When you look at your ethics training programming, has it designed it to forestall possible future ethics lapses or is it “lost” in compliance requirements and therefore “muddying” the difference between ethics and compliance?
Is your ethics training just to fulfill a requirement(“ a have to”) or is it a chosen proactive approach to help deal with future situations?
When ethics training is a “band-aid” approach to the artery:
- it is a temporary “fix”. No real problem will be solved.
- thoughtful consideration about cause and effect of such an approach.
- the concept of ethics is cheapened, due to the sporadic training, reinforcement.
-can the skills of discernment, moral decision making, case studies, analysis, etc really be
taught, or are “yes and no” answers the modus operandi?
When ethics training embraces a “sutures the artery problem” approach:
- Time is taken to develop an ongoing ethics training program.
- Actual skills are taught, modeled and reinforced.
- Ethical theories, research and their applications are explained and internalized.
- Ethical resources are made available in ways and formats all can access and use.
- Case studies, real life example situations are examined and discussed in order to apply ethical theories.
So which is it, the band-aid approach to the artery problem or taking the time to suture that problem up?