Diversity and Ethical Values in an Organization Paper no plagiarize, spell check, and check your grammar. Please only use the reference below. Use referenc

Diversity and Ethical Values in an Organization Paper no plagiarize, spell check, and check your grammar. Please only use the reference below. Use references below

A manager at your company overhears another employee who is Caucasian directing the N-word at an African-American employee. When she confronts him, he claims that he was using it as a term of endearment—a claim that is not explicitly contested by the “friend” to whom he’s directing it. The manager, concerned that her being Caucasian and in a position of authority, fears her intervention may escalate things, so she chose to accept the explanation and move on. The manager has come to you, the Human Resources Manager, for advice.

3-page) (excluding references and title page), discuss the following:

Your company’s diversity code states: “As team members, we have a responsibility to:

Do our part to help Acme to serve and earn business from a wide variety of communities and stakeholders.
Integrate diversity into our sourcing processes.
Help create an environment in which all team members can contribute, develop, and fully use their talents.
Keep an open mind to new ideas, and listen to different points of view.

What are some of the limitations of this code for multicultural professional practice? In what ways do you believe this code is culturally biased and culturally encapsulated? What evidence is there that this code is culturally sensitive? If you believe there is no evidence that the code is culturally sensitive, what evidence is there that the code is not culturally sensitive? Discuss the importance of cultural sensitivity, and explain what you believe are the implications for ethical professional practice. In addition to the required readings, cite at least two additional references that include examples of a better ethical code.

References

Christie, P., Kwon, I., Stoeberl, P., & Baumhart, R. (2003, September). A cross-cultural comparison of ethical attitudes of business managers: India, Korea and the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3), 263-287.

Sieber, J. E. (2006). The evolution of best ethical practices in human research.Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 1-2. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.152…

Thiel, C. E., Hardy, J. H., III, Peterson, D. R., Welsh, D. T., & Bonner, J. M. (2018). Too many sheep in the flock? Span of control attenuates the influence of ethical leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(12), 1324–1334. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1037/…

