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 18 th 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.