Ethical Leadership and Moral Equity Judgments †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Ethical Leadership and Moral Equity Judgments. Answer: Introduction: According the case study, I think at the time of duty drinking alcohol or taking drugs is against of the values of services. Because when someone is in service if anyone involved in unethical work that may affect hisher service. The person who took drugs is breach the rules of service. In the service place she may need to take care of young people or this, unethical acts may affect them too. The residents staying there they may complain to the authority about that staff who took alcohol. The staffs who are working on those residents are fighting with each others. That may inflect the environment of that place. The staffs continue blaming own self for the acts they did. The stuff who took drugs in the duty hours she went somewhere without give information to the supervisor (Fahie 2014). A person should work according the ethics that should followed in his service. The Australian Workers Association (ACWA) makes an ethical practice for the industry, employer, client and public expectation. The service providers should followed the basic ethical practices. Its duty of them to follow such rules. There are some obligations also of ethical issues to the clients that may affect their ethics. Basic principals they should follow are: They have the rights to maximize their own potential which may not infringe the others rights. There must some obligations in providing of services The service provider or any professions workers have right to use all knowledge which may help them to work. This community also established such facts about the responsibilities towards the clients. They must provide all information to the clients and help them according their needs. Service provider should respect their clients. Service provider should take care their colleagues each other. They never involved in any such acts, which may effects their professions. As per the case study, Bree suspects to responsible for causing disturbance towards the residents. She continues arguing with her colleagues. At the time of duty she took drugs also with the residents and publicly they behave uncoordinated. Other colleagues when try to remind her about the service ethics, she again argued with them. According the Australian Workers Association (ACWA) Bree infringe all the ethics which may affect into her service (Vardaman , Gondo and Allen 2014). The ethical dilemmas and conflict of interest The service providers should aware of the conflicts of interest. These conflicts may affect their professions. The conflicts may arise for one or more than one clients involvements. The priority of clients comes first for the service providers. When such conflicts arise, the service providers may think about a solution and took a proper action for that conflict. They always follow the ethical practices in providing services. They may not accept or give any gifts to the clients for considering the works. It may affect their profession. They can also refuse to accept or refuse such matters, which can be unethical to towards their professions. As per the case study, Bree done some unethical acts which could affect her professions and she also involves the residents who are act as clients to them which also conflicts the ethics of services. Fiona who is her colleague, she also argued with her regarding the drag issues. She took drugs, which may gave an disturbance towards the residents. Fiona who has tried to warn her about the behavior and gave punishment to leave the service. She leaves the place without informing others and again gets back to service for joining there. However, already Fiona inform to the supervisor about Bree for her unethical practices. The Control Substances Act 1984 is the first legislation of which protects and controlled drugs addiction users. The case study describes how one staff was addicted to drugs and involved other residents into that. At the time of duty she broke the ethical practices, argued with other collogues, took drugs, and ignored workplace ethics also. According to the Work Healthy and Safety Act 2012 (SA) , its provide a safety and healthy environment to the service providers. In the case study all employees except Bree have faced the unhealthy environment for her. She took drugs and involved others, which may a warning to the other staffs for working such palace. This kind of unethical practices may be the reason of the termination of the job. She not only disturbs the residents but also other employees also get affected b y her. This act can protect the employees who are working for the residents and not related with any unethical practices. The Dangerous Substance Act 2002 (SA) The Dangerous Substances Act (SA) helps employees from any illness or injuries. Drugs itself a dangerous substance, which not only illegal to use, also is causes illness. Carrying a substance in the workplace and using it at the duty times is a criminal offence. Bree, who is the staff, took that drug and distributed to others in the time of duty on her work place (Rock and Degeling2015). Two such workplaces where improvement requires as per the legal and ethical requirements are in school and offices. In both sectors the primary ethics, that should need to follow being punctual to arrive in offices and works. They should be responsible in following orders, work as a team, and good behaviors to clients and collogues and honesty at work, wear proper dresses and work with positivity these following improvements needs in every work places. The employee, students all must follow these ethical practices, which not only affect the work place but also help to develop a great environment. Fraud, unethical works may affect toward the professions. According to the case study, the employees need to follow those above ethics (Resick et al. 2015) Reference Fahie, D., 2014. Doing sensitive research sensitively: ethical and methodological issues in researching workplace bullying.International Journal of Qualitative Methods,13(1), pp.19-36. Fahie, D., 2014. Doing sensitive research sensitively: ethical and methodological issues in researching workplace bullying.International Journal of Qualitative Methods,13(1), pp.19-36. Higgins, C., Milne, M.J. and van Gramberg, B., 2015. The uptake of sustainability reporting in Australia.Journal of Business Ethics,129(2), pp.445-468. Jackson, S. and Palmer, L.R., 2015. Reconceptualizing ecosystem services: Possibilities for cultivating and valuing the ethics and practices of care.Progress in Human Geography,39(2), pp.122-145. Resick, C.J., Hargis, M.B., Shao, P. and Dust, S.B., 2013. Ethical leadership, moral equity judgments, and discretionary workplace behavior.Human Relations,66(7), pp.951-972. Rock, M.J. and Degeling, C., 2015. Public health ethics and more-than-human solidarity.Social Science Medicine,129, pp.61-67. Shields, J., Brown, M., Kaine, S., Dolle-Samuel, C., North-Samardzic, A., McLean, P., Johns, R., Robinson, J., O'Leary, P. and Plimmer, G., 2015.Managing Employee Performance Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies. Cambridge University Press. Vardaman, J.M., Gondo, M.B. and Allen, D.G., 2014. Ethical climate and pro-social rule breaking in the workplace.Human Resource Management Review,24(1), pp.108-118.