Weber, Z. (2004). Working towards culturally sensitive ethical practice in a multicultural society. Journal of Practice Teaching 5(3), 40-54. Retrieved from http://journals.whitingbirch.net/index.php/JPTS/article/download/314/346 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Received 06/22/15
Revised 11/18/15
Accepted 11/23/15
DOI: 10.1002/johc.12027
Authenticity in
Ethical Decision Making:
Reflections for Professional Counselors
Christin M. Jungers and Jocelyn Gregoire
◆ ◆ ◆
Ethical competence, maturity, and autonomy are foundations of good counseling; however,
ethical autonomy can be eroded by a risk-management approach to ethics that tends to constrict counselors’ creative responses to dilemmas. This article offers reflections on the notion
of authenticity as described by existentialist philosophers Søren Kierkegaard and Martin
Heidegger, as a means by which to balance risk-management and reductionist perspectives
on ethics and to foster ethical autonomy. Applications of authenticity to counselors’ approach to ethics are suggested, as are limitations of this concept as a stand-alone framework
for decision making.
Keywords: ethics, decision making, authenticity, autonomy
◆ ◆ ◆
Ethical maturity, ethical autonomy, and ethical competence are bedrocks of
good counseling and enable professional helpers to act benevolently toward
clients (Ivey, Ivey, & Zalaquett, 2014). The counseling profession offers
clinicians a number of means by which to shape their professional ethical
selves. Primary among these is the ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling
Association [ACA], 2014) and the codes of the parent association’s divisions
and sister organizations, such as the American School Counselor Association
and the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. These
codes are an invaluable and foundational tool for ethical decision making,
because they represent current thought about evolving issues (Kaplan et al.,
2009). In addition to the codes, ethical principles such as nonmaleficence,
beneficence, autonomy, fidelity, and justice are often a point of reflection
when clinicians are trying to reason through a clinical dilemma (Beauchamp
& Childress, 1979; Kitchener, 1984; Urofsky, Engles, & Engebretson, 2008).
Pragmatism and experience likewise have inspired counselors to generate
decision-making models that can be applied to ethical issues (e.g., Corey,
Christin M. Jungers, Clinical Mental Health Counseling Department, Franciscan University of Steubenville; Jocelyn Gregoire, Department of Counseling, Psychology, and Special Education, Duquesne
University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christin M. Jungers, Clinical Mental Health Counseling Department, Franciscan University of Steubenville, 1235 University
Boulevard, Steubenville, OH 43952 (e-mail: cjungers@franciscan.edu).
© 2016 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.
Journal of Humanistic COUNSELING ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55
99
Corey, & Callanan, 2011; M. Hill, Glaser, & Harden, 1995; Rest, 1984; Sileo
& Kopala, 1993; Steinman, Richardson, & McEnroe, 1998; Tarvydas, 1998;
Tymchuk, 1986; Welfel, 2010). Decision-making models provide clinicians
with steps for reflection and suggestions for consultative actions before
they settle on a decision about an ethical dilemma. Finally, professional
wisdom from those who have researched or resolved problems in the field
is accessible in the counseling literature and can be reviewed when one
is in need of counsel. For example, Pope and Keith-Spiegel (2008) recommended a set of helpful tips for addressing boundary dilemmas, although
their insights easily can be applied to other ethical issues.
While acknowledging the value and necessity of the aforementioned
resources for building ethical competence, we believe there is room for
further conversation about how to foster ethical maturity and autonomy in
the counseling field. The study of ethics in counselor education programs
and the practice of working through ethical dilemmas, especially early in
one’s career, sometimes can be experienced as an exercise in learning one’s
ethical obligations and making sure one knows what not to do to protect
one’s license or avoid a lawsuit. It is our opinion that the understanding
and implementation of ethics in counseling has the distinct possibility of
being limited by a reductive, risk-management approach to decision making.
This is evidenced, in part, by literature that highlights the liability aspect
of ethical decision making across the helping professions (e.g., Hermann
& Herlihy, 2006; Hoffman & Kress, 2010; Magnuson, Norem, & Wilcoxon,
2000; Nolan & Moncure, 2012; Reamer, 2013; Sanders, 2006). There are
problems with this approach to learning and practicing ethics. First, it
tends neither to expand perspectives on what is good and right or bad and
wrong, nor to fully appreciate the complexity of the human condition and
the therapeutic relationship. Second, it does not encourage professionals to
examine a range of possible behaviors that can be enacted with the good
of the client in mind (Lazarus, 1994). Third, it can foster habits by which
counselors relinquish their interested and passionate involvement in the
process of making ethical decisions.
In an article that set out to define a humanities vision for the counseling
field, Hansen (2012) proposed that the profession has been so influenced by
a reductive, scientific ideology that counselors are trained to oversimplify
the human experience and disregard a variety of perspectives on clinical issues in favor of the scientific view. Referring to the role of scientific
ideology in the counseling profession, Lemberger (2012) similarly noted
that, “[m]any counseling researchers and practitioners have embraced a
system that compels these professionals to take a reductionistic stance in
their scholarly and therapeutic work” (p. 166). The danger of this trend is
that creativity, innovation, and the ability to be critical as a professional
counselor can be lost (Hansen, 2012). We believe that what Hansen (2006,
2012) observed generally about counseling’s emphasis toward simplification
and quest for a single truth (as exemplified in evidence-based treatment
100
Journal of Humanistic COUNSELING ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55
and best practice movements) is also at least partially true for the approach
to and application of ethics. Notably, Cottone (2014) recently questioned
whether counselors are even permitted to act autonomously in light of an
ever more prescriptive ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014). He stated,
On the issue of constraint, the counseling profession has limited the rights of counselors
