Running Head: LUCAS CHOICE Lucas Choice: Using an Ethical Decision Making Model to Make Ethically Sound Choices Janine Bradley Bridgewater State University
2 In Student Affairs, having a background in Ethics is extremely important, and unfortunately not many practitioners utilize or have an understanding of their ethical obligations. Professionals face ethical dilemmas constantly, but not many people fully understand how to work through these issues in a responsible way. It is vital that practitioners utilize an ethical decision making model in order to move through all of the intricacies of any given situation. In addition, when making controversial decisions, it can be helpful for practitioners to have a decision making model to back up their thought process so that they can defend their decision to third parties who may not agree with them. In the case of the Numbers Game (Hardy, 2009), while any decision making model would be better than none, the Tarvydas ethical decision making model may be helpful because it takes time to interpret the situation, review the dilemma, and it generates possibilities before seeking consultation. 1) Interpret Situation Getting settled in his new job at the Engineering Career Center, Lucas recently finished coordinating the Center s career fair where 230 companies registered for the event, but only 192 companies actually attended. The fair was a great success, and others in the department, including Lucas supervisor Madeline, were very excited about getting 230 companies to register, a record breaking number. More companies registering and attending the event makes the Center and the institution look good, so Madeline tells Lucas that when he writes his report about the event he should only mention that 230 companies were registered. Madeline tells Lucas that he should omit the fact that not every registered company attended the event. The Dean of the college wants to send thank you notes to all 230 companies, thinking that each one attended. The Dean also wants to prepare a press release, highlighting the success of the fair. 2) Review the Problem
3 The problem is that Lucas supervisor is asking him to omit the truth from his report, stating that 230 companies registered for the event, but leaving out the fact that only 192 attended. The secondary issues in this scenario are that the Dean wants to send thank you notes to all 230 companies and publicly announce this information during a press release. Although announcing this information makes the Center and the institution look good, publicizing false information about the Career Fair could hurt the institution s reputation if it is discovered that the truth was omitted. In this situation, the ethical principles at play include beneficence, the obligation to do good, represented by Madeline s desire to bolster the reputation of the Career Center by reporting exaggerated accomplishments; and fidelity, the obligation to tell the truth, as represented by the staff s obligation to report truthful figures in their assessment of the Career Fair. 3) Determine Standards that Apply to Dilemma In reviewing the ACPA Ethical Principles & Standards and the ACA Code of Ethics, there are numerous standards that could apply to this scenario. Some of the standards that made the most sense in this situation had to do with reporting data, working with the community, and reporting unethical behavior. In the ACPA Ethical Principles, standard 3.5 applies to this situation because it states that practitioners are obligated to inform their superiors if there is something going on that may be disruptive or damaging to the institution (College Student Educators International, 2006). As the misrepresentation of companies attending the career fair may negatively impact the reputation of the institution, this could be potentially damaging. According to this standard, Lucas has an obligation to notify others that he has been asked to misrepresent the data because if the truth were discovered it could harm the institution s reputation.
