Introduction
The website presents several clip from the Bureau of Land Management provide information on expected behaviour from public sector employees. There are several examples given about unethical behaviour from public sector employees. This will paper will discuss two stories of Outside business and Bribes.
A Story of Outside Business
The video presents a government official using government facilities and official time for outside business. It is clear that the government employee has an outside business of real estate agent and she uses government property and official time to perform her outside business. The employee shown in the clip uses official time of lunchtime to show her client the property. Also, her choice to use government property such as official computer to complete her outside business is also an ethical dilemma presented in the clip. Overall, government officials are prohibited from using government resources and official time, and the employee are involved in unethical workplace behaviour.
Other Ethical Codes and Resolving Issues
There are other ethical codes that have been violated in the video such as employee holding financial interests, which conflict with the performance of her duty (Cornell University, n.d.). It is clear that the employee holds financial interests outside the office as she is working as a real estate agent. In addition, her outside business is conflicting with her performance of her official duties. She has chosen to meet with her client of outside business during lunchtime, when she should be working in her office and taking care of her duties. This behaviour is unethical in practice as an employee is ignoring her duties to her public office and electing to use official time on outside business.
Another ethical code that has been broken in this clip is using public office for making private gain (Cornell University, n.d.). In the clip, the public official uses office resources such as telephone and computer to perform outside duties. This behaviour is in violation of the ethical behaviour as she is expected to perform her duties as a public officer, but she is electing to complete her outside business. The issue of private gain is also clear as she stands to gain a huge commission from the real estate deal. As she is using her public office for her personal gain, her behaviour is clearly unethical.
She also broke another ethical code in the clip as he failed to put forward an honest effort while performing her duties (Cornell University, n.d.). As a public servant, her duty is to provide her official time to the public office. But, she is choosing to spend her official time to meet with clients and profit from a real estate deal. There is a clear lack of honest effort from the perspective of the public servant. She needs to keep her focus on completing her job, rather than dishonestly avoiding her job and working for private gain. Such behaviour is unethical and clearly identifies that she need to maintain her focus on her job.
A Story of Bribes
The clip identifies a case of a NASA employee named Mike Peters, whose job was to emulate and recommend software to his employer. Mike recommended the use of Peace software and he accepted a bribe from Peace. In addition, Mike was working for Peace and NASA simultaneously and never asked permission from NASA for outside employment.
Mike elected to disguise the payments from Peace by lying on his 278 (financial disclosure report form). When Office of Inspector General found out, Mike was charged with conflict of interest, bribery and falsifying on his 278. In this case, ethical dilemma that presented Mike Peters was taking a bribe, lying on 278 and not asking permission from NASA for outside employment.
Other Ethical Codes
The video identifies several ethical codes that were broken by Mike Peters. One of them was engaging in outside employment, which conflicts with official public service duties (Cornell University, n.d.). Mike accepted employment from Peace software and was on their payroll. In addition, his employment with Peace software conflicted with his duties and responsibilities as a public officer of NASA. Mike lied on his 278 forms by declaring his income from Peace under NASA compensation and the mistake was caught later by the OIG. Therefore, Mike Peters’ behaviour was unethical employment practice as he took bribes and there is a clear case of conflict of interest.
Another ethical code that is clearly identified in the case is the preferential treatment given to a private organization (Cornell University, n.d.). Mike Peters broke in his code of ethics by giving preferential treatment to Peace software and recommending them to NASA. Peace software is a private organization that paid a bribe to Mike for gaining preferential treatment; in return Mike was partial to Peace and recommended them to NASA. This exchange between Mike and Peace is unethical as Mike is supposed to work in the best interest of NASA and provide impartial recommendations as a public officer. The bribe was caught by OIG and it led to his incrimination.
Another ethical code that has been broken in the clip was an employee accepting monetary value from an entity that led to non-performance of employee duties (Cornell University, n.d.). It is clear that Mike Peters accepted a bribe from Peace software which was unethical and led to Mike recommending Peace. Also, as an analyst, Mike’s job was to recommend the best software to NASA, but he took a bribe and recommended Peace. Such behaviour was against the job duties as an analyst for NASA. As a public officer, Mike has not right to make money from another source without taking permission from his employer.
Resolving Issues
This issue can be resolved easily by implementing internal/personal and external/legal-institutional checks in the workplace and informing employees about the consequences of making such unethical mistakes (Milakovich & Gordon, 2013, p. 217). Personal checks can be helpful to teach employees to self-monitor their behaviour and enquire before taking an action. Personal checks would help to teach employees about behaving in moral and ethical manner and ensure ethical mistakes are not repeated. Another important means that can be utilized for resolving above mentioned ethical issues is external or legal-institutional checks. These checks are useful as employees are informed about the code of conduct, statutes, rules and laws that are useful in making sure employees behave in an ethical manner. When employees know that they would be punished for taking unethical decisions it is possible that many would prefer to avoid such mistakes. Also, when they know that unethical workplace behaviour can be incriminating they might choose to avoid such mistakes. Intervention and education of employees is another important tool that can be used for resolving issues related to bribes and outside business.
References
Bureau of Land Management. (n.d.). A Story of Bribes. Retrieved 14 June 2016 from, http://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/411/EthicsSep2209.html
Bureau of Land Management. (n.d.). A Story of Outside Business. Retrieved 14 June 2016 from, http://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/411/EthicsSep2209.html
Bureau of Land Management. (n.d.). Ethics Slideshow. Retrieved 14 June 2016 from, http://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/411/EthicsSep2209.html
Cornell University. (n.d.). 5 CFR 2635.101 - Basic obligation of public service. Retrieved 14 June 2016 from, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.101
Milakovich, M. E., & Gordon, G. J. (2013). Public administration in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