to morally object to certain actions defined within the counseling scope of practice,
thereby nullifying the autonomy of practicing professionals. For example, if an ethics
code prevents a counselor from conscientious objection regarding judgments about
which clients may be served, it challenges the counselor’s right to make decisions
free of the shackles of professional imposition. (p. 243)
The sword of Damocles metaphorically hangs over counselors’ heads
when they are faced with ethical quandaries, and the safest, surest way
out from under this perilous spot is to consult and ultimately abide by a
single truth: the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014). Our purpose in critiquing
the reductive, risk-management approach to ethics and the “single truth”
as embodied by the ACA Code of Ethics is not to suggest that either this
approach to decision making or the ACA Code of Ethics itself are not useful;
both, in fact, are necessary, as they represent and refer to the social, professional, and even political worlds in which counselors operate. Rather, we
are pondering what is lost when counselors abide.
In this article, we take to heart Hansen’s (2012) suggestion that from a humanities view of things, good counselors are akin to professors of literature
or philosophy who explore important human questions, appreciate meaning,
value subjectivity, and engage in dialogue and debate with colleagues for the
purpose of expanding perspectives rather than constricting or simplifying
them. Like other counselors in the humanistic tradition (e.g., Dollarhide &
Oliver, 2014; Scholl, McGowan, & Hansen, 2012), we are invested in helping
professionals engage in their work, and ethical reasoning in a way that is
not reductive or taken for granted, but rather that supports and advances
human and professional potentials. To that end, we also hope that this article
helps counselors think about the self-development or intrapersonal aspects
of counselor ethics. The relevance of self-development to counselor ethics is
confirmed by virtue ethicists who point out that qualities of an individual’s
personhood, such as sensitivity to others’ needs, reflectivity, openness, and
awareness of personal biases, are useful to ethical decision making, as are
developed habits of ethical behavior (A. L. Hill, 2004; Punzo & Meara, 1993;
Stewart-Sicking, 2008). Our goal, therefore, is to consider the process and
outcomes of ethical decision making from a philosophical—especially an
existentialist—perspective, with an emphasis on the concept of authenticity.
By considering this particular philosophical notion, counselors might think
about not just what they are required to do ethically, but how they can (a)
imagine a variety of ethical responses to clinical quandaries, (b) act in a way
that is professionally upstanding, and (c) strive toward an autonomous ethical
self that makes use of the wisdom of the professional counseling community
Journal of Humanistic COUNSELING ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55
101
but also does not surrender free and informed thinking to keep in lockstep
with the majority view.
Historical and Philosophical Sketch
of Authenticity
The notion of authenticity in the Western world developed in the 17th and
18th centuries when society began viewing the person as a unique and
valuable individual rather than as a cog in the system whose worth and
purpose was related to the ability to fulfill one’s social role and responsibilities (Varga & Guignon, 2014). A sharp attention to the individual during
these early and subsequent centuries opened the door for philosophers to
challenge conformist social behavior, as well as critique some long-held
virtues, such as honesty and sincerity, both of which esteemed behavior that
aligned with the expectations of a person’s place in society. According to
Varga and Guignon (2014), the virtue of sincerity eventually was traded for
the virtue of authenticity, which generally holds that being true to oneself
for its own sake is preferable to being sincere as a means to uphold social
norms or act as a placeholder in society.
The popularization of authenticity as a virtue is attributable largely to
existentialists such as Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855), Martin Heidegger
(1889–1976), and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980). The meaning of authenticity to
each of these philosophers is related to his broader work and thought; however, the concept as they deal with it nevertheless tends to involve a critique
of conformist attitudes and behavior and, simultaneously, an encouragement
toward ownership of one’s own self and one’s place in the world. These
qualities are what interest us insofar as they challenge counselors not to see
ethics primarily in a risk-management light and not to come to ethical decisions in a fashion that focuses on the outcome (i.e., enacting the code) to the
detriment of reflection, engagement, and personal commitment and responsibility to the decision. In addition, the notion of authenticity is connected to
that of autonomy, which also is of interest to us here. Both concepts suggest
that it is worthwhile for people to foster self-directed and self-governing
qualities so that ethical decisions are made through one’s own reasoning
and reflections about how to live life rather than necessarily in accord with
an external set of standards or guidelines (Varga & Guignon, 2014). In the
rest of this section, we examine aspects of Kierkegaard’s and Heidegger’s
philosophies as two means through which to expand our understanding of
authenticity. We also consider how these philosophers’ sense of this notion
might advance the development of counselors’ ethical professional selves.
Kierkegaard on Authenticity
The beginning of the quest for authenticity is tied tightly by many writers
to Kierkegaard’s (1996) yearning to find a truth that made sense to him and
102
Journal of Humanistic COUNSELING ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55
for which he personally could commit both his life and death. A central
concern in Kierkegaard’s philosophy was how one goes about becoming a
Christian. A fierce critic of his age and especially of his own Christian community, Kierkegaard believed that being a Christian had nothing to do with
being born or raised in that faith community or even with holding the tenets
of Christianity. In themselves, these features did not lead to an authentic
Christian existence. Indeed, he accused his contemporaries of being lulled
into a passionless complacency—a sort of spiritual sickness—that led them
into living inauthentic existences and espousing nonidentities (Welstead,
2014). The inauthentic existence was strongly associated for Kierkegaard
with the crowd, which he saw not only as a source of untruth but also as a