4 Another ACPA standard that applies to Lucas ethical dilemma is standard 4.4. This standard discusses the implications of working with the community outside of the institution. It begins, Demonstrate regard for social codes and moral expectations of the communities in which they live and work (College Student Educators International, 2006). If the community expects honest reporting, the Center needs to take that into consideration. The Career Center needs to abide by the same norms that the businesses in the community follow. This would mean that Lucas would have an obligation to report truthful numbers so long as that is a part of the community s expectations. Many of the ACA standards were much more direct when discussing assessment methods. Standard G.4.b. Obligation to report unfavorable results specifically states that counselors must report any valuable results, even results that reflect unfavorable on institutions, programs, services, prevailing opinions, or vested interests should not be withheld (American Counseling Association, 2005). This standard implies that Lucas has an obligation to report all of his data, without omitting anything. Even though a truthful report may not make the Career Center look as good as a selective report, Lucas must report all results. The second ACA standard that applies to this scenario is H.2.e Organizational Conflicts. This standard states that if an organization asks a counselor to do something that goes against the ACA Code of Ethics, the counselor needs to talk with their supervisor and express their commitment to the code. This standard is important because it describes what should be done if and when a practitioner is asked by the institution or a supervisor to do something that goes against the code. As the standards discussed above made very clear, misrepresenting information goes against the code, and so Lucas would be obligated to bring this up. 4. Generate Possible and Probable Courses of Action
5 Lucas has many choices as he decides what should be done about his ethical dilemma. Some of these choices may be better than others, but it is important to consider all possibilities. The first choice that Lucas has is to do nothing, and let the situation play out on its own. He could write the report the way Madeline asked, let the Dean send out thank you notes to everyone, including companies that did not attend the event, and let the Dean give the corresponding press release. The second course of action that Lucas could take would be to speak with Madeline and let her know that he is uncomfortable misrepresenting the data and is worried about the consequences of the Dean s actions based on faulty numbers. The next possible course of action that Lucas could choose would be to go above his supervisor and speak directly with the Dean. He could give the Dean the full information, including the real numbers of how many companies attended the event, which the Dean could then use for his thank you notes and press release. Another choice that Lucas has would be to contact the companies that were registered for the fair, but did not attend. He could ask them to pretend as if they had attended the event, thus protecting the university from being caught in a lie once the press release is given. There are many other courses of action that Lucas could take, but this list covers some of the possibilities. 5) Consider Consequences for Each Course of Action Each one of the potential courses of action has some potential consequences associated with it. If Lucas does nothing he would be doing what his supervisor asked but he would be acting unethically by not telling the truth. The Dean would also end up sharing false information via thank you notes and the press release. In the short term, this would help the University s image by reporting that a record number of companies attended the Career Fair, but it might reflect negatively on the institution in the long run if the misrepresentation is discovered. If the
6 numbers misrepresentation is discovered, the institution might also look for someone to fault for such a mistake. In this instance, either Madeline or Lucas, or both practitioners might be held responsible for the misrepresentation, which could have negative consequences on their professional careers. If Lucas ends up speaking with Madeline about his reservations, she may take it into consideration and advise that Lucas revise his report to include the businesses that attended the fair. Or, Madeline might not listen to Lucas concerns and dismiss his reservations and tell him to go ahead with the report that they had discussed. It is possible that by speaking with Madeline, that Lucas could end up in the same position that he is currently facing. If Lucas chooses to act by speaking with the Dean directly, Madeline might become angry that Lucas went above her to get the answer he was looking for. When receiving this information, the Dean may react by also dismissing Lucas and his desire to report truthful information, being more concerned with promoting the image of the institution. Or, the Dean may listen to Lucas concerns and advise him to amend the report to reflect the real number of companies that participated. If Lucas chooses to contact the individual companies, asking them to act as if they were at the Career Fair, they might think that something odd is happening and question Lucas on his motives. The companies may not want to lie about their absence from the Career Fair, and if Lucas is insistent, they might contact the institution to investigate, which would only publicize the issue. However, if the companies do agree to lie, this deception could still be discovered later, hurting the reputation of the program, the institution, and the individual companies. 6) Consult with Supervisors and Peers Since Lucas s supervisor is very much entwined in this dilemma, Lucas may not want to consult with Madeline. Instead, he may choose to consult with his peers or trusted mentors to
