she is presented with the option of creating a course that highlights what not to do, though she (correctly, in my view) feels in her gut that she should focus more on actions - reasons to do something than reasons not to do something.
in short order, a couple of things came to mind:
- Boxed ethics training (you know the kind - speed race your colleagues to see who can finish fastest! itchy left-click finger ftw)
- Goofus and Gallant
- The current Pirate Bay trial and the moral/ethical issues surrounding file sharing
- Corporate IT security and savvy users who circumvent protections to under the auspices of productivity
- People who steal other peoples' lunches from communal refrigerators (you know who you are)
Most ethics breaches are not because of a "lack of knowledge" which is what training addresses, it is because of a failure to see conflicts of interest or of choosing not to see conflicts of interest because you are somehow benefiting...one small indiscretion leads to others.In other words, since it's not about knowing what's been declared permissible, training that focuses on rattling off the do-nots is redundant at best. I think that people who flout laws and regulations big and small do so because they have made a threat assessment and have decided that the risks to self and others are small. The only way to change the behavior of someone who breaks the rules is to convince them that they've made an error in that threat assessment.
But what ethics violators fail to see is the damage they are causing themselves and others...they often think they are justified when they aren't.
Also see:
0 comments:
Post a Comment