor, or ignoring the situation, I would feel uncomfortable. It was a conflict Jack did

not ask for but now must decide how to resolve it, and though the decisions may be ones he

doesn’t want to make he has to choose one. Even if he does nothing, he is still doing something. I

also believe this scenario shows conflict can occur anytime, and it’s not always in our control,

but as social workers, it is our job to manage conflict and do what we believe is best. I also

believe it is our job to consider multiple solutions, not just the easiest decision or the one

seeming to be the most obvious choice. We need to analyze the situations we are in and make the

decisions we feel are best.

I enjoyed reading this situation, and I am glad I got to analyze and delve deeper into the

situation and think about what I would do. I feel like a lot of scenarios or situations I hear or read

about I don’t feel too involved, but the third part of this assignment made me think about what I

would do and dissect the scenario. It felt very open to interpretation and there didn’t seem to be a

right and wrong answer, which made things more realistic. Not everything has a definitive
 10

answer, and sometimes all we can do is what we think is best and hope it works out. I chose to

talk to Michael because I felt it was the right way to handle the conflict, but it wasn’t the only

way to handle the conflict. The conflict was also a real one which one of my classmates had

experienced, which I felt made it more real to me. The way I handled the conflict versus the way

they did may have been different, and no one knows how the conflict will end until after it is

over. Overall, I felt this assignment put me in the shoes of someone dealing with a realistic

conflict and one I may face one day, and it made me think about all the ways I could have

handled it.
 11

References

Code of Ethics. NASW, National Association of Social Workers. (n.d.).

https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English

NASW standards for the practice of social work with adolescents. (n.d.-a).

https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rUt4ybE_GW4%3d&portalid=0