Ethics

Ethical issues continue to shape organizational development and interplay of relations within the workplace. More often than not, it serves as a catalyst in the creation of disputes and questions not only the purpose and objectives applied by management but also the strategies in order to achieve these. Seeing this, it is essential to determine these facets accordingly so as to create better dimensions for creating an environment that is just and adheres to the practice of fairness and responsibility.

Analyzing the implications of the case surrounding taking credit for others ideas, it can be argued that the affected party may opt to clamor to question the justification made by the immediate supervisor in taking the merit of the actions initiated. In here, the process may not only lead to conflict within group dynamics, it can also affect particular areas such as morale and the ethical standing of the one who received promotion and distinction.

Looking at the specific arguments that can be provided by the party, it can argue that the initiative made by the manager in this case remains destructive of the overall interplay of relations between people. Here, hisher reputation may be tarnished and questioned because of the inappropriate way that heshe handled the situation (Gilliand, Steiner, and Skarlicki, 2007). This party may argue that the formation of such ideas does not coincide with the needs of the overall group and only takes advantage of the inputs provided by its members.

Similarly, the complainant can argue on the ability of the manager to address specific norms and standards advocated in the Code of Ethics, if ever these documentsmandates existed. Such outcomes would then question the inability of the manager to point out the contributions of its members and whether or not adequate communication was initiated to provide justification that indeed the policyidea was given due recognition to its proponents (Reyer, 2009). Seeing this, the manager can face the predicament of handling not only the scrutiny of its members but also risk the corresponding merit given to himher by the upper management.

Another probable scenario that can happen is that the group that the manager handles becomes inefficient because they lack the trust to provide appropriate inputs to their leader. This is because the manager takes all the credit but does not take into consideration the value of its members. This individualistic stance not only undermines hisher capacity to manage the group but also creates numerous opportunities for limiting motivation and honing conflict (Gilliand, Steiner, and Skarlicki, 2007).

Lastly, the employee can also question the ability of the manager to handle effectively the group dynamics and the problem. Though the leader may argue that this is a group effort and it entails the manager taking the responsibility of actively reporting these changes to upper management, it does not serve as a justification to leave out the important details of who contributed to this endeavor.  This analogy then becomes destructive for the organization since members of the group are not allowed to excel in their own capacity and provide sustainable options for development in the career ladder (Brown, 2009).

With all of these, this case clearly corresponds to a detrimental outcome for the manager and its corresponding members. It remains to be an ethical issue primarily because it takes little effort to cite the contributions of members to the group alongside the idea that the manager was the only one to take advantage of the end-result of this endeavor. Though it is considered to be a group effort, proper recognition and merit should be distributed to the contributors who have made this initiative possible (Gilliand, Steiner, and Skarlicki, 2007).

Similarly, there is also the question of inability to communicate effectively to the group the appropriate objectives and how recognition will be given as an end-result. Though there are no specific mandates concerning providing recognition, the manager should have recognized that communication remains to be an important facilitator in addressing the possible conflict that may occur. Heshe may have communicated with the process and identify the feelings of the group accordingly. Such dynamics can then help alleviate the issues accordingly and provide sustainable opportunities for the group to provide their insights over what happened (Brown, 2009).

At the same time, the manager also needs to consider what dynamics are available to solve the matter with upper management. It all rests with the capacity of the manager to balance preserving hisher status with both the group and superiors. Here, accountability and responsibility plays and important aspects. It helps shape considerable dynamics and infuses appropriate directions in shaping better relationships with peers and bosses (Brown, 2009). Though this may ideally happen, this outcome will best benefit the manager and patch relationships especially with parties that have been affected the most.

In the end, the manager has indeed faults ethically in hisher approach of taking credit for other peoples contribution. Not only can these become a questionable issue within the code of ethics advocated by the organization, it can also pose as a threat in the overall group dynamics. Seeing this, it is essential that adequate communication patterns be established since the other party can clamor the opportunity to be given consideration for hisher contribution. At the same time, the manager should be able to balance the needs of the group with that of hisher own interests. Thus, by allowing transparency and accountability to become manifested, it can help solve or prevent further damage brought and conflict brought upon by the given issue.