[amazon_link asins=’1118024303,1522021140,0198719795,1119240239,B01AS2T0ZA’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’digieboodown-21′ marketplace=’UK’ link_id=’5d5c766c-849a-11e7-bdc2-1b7420a1b569′]
The role of leaders and leadership was acknowledged. This has long been emphasized in business and the professions. It is common for older ethical practitioners to cite individuals who taught them how to think ethically. Many jurisdictions are emphasizing leadership as the key factor in values based ethical governance. The ICAC ‘do-it-yourself kit’ on corruption prevention is typical of this. It shows concentric circles arising from a central core of values, radiating out to ‘leadership’, ‘communication’ through the ‘organizational integrity framework’, and to ‘culture’. We naturally applaud the relationship between values, ethics, and ‘integrity frameworks’. (It does reflect the approach for twelve years). However, we the implication that might be taken that it is for leaders to articulate values and communicate them to staff and build them into the codes, practices, systems, and policies of the institutional
Leadership is emphasized in two other points:
1 Leadership involves the leadership of staff in asking and answering the questions about values, justification, and the means to realise them rather than providing those answers and communicating them. The CEO does not possess either unique or superior power to answer those questions.
2 Many persons other than the CEO and senior managers may display this kind of leadership. Such leaders may be senior, but they may not be the most senior. Indeed, often or not, they are peers – not least because we tend to talk most freely with and seek advice from those at a more or less similar level. In every workplace, we see the existence of opinion leaders at every level who communicate values, ethos, and ‘culture’ to other staff members. Collectively, peers are likely to be more influential than the CEO. What is more, they will have knowledge of the way that ethical issues play out at the various levels in which they work, see how they are perceived at that level, and know the temptations and dilemmas that affect them.
For those who find the centered approach congenial, this involves a ceding of power to members of the organization through the admission that much of the relevant knowledge lies with them and must be the source of answers. However, it provides a much better foundation for an effective ethics regime or integrity system. CEO that recognize this do their institutions (and ultimately themselves and their reputations) a far greater service than those who thinks they know all the answers. In our world, there is much talk of the role of managers and some talk about the inputs of those they manage. The collective organizations of the latter are rarely mentioned except to be derided. This is a great pity. The promotion of ethics within the professions has always been seen as a critical role for professional associations. Even though their performance if often criticized and professional associations could themselves be reformed, few doubt the positive role that they can, and generally do, play.
In public sector ethics, unions are rarely mentioned and rarely seek to play a significant role. We would suggest that unions should actively seek to be involved, emphasize the professional nature of public service, and see themselves as a professional association rather than just a ‘union’. They should be encouraged to take this approach.
Complete Assistance in the preparation for the implementation of the SMR/CR can be obtained from us at Complaince Consultant Where we have experience in the banking sector from 2015/2016.
Source by Artur Victoria
[amazon_link asins=’191064952X,B01M9I0CT8,0670923303,B01M9C1Y3S,0802414869,1494463180,1471164934,0198268238,B01N190549′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’digieboodown-21′ marketplace=’UK’ link_id=’8bf0d388-84f1-11e7-bab5-71b20341157b’]
[layerslider id=”2″]