Ethical / Multicultural Vignette
Ting Li is a 31-years-old Asian American. She has a BSc in Engineering. She is an atheist, and she is divorced. Harry is an HR manager in an airline company in Tennessee. He is 59, a White European American, and is a very conservative Protestant (perhaps rather stereotypical). Jane is a psychologist working for the same airline company. She is a 29-years old White European American.
Ting has a job interview for a position of an engineer in the firm where Harry works, and Harry is her interviewer. Harry is displeased to see an Asian woman because he thinks that America is for Americans (cultural bias); he also thinks that Ting must have bad English literacy skills, and someone must have edited her CV (cultural bias); in addition, he believes that engineering is not a women’s profession (gender bias).
Harry interviews Ting and sees that she has plenty of experience and many awards from her previous jobs. However, he asks her about her family life, and finds out that she is divorced (thus providing a bad example for American women and children) (gender bias). He learns that she is an atheist (religion-based bias). He is outraged to know about her family status and the absence of religion, and he turns her away, making up an excuse related to her professional qualities (professional competency; transparency and fair working conditions).
Before the interview with Harry, Ting also had an interview with Jane, who is a psychologist that assesses all the potential employees of the airline before they have an interview with the HR manager. Jane liked Ting very much, had an impression that she is very competent, and was pleased when Ting did well at the psychological test. She partially witnessed Ting’s interview with Harry, who she knew was biased, and she had the impression that Ting might have been turned away not because of her professional qualities. She is also aware that, though Harry’s superiors do not appear to be prejudiced themselves, they also do not seem to realize the harmfulness of the bias, do not care much, and generally tend to turn a blind eye on Harry’s bias-driven behavior. Now, Jane has to decide what to do.
Ethical Concerns of Workplace Bias
Bias:
- cultural/ethnic (America is for Americans; Asian Americans must have bad English literacy skills);
- gender (engineering is not a women’s profession; women in their 30s must have a husband and children);
- religion-based (atheists are bad).
Professional competency: the decision that is made is based on personal opinion rather than professional considerations
Transparency and fair working conditions: employees (and potential employees) are treated unfairly due to bias, and this fact is being concealed.
Code Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths of APA’s Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association [APA], 2010):
- – The code provides standards that show that the situation of bias in the working place is to be disapproved of and addressed. For instance, “psychologists… seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to… harm” (APA, 2010, p. 3).
- – The code states that psychologists are supposed to take action when “an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization” (APA, 2010, p. 4).
Weaknesses of APA’s Code of Conduct (APA, 2010):
- – Psychologists are supposed to follow APA’s Code of Conduct, but this may have negative consequences on their personal life (Haeny, 2014).
- – While taking a professional stance on an issue, psychologists are forced to decide “how they will disentangle their personal and professional lives related to the issue” (Haeny, 2014, p. 268).
Most Appropriate Ethical Reasoning Model
For the current vignette, we decided to utilize the consequentialist model of ethical reasoning. We will also consider the use of the deontological model of ethical reasoning.
The consequentialist model of ethical reasoning was chosen because it considers the consequences of the actions that are taken in the situation, and attempts to find the solution that will provide the best outcome.
Comparing Reasoning Models
In the consequentialist ethical reasoning model, one assesses the situation and thinks of possible ways to act. The way of action that leads to the best consequences for all the parties involved is chosen.
In the deontological ethical reasoning model, one needs to consider the situation and decide how they should act according to their duty. In our case, the duty may be based on APA’s Code of Conduct (APA, 2010).
The consequentialist reasoning model considers the actual effects of an action. It pays attention to the detail, and is rather flexible. On the other hand, it is hard to predict the consequences of actions, and, in complex situations, it is difficult to decide what course of action should be taken.
The deontological reasoning model allows to easily understand what actions should be taken in a situation, if one’s duty is determined. If the consequences of a situation turn out to be bad, the person who acted will still know that what they did were right from this point of view. On the other hand, completely ignoring the consequences of one’s actions and simply acting according to the duty can lead to much suffering. In addition, there is no standard of morality upon which there is a universal agreement (although in our situation, Jane will be driven by APA’s Code of Conduct).
Ethical Concerns: A Step-by-Step Approach
Step 1. Identify the existence of an event which requires reaction (Sternberg, 2012).
- Jane is aware of Harry’s biased views.
- She also has the impression that Ting is a good professional.
Step 2. Recognize the presence of an ethical dimension in the event (Sternberg, 2012).
- Jane must consider whether Harry has turned Ting away due to her bad professional skills, or because of other reasons.
Step 3. Jane should think about what ethical concerns exist in the situation. She needs to realize that such concerns as cultural bias, Harry’s professional competency, and transparency and fair working conditions, are involved.
Step 4. Jane might think that the whole situation is not her business. The company has been keeping Harry in his position for a while, and they are responsible for controlling what he does. In addition, would Ting want to work with biased staff? On the other hand, the situation is unfair; Harry’s prejudice harms not only Ting but also the firm’s employees who do not correspond to Harry’s perceptions of what people should be like (Casad & Bryant, 2016), and, finally, have adverse consequences for the company as well.
Step 5. In the consequentialist model, Jane has to decide what consequences Harry’s behavior has for the parties involved (she already did so in Step 4), and what results might her actions may lead to. In the deontological model, she must think about what her duty is in the given situation.
Step 6. In the consequentialist model, Jane needs to consider the results of Harry’s behavior (which was done in Step 4), and think about what she should do in order to prevent them. Perhaps she should talk to Harry, or maybe she needs to report the situation to his superiors? Or, again, maybe she should leave the situation as it is? What will lead to the best consequences and the least harm?
In the deontological model. Jane needs to consult with her own “ethical code” and decide how she should act. Is it her duty to talk to Harry first, or should she simply report him to the superiors?
Step 7. Jane needs to be ready that her taking action will likely result in some adverse consequences. She has to be prepared to face them should they occur.
Step 8. Jane might not have the courage to act right now. She might decide to postpone her actions until tomorrow. On the other hand, she needs to realize that she might lose the chance to address the situation, possibly help Ting obtain the job, and to do her duty.
Proposed Resolution
Talking to Harry first, and to his superiors after that, appears to be the course of action if Jane chooses the deontological model: she must try to convince the person and resolve the situation “peacefully” before reporting the person to the superiors. It also appears to be the solution for the consequentialist model, for Harry will at least be warned that his actions are disapproved of, and won’t think that Jane reported him “behind his back.”
Influence of Culture
The cultural diversity: the existence of different cultures in the same place and time causes the need for these cultures to coexist peacefully and harmoniously.
Conflict of cultures: Harry’s worldview causes him to discriminate Ting, whereas Jane’s worldview causes her to take action against the discrimination.
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, with the 2010 amendments. Web.
Casad, B. J., & Bryant, W. J. (2016). Addressing stereotype threat is critical to diversity and inclusion in organizational psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 8. Web.
Haeny, A. M. (2014). Ethical considerations for psychologists taking a public stance on controversial issues: The balance between personal and professional life. Ethics & Behavior, 24(4), 265-278. Web.
Sternberg, R. J. (2012). A model for ethical reasoning. Review of General Psychology, 16(4), 319-326. Web.