The Study of Ethics - 'Doing No Damage' Versus 'Doing What is Right'

Merely stated, nobody can outline 'ethics' for your organization. Certain, it's a pretty easy issue to supply you with a listing of things that are clearly wrong that you ought to avoid, however the ability of a 'study in ethics' lies primarily in the active study of the issue, not in the passive reading of standardized prescriptions, books, or series of articles. In different words, to essentially study ethics, you want to actually provide it some thought and, most significantly, you need to apply your thoughts to the actual circumstances of your own organization. If you take the time to try to to that, you'll raise the issue of ethics from the extent of 'compliance' to 'excellence' - and, your non-profit will have an chance to absolutely distinguish itself in a very time of unprecedented funding competition among your contributors and grantors.
Fairly common is the notion that ethical behavior may be outlined as 'doing no harm' and, whereas I do not disagree with this premise, I don't believe it is appropriately proactive for the sort of study in ethics that I advocate. There's simply one thing regarding the phrase 'doing no hurt' that immediately leads me to marvel regarding going a step beyond. And, in any commitment to excellence, going the extra distance is usually the determining factor. It simply appears that the notion of 'doing no hurt' only take us to a point of achieving some minimum commonplace, of erring on the facet of caution, of not stepping across the road, of taking part in it safe. This interpretation of ethics falls short of its full potential.
If your study in ethics leads you to adopt a mantra of 'doing what is right' then it becomes significantly more proactive. Whereas only you'll be able to outline what 'right' suggests that for your non-profit organization, it is entirely logical that discerning what's 'right' becomes a more aggressive and positive study than avoiding what is 'wrong' (i.e. the notion of 'hurt').
I used to be once consulting with a quasi-governmental housing agency and was in a meeting with a variety of its prime managers. The difficulty at hand was the event of a relocation policy for residents concerning to be effected by the renovation of a housing development. The management employees was struggling with the specifics of the development of the policy - which was a very applicable subject for discussion, discussion, and call - once all, the policy would wish to be fair, anticipate all manner of unforeseen contingencies, and be applied consistently among many hundred affected residents. In alternative words, though unspoken, the policy required to be moral (but that was to be outlined). It required to either 'do no hurt' or a minimum of minimize the quantity of hurt inherent to the naturally disruptive activity of relocating a household. The challenges of developing the policy were real and also the angst surrounding the discussion was appropriate.
Once a healthy and open dialogue session, the enlightened government director summed up staff's various considerations, issues, and suggestions by merely stating that he needed the organization to be firmly grounded in 'doing what is right' in the application of the policy. To the present day, I recall the positive and transformative shift that occurred in that meeting once the notion of 'doing what is right' was introduced because the guiding principle.
Currently, in fact, 'right' means that something a very little completely different to everyone, therefore how does 'right' very offer direction for workers when determining proper policy interpretation? Well, I will tell you this, while not any reservation, I don't recall one incident when 'right' failed to result in exceeding expectations and tipping the scales in the appropriate direction whenever an interpretation of that policy arose. The person selected to head the activity had no expertise in that space - nobody on the employees did - however she understood the concept of 'right' and she applied it fairly and consistently. She conjointly completed her tasks on time and on budget, thus the daily performance of her duties needed tough selections; it was never intimated that 'right' would perpetually be easy. The notion of 'right' turned her daily application of a abundant-dreaded relocation requirement into a souvenir-winning, unprecedented success of a essential activity that was a terribly early step in the scope of work for a giant multi-year project. Had the initial relocation part of the project gone poorly, the success of the general renovation would have been potentially irreparably jeopardized. Quite simply, though, it worked. And, it worked very well. Through this case study, I currently have a realistic understanding of 'doing what's right' and knowing that it works.
I might advocate that your own study of ethics embrace some research and a few quiet time. Will your organization have an ethics policy? If therefore, get it out and review it; if not, notice a few examples and study them. Then, pay some quiet time and ponder how you would craft your own ethics policy for a presentation to your board of directors. I think that this approach can give you with a successful study in ethics and can begin to shape a draft policy that can remodel your organization - from 'safe' to 'excellent' - and, I believe the future of your non-profit depends on it. Endeavor to make it so.

Article Source: http://www.free-article-info.com/ArticleDashboard

Link : Aaron R Daniel has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in Ethics, you can also check out his latest website about: Coleman Hot Tubs

Please Rate this Article

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 

Not yet Rated