way of undermining people’s sense of responsibility, purpose, and investment in their lives. Kierkegaard contended it was too easy to get lost in a
crowd mentality and thereby relinquish one’s own self, never committing
to an idea in which one truly believes.
As a way out of the complacent attitude toward life and faith he observed
around him, Kierkegaard turned to subjectivity. Specifically, he suggested
that being authentic involves cultivating inner passion to be who one truly
is, such that one’s being becomes an issue for an individual—not abstractly
but personally (Pattison, 2005). Moreover, the authentic person is one who
fervently believes in and commits to something or someone and then takes
a leap of faith into the unknown to participate fully in the commitment. An
example of this kind of dedication and leap of faith can be seen in marriage
insofar as it requires a person to jump into the unknown future to live in the
relationship to which one has pledged himself or herself. In Kierkegaard’s
case, the authentic existence ultimately was related to a strong personal
dedication and leap of faith to God and Christianity.
Although Kierkegaard’s religious worldview and his conclusion about
the normative human existence culminating in Christian dedication might
not fit for all counselors, his philosophical reflections on authenticity still
have much to offer clinicians who appreciate a humanities view of their
profession and who are seeking to become ethically mature and autonomous.
First, Kierkegaard reminds us that the way in which one approaches and
participates in a moral framework, such as a code of ethics, is meaningful. Commenting on Kierkegaard’s work, Golomb (2013) highlighted this
point, saying, “authentic life has less to do with a specific content, a what,
and more to do with some particular existential walk of life, with a how”
(p. 2). In other words, accepting a professional counseling worldview,
including its moral framework as embodied in the code of ethics, because
it is handed down from the community of helpers to which one belongs
is not sufficient, nor does it make one a de facto authentic helper. On the
other hand, if counselors take Kierkegaard’s understanding of authenticity
to heart, they will ask themselves not only what the code of ethics recommends them to do in particular situations but also, more importantly, how
they personally will become ethical and dedicated counselors. Moving to
Journal of Humanistic COUNSELING ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55
103
this subjective level entails deep, individual engagement with the mission
of the counseling profession and the principles upon which it is grounded.
The ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014) outlines the profession’s mission to
include such things as sensitivity to human development processes, respect for diversity, appreciation of clients’ autonomy and human dignity,
engagement in social justice advocacy, and skillful and ethical practice—all
in support of a client’s inalienable personal worth. This mission is the foundation from which ethical decisions are intended to flow. Counselors act
with authenticity when they reflect on the mission to support human worth
and dignity, personally choose to support that mission, and are cautious
not to use professional group membership unthinkingly as a justification
for their ethical decisions.
Second, Kierkegaard’s appeal to passion is a challenge to the complacency for the profession that can overcome counselors when they fall into
using a risk-management approach to ethics. Risk management, with its
emphasis on legal culpability, extinguishes passion and replaces it with
self-serving fear. In a sense, risk management turns counselors inward,
but it is an inwardness not directed at identifying that which one can live
and die for, as Kierkegaard sought. Instead, it is an inwardness aimed at
self-preservation. Operating from this mindset, counselors in the process
of making an ethical decision might ponder a question such as “What must
I do to be safe rather than sorry?” It is easy to imagine that when counselors rely on risk management as a way of resolving ethical conflicts, they
have the potential to become part of the crowd that accepts the ACA Code
of Ethics (ACA, 2014) as a statement of truth without fervently engaging it
or the mission of the profession on which it is grounded. When counselors
are interested in being authentic in a Kierkegaardian sense, however, they
cultivate an inward passion that extends outward to the profession and the
people they serve. Likewise, they are willing to take a leap of faith into the
mission of the profession and its investment in honoring clients’ dignity
and worth (ACA, 2014), even if making that leap might not be fully aligned,
at times, to best practice recommendations.
Heidegger on Authenticity
Turning now to Martin Heidegger, we see that the concept of authenticity,
primarily as described in his work Being and Time (1927/1996), is grounded
in his understanding of human existence and in the responsibility that he
believed each person has to his or her own being. He used the term Dasein,
or being-there (Macquarrie, 1968), to characterize the central nature of that
existence, which is distinguished “by the fact that in its being, this being
is concerned about its very being” (Heidegger, 1927/1996, p. 10). It is not
some set of objectively determined qualities or properties of human persons
that characterize their nature; rather, human beings are characterized by
the reality that their existence is an issue for them, and they must decide
104
Journal of Humanistic COUNSELING ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55
about their being. Describing Dasein, Heidegger (1927/1996, p. 10) says,
“the essential essence of this being cannot be accomplished by ascribing to
it a ‘what’ that specifies a material content, because its essence lies rather in
the fact that it in each instance has to be its being as its own.” This concern
for its own existence is a primary reason why human persons stand out
from all other objects or creatures in the world (Macquarrie, 1968).
Looking more carefully at the meaning of human existence, we see that
Heidegger conceptualized three main attributes of Dasein. First, Dasein is
always in the process of becoming and is never complete in itself. One cannot say that there are fixed or determined properties of the human person
because the person is constituted fundamentally by his or her possibilities
(Macquarrie, 1968). This is in contrast to the way one might describe the
properties of other objects in the world and trust that those properties will
remain true and the same from day to day. Second, …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment