question archive Often IO psychology practitioners are faced with scenarios that implicate on or more of these principles that require making a rational decision that should be appropriate and justifiable
Often IO psychology practitioners are faced with scenarios that implicate on or more of these principles that require making a rational decision that should be appropriate and justifiable
Subject:PsychologyPrice: Bought3
Often IO psychology practitioners are faced with scenarios that implicate on or more of these principles that require making a rational decision that should be appropriate and justifiable. These are referred to as ethical dilemmas. The APA code of ethics includes a dilemma deck section that lists potential gray areas in research and practice for IO psychologists. These include; informed consent, confidentiality, boundaries of competence, institutional review boards and the definition of a client. Further, CAPE reckons the existence of various paradigms responsible for causing ethical dilemmas including temptation, prevention of harm, role conflict, values conflict and coercion.
The definition of a client has been listed in the CAPE's dilemma deck as one of the potential gray areas in IO psychology. In practice, the primary obligation for the practitioner is to the client and all actions should thus advance the welfare of the client. In situations whereby role conflict arises in that the practitioner is faced with conflicting obligations that do not guarantee a win-win situation arises, the definition of a client comes in handy to override the conflict. In such scenarios, the primary obligation of the practitioner should be to further the welfare of their client.
My first peer say - the welfare of the client is primary, but the issue at times is who is the client. I submit that the agreement must clearly identify the client to help minimize conflict.
How can I prove my first peer he is wrong and I am right ?
My second peer say ,that the ethical gray area exist but she doesn't agree with my view. yet realize in real-world corporate scenarios they cannot exist as they can lead to legal complications, costing businesses hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. According to (Bruhn, 2009), ethical gray areas can become problematic when dealing with them is flawed by supervisors or managers who see themselves ethically superior to their peers and by their own inattention, inaction, and poor modeling, minimize the importance of building a moral competentcy by delegating gray area issues to second-tier administrators.
Can you tell me in which ways ethically gray areas would be beneficial to companys? I know you had said "were essential for effective executive coaching" but in what ways
and can I prove my second peer she is wrong ?
