Working in a human service organization, Joe knows that his job implies following precise guidelines and procedures, which influence his ethical decision-makings. He also knows that violating the guidelines and procedures will get him fired. The awareness of the consequences of disrespecting the working procedures and the fear of these consequences, fits, according to Trevino and Nelson (79) into the first level of cognitive moral development. According to this concept, Joe will not intervene in the defense of the pregnant staff member who calls for help while she is being abused.
According to the cognitive Lawrence Kohlberg concept of cognitive moral development, (in Trevino and Nelson 83), Joe might perceive his situation as one that requires ethical thinking and action and he might look around to his supervisors and peers for guidance on how to act. As his supervisors instituted the rules of never leaving the disabled individual alone, Joe will likely decide to remain near this person, following his supervisor’s imposed regulations.
Another concept that is important in determining how Joe will be likely to respond to the given situation is the locus control (in Trevino and Nelson 84). If Joe would exert internal locus of control he would intervene in helping the woman in need, resisting the influence of his boss and breaking the regulations at the cost of losing his job. Joe could proceed by turning off the water that aliments the bathtub and cover the disabled person with a towel, in order not to endanger the person he takes care of. Next, he could call the police and report the incident, while intervening for the pregnant staff who is being attacked. In this case, one’s principles of right and wrong overpass the institutionalized rules and regulations. If, on the contrary, Joe would exert external locus of control, he would simply follow the institutionalized rules and regulations, choosing not to intervene for the person screaming for help, but to remain with the disabled person from the bathtub. According to the internal locus of control, individuals perceive themselves as exerting a significant influence through their actions, on the course of an issue or a problem. On the other hand, the individuals who are high on the external locus of control, feel that other aspects are above them, and their intervention would not change the way things will develop. Internal or external locus of control depends on each individual’s personality, who will willingly choose to obey or disobey the social order for doing what they consider the right approach. In Joe’s case, the social order refers to respecting the employment imposed guidelines. His decision on whether to respect the working guidelines or to infringe them is a matter of whether he has strong personal principles or follows others for guidelines.
Trevino and Nelson (87) indicate that exerting external locus of control denotes personalities who are likely to be morally disengaged, having “a weaker sense of themselves as ethical beings”. However, in Joe’s case, deciding on remaining near the disabled individual instead of reaching out to help the woman who is being brutalized might not be a sign of weak sense of himself as an ethical being, because his action might not, in fact, indicate that he exerts external locus of control. After calculating the situation that he faces, Joe might reach an ethical awareness according to which leaving the disabled individual alone in the bathtub for going to help the brutalized woman would be morally wrong. Likewise, he might be aware that not helping the woman in need would also impose an ethical dilemma, according to human principles of right and wrong. Nevertheless, in the process of deciding how to act ethically, Joe needs to be aware of his responsibility towards other beings: the disabled man and the pregnant woman being brutalized. His intervention in the pregnant woman’s case might not be effective, as the case study does not indicate that the is trained or has the capacity of intervening in a stopping physical abuse. However, he is trained and has the capacity of caring for the disabled person. Whatever Joe chooses to do – whether going to help the pregnant woman being brutalized, or remaining with the disabled person in the bathtub implies not acting on an ethical issue. In case he decides not to intervene in the case of the pregnant woman, he might respond, according to the diffusion of responsibility principle, “it’s not my job” (Trevino and Nelson 86), if he is guided by external locus of control. He would respond that he had a more stringent ethical problem to handle if the chooses to stay with the disabled man, while calling 911 to report the woman’s assault, in case he exerts an internal locus of control.
Following the gut is another concept that Trevino and Nelson (93) advance as factors contributing to how to decide when confronted with an ethical dilemma. Intuition, rather than conscious, deliberative approaches to ethics are more prone in this case and individuals rely on “emotional responses to ethical situations” to make ethical decisions (Trevino and Nelson 94). In Joe’s case, whether he chooses to go help the brutalized pregnant, leaving alone the disabled person who might harm himself, or remaining with the disabled person, while the abused one is in danger, is a matter of emotional intuition, if he follows his gut. Either way, one person, either the disabled one or the pregnant woman, will suffer.
The choice that Joe will make in his ethical dilemma situation is simply a matter of his moral engagement, his personality trait (exerting more internal or external locus of control) or his ethical gut.
Works Cited
Trevino, Linda K. and Nelson, Katherine A. Deciding What’s Right: A Psychological Approach. Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do it Right. Hoboken: Wiley. 2011. Print
