Six pillars of character
Maintenance of a commendable ethical character is essential to the work environment. In fact, Sanderse (2012) argues that lack thereof creates a non-conducive work and communication atmosphere. As a result, it is essential for people to value the essence of ethics and respect for other people. In the case provided, we are presented with two parties that are a complete opposite of each other’s character. As much as mutual understanding is enhanced through the efforts of more than one party, it is worth acknowledging that Jeffrey Lyndell lacks essential characters that define good personality (Mintz & Morris, 2014). Primarily, he is untrustworthy. One would expect employees to be honest by not deceiving their workmate or the management. However, the same cannot be said for the abovementioned individual since he has a high appeal for deception and unreliability. This makes it impossible for Cindie to trust that he would be resourceful in the future.
Caring is an indispensable pillar in the formation of an all-round character. Lyndell is deficient of this virtue. He does not show any care for his workmate since he leaves work early, with no contemplation that Cindie might be overwhelmed with work. In spite of that, he does not express any form of gratitude for the favors she grants him. Additionally, he is unfair because he does not play by the organizational rules. For instance, he is enrolled for the night shift and is expected to be at work until midnight. However, he does not follow this provision and he unfairly leaves the workload to his workmate by departing the restaurant before he is supposed to. Saderse (2012) argues that responsible people ought to know what they are supposed to do and they should be diligent and perseverant. As such, Lyndell is irresponsible since he does not comprehend what is expected of him in the organization. Moreover, he does not respect other people’s values. This is largely attributed to the fact that he leaves work early and expects Cindie to cover for him. Collectively, he lacks the citizenship character since he does not make his work environment a better place.
On the other hand, Cindie is trustworthy. She is very reliable since she covers the entire store even when the situation is difficult. Additionally, she is fair since she plays by the rules of the establishment even in challenging situations. Her level of responsibility is uncompromised. Precisely, it was not easy to attend to ten people at once while keeping them calm and attending to phone calls. As such, one is justified to claim that she is Lyndell’s complete opposite. She is respectful since she accords other people the respect they deserve. For starters, she is tolerant of the workmate’s behavior and anticipates that it would be better in the future. Her caring nature is exhibited by her initiative to explain the absence of her colleague when one of the clients makes an inquiry. Finally, she completes the six pillars of character through her citizenship nature. This is largely accredited to the fact that she seeks to make the community a better place. Sanderse (2012) argues that an all-round ethical being ought to embrace the six pillars of character that include; trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship.
Six stages of moral development
Lawrence Konhlberg proposes three levels of moral development that encompass six stages. The former include the pre-conventional, conventional and post conventional morality. It is worth mentioning that the level of internalization of the provisions of ethical character vary in these stages. As such, this ideology can be used to determine the actions of the parties presented in the case. Arguably, Cindie Rosen was compelled to give in to the demands of his workmate at first without raising any concerns. According to Killen and Smetana (2006) in obedience and punishment orientation, the first stage of moral development, an individual often maintains a good order with other people by avoiding conflict. As such, she accepted this demand since she wanted to maintain a good relationship with Lyndell. However, she is subjected to the second stage of moral development, individualism and exchange, when one of the Japanese clients makes an inquiry on the policies of the restaurant. Her internalization of the fact that rules are dispensed by more than one party complete the first level of moral development.
Cindie advances to the third stage when she decides to serve the clients and not inform the management through a phone call. Killen and Smetana (2006) argue that the third stage, good interpersonal relationships, compels people to act in ways that build their character and overall perception from other parties. In this case, the clients were pleased with her efforts. After closing the store, Cindie advances to the fourth stage of moral development, maintaining the social order, and he begins to accept that Lyndell’s actions are unethical and there is a need to remedy them. In the fifth stage, social contract and individual rights, she is engrossed in an ethical dilemma and is uncertain of what to do. She feels obliged to communicate with his workmate and debate about his character but is also torn about speaking to the management. The ethical dilemma leads her into the final stage of moral development, universal principles. She instead does what the larger population would have done, speak to the management.
What ethical reasoning can you develop from this case?
This case scenario compels one to internalize the importance of maintaining ethical principles in a work environment. In other words, it is imperative to have moral values when dealing with fellow workmates and implementing the provisions of the management. For starters, Cindie’s behavior with regard to the interpretation of this scenario is somewhat pleasant. This is largely accredited to the fact that most of her actions are based on her personal beliefs and initiatives that are intentioned to make the work environment better. Nonetheless, it is worth acknowledging the fact that his ideology is flawed. As much as one has to maintain their moral values, it is essential to compromise personal character for the betterment of situations. If this is not the case, people often take advantage of other individuals. This can be explained by the fact that Lyndell left work early in more than one occasion.
Arguably, if she would have been intolerant of her workmate’s behavior in the first instance, it would have averted the problem of leaving work before time. Nonetheless, since she is easily manipulated due to her character, Lyndell makes the most out of her leniency to exploit her. To ensure that the chain of the abovementioned problems did not mature, she should have been firm at first when she was requested to cover for her workmate. Refusing to grant his request would have led to a minor disagreement that would have led to a more conducive work environment. For a fact, it is essential to compromise one’s character in place of ethical beliefs (Sanderse, 2012). Through this initiative, there would have been better communication and a more conducive work environment.
References
Killen, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2006). Handbook of moral development. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mintz, S. M., & Morris, R. E. (2014). Ethical obligations and decision making in accounting: Text and cases. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Sanderse, W. (2012). Character education: A neo-aristotelian approach to the philosophy, psychology and education of virtue.
