Harassment Cases In The NAVY Of US - Research Paper Example

Harassment in the US Navy The nature of ethical decision making is to recognize, to analyze, and to resolve. People often don’t make decisions because they are ethical, but because it is sensible from our personal view of the situation. The Navy is one of the workplaces with several ethical issues. This paper looks at the ethical dilemma of harassment in the Navy and how organizational members act to resolve these challenges. It is aimed at designing a hopeful start towards developing an informed strategy that will result in improved ethical programing in the navy. A study carried out with U.S navy officers to understand their daily dilemmas in the workplace revealed that ethical dilemmas revolved around issues dealing with fairness in evaluation of performance, homosexuality, financial accountability, fraternization, alcohol and drug abuse, deceitful government funds and property, conflict between military and personal values, and the way essential relationships are managed. In an interview carried out on a number of Navy officers, ethical issues influence their ability to act decisively and in most cases lead to a non-action when a clear action is essentially needed. No matter the grade or rank of the officer, the ethical issues are both challenging and lead to more than just a mere pause to determine the ideal course of action. The interviews with over 50 officers supported the concept that ethical issues have no positive outcomes in the Navy. In fact the dilemma or harassment influences moral reasoning. The officers often respond differently to issues depending on the person involved, risks, and actual consequences, as well as the nature of accessible options to give solutions to the same issues. Harassment in the Navy Harassment can be in many forms, either physically, emotionally, or mentally. This can be brought about by organizational goals and objectives, ethical policies and behavior, navy structure, the working environment, culture, and incentive systems in the navy (U.S. Navy Dept, 2004). Harassment based on personal beliefs From the analysis of the interviews with the officers, it is evident that personal beliefs and values concerning a number of issues like marital infidelity and homosexuality differ from those of the Army. In most cases, situations that force an officer to make a decision basing on his or her belief versus the other increased strain on them. Being a diverse workplace, different officers have personal values on key ethical issues like adultery and homosexuality that conflict with those set up by the navy. This makes it hard for them to stick to the navy rules and guidelines as to what is ethical and the degree of response to use when in such situations. Intolerance for mistakes This relates to Navy culture, noting that the imminent fleet admiral may not have gone very far in the current Navy with its intolerance for errors and risk aversion. Navy administration has gone extensively in punishing mistakes, both personal and professional. The zero-defect idea may lead to behavioral issues in junior officers to be covered up or hidden, lowering the opportunity for mentoring, correction, instruction, and development in ethical standards. In addition, junior officers are viewed by “Top Gun” officers as rule breakers or cowboys (Michael, 2001). Applying a defensible ethical moral framework to harassment in the navy In order to do this, it is important to include a theoretical basis in studying personal decision making during ethical problems using the Penetration Theory. This framework or theory describes relationships as they continue changing, often becoming deeper as trust is founded and people systematically reveal more concerning core personality (Badaracco, 1998). With this framework, diverse levels of reaction to moral challenges as possible layers of harassment determined by an officer’s individual characteristics, situational factors, and cost or reward assessments. In this process, the most noticeable ethical challenges are those that enter/penetrate to the innermost core of the officer’s personality, forcing them to give responses. The idea behind this framework is to split the ethical issue (harassment) into more or less outstanding concerns. However, the categorization of the ethical issue is still a personal responsibility. Every officer is different, meaning that what one of them may label as a very crucial concern may be trivia to the other and each one may be left wondering on how he or she may respond to that same issue. In this sense, this theory must be applied basing on a specific, systematic procedure, which will involve an evaluation and a revised program to increase ethical behavior in the navy as explained below: An ethics program to increase ethical behavior within the naval environments Beyond simply holding officers accountable for misconduct, the administration needs to increase ethical behavior through taking a positive action to build each other’s ethical compass and establish a moral standard. The following steps need to be followed: 1st step. Creating a sense of urgency Establishing urgency is the first task in increasing the ethical behavior in the navy as a large organization. This needs acknowledgment of the issue, spotting out the impacts, and elevating the priority of the ethical issue basing on the full understanding of the effects. Even though the Navy has made an attempt to be open and transparent, it has not sufficiently acknowledged harassment. Navy leaders can preferably hold officers publicly accountable for misconduct than covering them until a disgruntled subsidiary video is posted online to expose them to the whole world (Baack, Fogliasso & Harris, 2000). 2nd step. Setting standards The core values of the navy, namely; courage, honor, and commitment are brief and easily remembered but make solely inherent reference to moral standards. For the navy to improve their ethical behavior, they have to enhance conduct in a top-down mode, focusing on the important ethical standards that spells out the ethical behaviors that it wants promoted. Unless they stress moral standards, their attempts to change behavior will never be sufficient. 3rd step. Improvement of metrics According to the U.S. Navy Dept. (2011), immediately an officer is selected for command, developing character and integrity may be too late an effort. This lack of training to all officers on a certain standard leads to leadership failure. Most commanding officers in the navy thus end up showing misguided care to junior officers and harass those who display character errors like infidelity and alcohol abuse. The fitness-report system should be modified to evaluate carefully what is expected in future commanding officers, including a “360 degree” evaluation, to incorporate response from subordinates and peers alongside the evaluation by supervisors. The officer fitness report is very powerful and significant for embedding the navy’s culture and must thus be modified in concept and format to measure what should be seen by leaders especially when addressing integrity and character. Conclusion Along the lines of study focusing on the characteristics of the moral issue itself and the way the nature of that given issue (harassment) affects the decision making procedure is the social penetration theory. The basic thought in the above paper is that the features of harassment in the navy, whether the effect of the act will be felt by a group of officers or by an individual officer, the possibility the act will result into maltreatment, or whether the decision maker is close to the central administration, will have an impact on the perceived morality of the situation and consequently the decision making process. The process of deciding must start with the recognition of the ethical issue in an act or failure of action and the dimensions of ethical intensity influence each step of the decision making procedure. The administrative leadership of the navy should inspire creativity, excellence, performance, and integrity in the officers. They ought to set standards for ethical behavior hugely through their decisions and actions when experiencing ethically challenging dilemmas. References Baack, D., Fogliasso, C., & Harris, J. (2000). The personal impact of ethical decisions: A social penetration theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 24: 39-50. Badaracco, J. (1998). The Discipline of Building Character. Harvard Business Review on Ethics, 139-163. Michael J. (2001). “The Six Pillars of Character,” in Making Ethical Decisions. Los Angeles: Josephson Institute of Ethics. Retrieved from: josephsoninstitute.org/. U.S. Navy Dept. (2004). Report on Commanding Officers Detached for Cause. Naval IG study, executive summary. Washington, D.C U.S. Navy Dept. (2011). NAVPERS [Naval Personnel Command] Form 1610/2 (Rev. 8-10), “Fit-ness Report & Counseling Record (W2–O6). Retrieved from: www.public.navy.mil/. Read More