Introduction
The practice of ethics demands professionals to undertake acceptable procedures and avoid unethical habits. Although not all ethical best practices are guided by law, the foundation of ethics in Natural Law and other episteme from the field of Philosophy encourages us to consider rules to conduct (Wines, 2005). However, professionals often engage in corrupt behavior in which they undermine their professional ethics (Brooks, 2010).
During a trip to an African city, I witnessed the first case of corruption in observation of hiring practices. Preferential treatment was given by a recruiter hiring for “sensitive” jobs in the country. Candidates were forced to pay bribery to be favored for the various positions at the expense of the other qualified people.
On inquiry, I was told that the recruiting officer’s acceptance of the bribe was in response to normative hiring practice in the nation’s labor market. This ethical dilemma is sourced in two issues: 1) lack of diversity in the recruitment process; 2) caused by corrupt, yet widely accepted practices in the business environment (Dion, 2010).
The scenario resulted in consequences affecting the company. Candidates qualified to fulfill the position publicized the wrongdoing of the recruiter, ruining the reputation of the company. Comparative ethics analysis of the decision in the case illustrates distinctions in the philosophical episteme (Table 1).
The second case of corruption was experienced during a visit to a bank in China. On viewing me, an officer from the bank whom also happened to be from the same country as I, escorted me to the counter to be served ahead of other people who had arrived at the institution earlier.
This case of “nepotism” or nationalist corruption elicited a sense of guilt in me during engagement of banking services. Customers complained of nepotism, citing that the banking institution had commissioned an unfair practice. The result was threat of negative publicity in response to the incidence (Edward, 2008).
The real outcome to the scenario was the loss of some customers who responded by literally exiting the bank; threatening to open accounts with other banks in the country. Comparative ethics analysis of the decision in the case illustrates distinctions in the philosophical episteme (Table 2).
Conclusion
Governance as a basis for all decision making is assumed in ethics practices. How well ethical norms are exercised as a form of constraint rather than punitive enforcement is often a sign of an organization’s ability to control for misconduct. Corruption is common among professionals because there is no system that discourages corruption in the companies.
Companies should employ relevant measures like proper remuneration and strict culture that will limit cases of corruption. In order to solve the corruption cases among the professionals, several steps must be undertaken. Initially, the companies must pay the employees well so that the employees find no reason to take the bribes from clients (Vargas-Hernández, 2011). Furthermore, companies must establish strong culture that will move a long way to discourage nepotism and other corruption behaviors. Third, the companies should develop diverse recruitment procedures that will ensure that they get the right employees and not the people who bribe their way into the organization (Shaw, 2008).
References
Brooks, L. (2011). Business & Professional Ethics. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.
Dion (2010).
Edward (2008).
Shaw (2008).
Vargas-Hernández (2011).
Wines, W. (2005). Ethics, Law and Business. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, Inc.
