The Elements of Ethics taking the High Ground Paper
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
The Elements of Ethics taking the High Ground Paper
Elements, Ethics, Taking, High, Ground, Paper
Avoid cronies and “yes people.” seek competent and trustworthy col- leagues who have a reputation for propriety and wisdom. Ask for un- compromising forthrightness in the evaluation of your work.
Finally, don’t forget that excellent peer-review relationships are a two-way street. When the need arises, be sure to reciprocate the favor with honest evaluations of your colleagues’ work.
When colleagues ask for your opinion whether it is about their conduct, decisions, or work products take their request seriously, respect confidentiality, never disseminate their ideas or findings without their consent, and, by all means, tell the truth and pull no punches.
Just as you expect your colleagues to pull you back from the ethical edges with timely warnings and clear criticism, be sure to offer equally constructive criticism when it is your turn. Remember that only honest feedback is helpful.
Key components
- deepen professional accountability by arranging peer review of your work.
- retain colleagues and experts with a reputation for wisdom and confidentiality.
Identify defensiveness and evasion as warning signs that peer re- view is needed.
- take collegial feedback seriously, and use it to avoid ethical transgressions while improving the quality of your work.
- reciprocate peer reviews with honest and confidential feedback to colleagues.
5 present your credentials and services accurately
The Elements of Ethics taking the High Ground Paper
As a psychotherapist and popular speaker, shaun frequently found himself , having to clarify the exact nature of his credentials and temper others’ un- realistic claims about his services. On the eve of major workshop to be conducted for more than 1,000 mental health professionals, shaun discovered that the promotional materials made reference to his ‘doctorate in psychology” and the ‘nearly miraculous” efficacy of his therapy approach for nearly any psychological problem.
When the event organizer rejised shaun’s re- quest to reprint the promotional materials, shaun began his presentation by making a public disclaimer. He told the audience that he held a master’s degree, not a doctorate, and that the research evidence supported his therapeutic approach for certain disorders under certain condition not for all clinical problems.
Several participants in the workshop already knew the real facts about shaun’s education and research. On the workshop evaluations, these individuals indicated that shaun’s unwavering integrity and clear commitment to truth in advertising had inspired them just as much as the content he presented.
Recall this embarrassing fiasco: in 2001, notre dame named george o’leary as the university’s new head coach of its storied football program. For o’leary, who had been eminently successful as a coach and admired by fans, the appointment was the crowning opportunity of his career. His dream, though, quickly became a nightmare.
The Elements of Ethics taking the High Ground Paper
five days after his hire and before running a single practice, coach o’leary was forced to resign in disgrace. He did not hold a master’s degree or play on his college football team as indicated on his résumé and exposed by the media. The glaring lies now were public.
In his resignation statement, o’leary admitted lying on his résumé as a young coach in the hopes of obtaining a job. As the years went by, expunging these fibs from his record became increasingly difficult.
a statement by notre dame poignantly captured the sentiment such duplicity can arouse: “these inaccuracies constitute a breach of trust that makes it im- possible to move forward in the relationship.” few things under- mine relationships—personal or professional—more quickly than the revelation that a partner has lied.
Integrity demands clarity in the presentation of one’s credentials, achievements, and experience. Ethical professionals refuse to inflate or misrepresent the nature or efficacy of their services. Whether mo- tivated by egotism, inadequacy, or greed, inaccurate presentation of credentials or services always constitutes a fundamental ethical breach.
Professionals must stridently refuse the temptation of making false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements about any aspects of their work. Statements about (1) training and experience, (2) academic degrees, (3) credentials, licenses, or competence, (4) affiliations with institutions or organizations, (5) achievements, and (6) the nature and scientific basis for our services never are negotiable.
Only by insist- ing on a fill and accurate accounting of one’s background and achievement can the slippery slope of misrepresentation be avoided. And remember one last thing: creating false impressions or misun- derstandings through omission or vague reporting is just as inappro- priate as overt lying. These behaviors are a misrepresentation of the truth. Lying will come back to bite you, sometimes when you least expect it.
The Elements of Ethics taking the High Ground Paper
Why do professionals who seem to have it all together make false statements? There are many reasons, but three stand out. First, eager for success or financial reward, new professionals may be tempted to overstate the nature of their credentials. The long-term
Implications of such duplicity may not be something they consider. So be careful in how you try to “jump-start” your career. Second, some professionals struggle with integrity.
Lying about their credentials, their background, and their capabilities is merely one more venue for self-serving manipulation. Third, some professionals try to bolster their deflated egos.
Their narcissistic need for tribute, admiration, and adulation makes lying about their experiences and accomplishments nearly intoxicating. Consider the strange phenomenon of fake navy seals.
Several organizations now track down and expose thousands of men each year who lie on their résumés, claiming prior service with the special forces. The motivation for the fakery is often a desperate effort to compensate for a personal sense of inadequacy.
But the potential for aggrandizement, power, and fame resides in all of us. During your career, you will encounter endless opportunities to find short-term success through inflation, exaggeration, and deception.
Whether claiming degrees from phony diploma mills, overstating your achievements, or allowing inaccuracies to go uncorrected, many among us will succumb to this temptation.
The Elements of Ethics taking the High Ground Paper
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
The Elements of Ethics taking the High Ground Paper