Ethical dilemmas do not have a direct response as one progress with the career. The exception to this is when the ethical dilemma involves the breaking of the law or profession regulation. Ethical dilemmas are entail situations of moral conflict and transgression between parties. In these kinds of situations, one has to choose a creative alternative to end the constant strive (Linzer 37).
In this issue, the ethical dilemma entails an overly dependent boss who takes all the credit from the worker. All the work that the group does credit goes to the boss and the manager. Sometimes the boss gets credit for his contribution towards the group work while, in reality, he has not participated in it. The group in this organization works hard at the job only for the boss to take all the credit (Lowe 181). This shows that the boss is lazy and cannot get own ideas. The team makes a valiant effort to network, take initiatives to improve, and work in collaboration with everyone in the job.
The boss remains in the office and fails to give direction to the coworkers. The boss takes credit for tasks done by the group and conveys them in the board meetings (Linzer 39). This has de-motivated the group since there is no appreciation for the work done. The team devotes a lot of effort in the work engagement together with the weekends. This case resembles the Elevator movie where Tess a worker proves that the merger concept was her own initiative and not her boss as was the claim. Similarly, in the movie Working Girl Melanie, a secretary displays many ideas in the firm where the boss steals those ideas and claims the awards. This is not an easy to solve issue unlike the case in the movie scenario (Linzer 41). The balance of power in organizations favors the boss since they control the fate of the workers through work assignments, performance appraisals, promotions, and awards opportunities.
This issue depends on the occurrence of the egregious credit. It is morally wrong for the boss to go ahead and take credit for the work of the team. Some people often suggest that one should let the boss take the credit. Some people argue that one should support the boss no matter what they do. The team has enough confidence coupled with their skills and expertise so as to work together since they create a nice atmosphere for teamwork.
The boss is only there to oversee the work, encourage, and appraise work done by giving deserved credit (Lowe 181). In most instances, this happens when there is a new person working in the capacity of a boss. This person has anxiety in putting a good impression to the senior staff to demonstrate competence. The new boss does this to ensure the subordinate do not overshadow his status so that he can appear good.
The task in this issue entails meeting the senior executive of the firm and explaining the ethical dilemma that the team faces in normal handling of responsibilities. The team can produce email messages sent by the boss so as to verify own contribution is zero. The teams’ action involves speaking directly to the boss to discuss the situation. The team has to inform the boss on their displeasure since the boss fails to recognize them on various projects concluded (Lowe 181). The boss must help the team to understand why their ideas fail to receive credit and recognition.
The team must reiterate the support of the boss in every forum while the boss must give credit to others where it is due. This takes the form of a polite request and not as a threat. To resolve this issue depends on the reaction of the boss afterwards. Failure to resolve the issue the team can engage a Human Resource representative to obtain advice on how to handle the issue in the future. The team must offer all the available evidence in support of the assertion. The result is that this habit will stop since it contravenes the business ethics policies.
Linzer, Norman. "An Ethical Dilemma in Volunteer Professional Relationships." Journal of Family Social Work 22.4 (2003): 37-51. Print.
Lowe, M. "Ethical dilemma. A question of competence." Corporate Governance 29.2 (2000): 179-182. Print.