7 gather information about what he should do. He could also contact and consult with the APA Ethics Board or the ACPA Ethics Committee to see what other professionals in the field would advise. Professionals facing ethical dilemmas must also look to the literature to see what scholars advise about such matters. In Lucas s case, one helpful article, written by Levenson in 1986, discusses how to handle colleagues that make unethical choices. Levenson points out that professionals have an obligation to intervene if they discover that a colleague is acting unethically. He uses the example of sexual misconduct in the counseling relationship, but his theories can be applied to nearly any situation (Levenson, 1986). Another article that could help Lucas with his dilemma is written by Grover in 2005, and explores the nature of lying in the workplace and in business. This article concludes that competitive and social pressures drive many workplace lies, and that lying is generally caused by reward structures (such as helping the reputation of the program by bringing in a record number of companies). All of these resources would help Lucas to gain information that will help him to make a decision. 7) Select an Action by Weighing Competing Values, Given Context The primary competing values in this situation are veracity and beneficence. Beneficence, or benefitting others, is the obligation for student affairs practitioners to do good, such as improving the public image of the institution, while veracity is the obligation for student affairs professionals to tell the truth (Fried, 2011). Lucas must choose between benefitting the institution, and in turn the students, by staying silent on the matter, or telling the truth and protecting the reputation of the institution in the long run. The ACA and ACPA Codes both make it very clear that it would be unethical for Lucas to do nothing. The question then becomes which remaining choice would be the most beneficial? The best course of action would be for Lucas to speak with Madeline first, and let her know that
8 he is uncomfortable misrepresenting the data, and that he would like to revise his report that will be forwarded to the Dean. It is a professional s responsibility to act if they know of the misconduct of a colleague (Levenson, 1986), so Lucas cannot, in good confidence, do nothing. Lucas should also not approach the Dean right away, because hearing about Madeline s conduct from another source may be considered hearsay without extensive evidence against her (Levenson, 1986). Upon discussing the situation with Madeline, Lucas may discover additional information or context that can help him to understand her motives for asking him to misrepresent the numbers. Some structures end up encouraging people to lie by forcing them to meet unrealistic expectations (Grover, 2005). It is possible that Madeline wanted Lucas to exaggerate the data because she is being forced to comply with certain expectations from the Dean or other superiors, and feels like she has no choice. It would be important for this delicate conversation to happen with Madeline first. If Madeline is unresponsive to a discussion with Lucas, he may decide that the next course of action would be to speak with the Dean. Levenson suggests that after speaking with the offending parties, unethical behavior should be reported in order to prevent such behavior from continuing in the future (1986). Even though this may be an unpopular action, Lucas still has an obligation to report unethical behavior. If Madeline does not seriously consider revising her behavior, Lucas should speak to the Dean about what she asked him to do. Lying usually has a short term gain, such as gaining prestige for the office and the institution, but could have long term consequences for the reputation of the institution if the truth were ever discovered (Grover, 2005). Lucas needs to protect that reputation by reporting what he knows, especially if Madeline is uncooperative in initial conversations. 8) Plan and Execute Selected Action
9 To begin carrying out his action plan, Lucas should start by setting up a time to speak privately with Madeline about his concerns in person. The request for such a meeting should ideally be made via email, so that there is a written record of such a meeting being requested. If need be, at this meeting Lucas should plan to bring up evidence that supports his decision to revise the report (such as specifics from either the ACPA or ACA ethical codes). If Madeline refuses to meet with him, or their meeting does not prove fruitful, Lucas should set up a meeting the Dean next, keeping the same factors in mind. 9) Evaluate Course of Action Once everything has been resolved, Lucas and Madeline should evaluate how their actions played out (assuming Madeline was cooperative), and talk about how they will handle discrepancies like this in the future. They should also plan to work on their supervisory relationship, and possibly come up with some sort of protocol for when the two of them disagree about something. This will not only strengthen their relationship, but it will also help unethical situations from happening going forward. Conclusion By going through the steps of an ethical decision making model, Lucas would be more likely to make a decision that both makes sense and is ethically sound. Even if others do not support his decision or course of action, having all of these steps would help him to gain evidence and support for his point of view. It is important for student affairs practitioners to utilize decision making models when faced with ethical dilemmas so that they can make the best choices for their institution, their students, and themselves.
10 References American Counseling Association (2005). ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author. College Student Educators International (2006). Ethical Principles & Standards. Washington, D.C.: Author. Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision making models: A review of the literature. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 279. Fried, J. (2011). Ethical standards and principles. In Schuh, J. H., Jones, S. R., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.) Student services: a handbook for the profession. (5th ed., pp. 96-119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grover, S. L. (2005). The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The causes and management of workplace lying. Academy Of Management Executive,19(2), 148-157. Hardy, K. J. (2009). Numbers game. In F. A. Hamrick & M. Benjamin (Eds.), Maybe I should... Case studies on ethics for student affairs professionals (pp. 45-46). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Levenson, J. L. (1986). When a colleague practices unethically: Guidelines for intervention. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 315-317.