what to do when someone else takes credit for your work

Weighing Alternative Courses of Action

I'yard oftentimes asked whether it is upstanding to take credit for the work washed by a co-worker. The purpose of this blog is to share my noesis on the issue and provide nutrient for 'ethical thought.' It is based on the following case study.

Presume you lot have worked for an organisation for 5 years. Your work has been exemplary by all standards, including performance evaluations by your supervisor. The section head just announced that 1 of two workers volition exist promoted to the position of assistant supervisor to replace a departing employee, which carries a $x,000 college annual salary. You believe you deserve the promotion and demand the actress money to help pay for your kid's medical expenses. You and a co-worker up for the promotion recently finished a projection with three other squad members. You were in charge of the project. The ethical question is whether you should submit the report nether your name and simply admit the team members participation or submit the report as a team endeavor. Presume in the former example, you are likely to increase your chances of getting the promotion.

The model used to evaluate this decision is Kohlberg's Model of Moral Evolution. Kohlberg argued that people develop their moral sense sequentially using three levels and half-dozen stages of moral reasoning. Here is a brief overview of his model and responses to the moral dilemma.

Level 1: Pre-conventional

Stage ane: Obedience to Rules; Avoidance of Penalisation

At this stage, the individual focuses on the physical consequences of an activity to decide the goodness or badness of a decision and seeks to avoid punishment while exhibiting deference to those in authority.

Example: You might present the projection report as a team endeavor to avoid detection past the department head and possibly being punished for misrepresenting the work. Alternatively, you might have credit for the report if you believe there is little chance of being caught and punished.

Stage 2: Satisfying One'southward Own Needs

In Phase 2, rules and authority are important only if interim in accordance with them satisfies one'south ain needs (egoism). This is a "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined in a short-sighted style which does non consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people other than when it promotes one'southward own interests.

Instance: Dissimilar Stage 1 which is motivated past the fright of being caught and punished, in Stage 2 you are motivated by self-involvement. You lot may ignore the overall squad try, or at least downplay information technology, in society to get the promotion. You may have credit for the report if you believe it will pb to your promotion with no negative effects on your position within the organization. However, if you lot believe your relationship with team members could exist irreparably harmed past submitting the report as your own, then you might make up one's mind it'due south not worth the risk to accept full credit.

Level ii: Conventional

Phase 3: Fairness to Others

In Stage iii, an individual seeks to do what is in the perceived best interests of others, including those in a peer or piece of work group and those to whom the individual reports. Weber refers to this stage every bit Practiced Boy/Nice Daughter Reasoning. At this stage, proficient behavior or right decision making is understood equally that which pleases or helps others, and so that the decision maker is seen by others who are of import every bit a good male child or nice girl.

Example: At this stage of reasoning, right or incorrect is judged in the context of one's relationships with others. The needs of the work team may be seen equally taking precedence over ane's own cocky-interest so that y'all would not take full credit for the report; otherwise y'all gamble your relationship with others.

Stage iv: Constabulary and Order

Stage 4 behavior emphasizes the morality of constabulary and duty to the social social club and orientation towards fixed rules. Ane's duty to society, respect for dominance, and maintaining the social order become the focus of determination making. The determination maker assumes the part of a generalized member of society, and reasoning relies on a conception of the social system as a consistent set up of codes and procedures that apply equally to all members of society. The focus shifts beyond the work group to include all members of lodge.

Example: Here, your decision would be motivated by following the constabulary, which includes the code of conduct of the arrangement that may or may not address taking credit for another's work. If the lawmaking prohibits taking credit for some other's work, so you may decide it'due south morally correct to give credit to the entire squad. To do otherwise risks a possible breakdown in the social order in the organization. What if everyone took credit for someone else's work? Laws may be broken and chaos might occur in the arrangement.

Level iii: Post-conventional

Stage 5: Social Contract

In Stage 5, an individual is motivated by upholding the basic rights, values, and legal contracts of society. That person recognizes in some cases that legal and moral points of view may conflict. To reduce such disharmonize, individuals at this stage base their decisions on the greatest good for the greatest number of people" -- a rational calculation of benefits and harms to society.

Case: Reasoning at this stage would be driven by values such as honesty and personal responsibleness. The purposeful deception of others is ever wrong. What is right for y'all to do is share the credit. This is a situation where you would weigh the harms and benefits of alternative actions. The deed utilitarianism method calls for balancing harms and benefits of alternative deportment. Some might employ it and rationalize it's best to take full credit. However, the dominion utilitarianism method argues to follow the rule: Never accept credit for something you take not done, regardless of the consequences to yourself and others.

Stage half-dozen: Universal Ethical Principles

At this phase, moral reasoning is based on abstruse reasoning using universal upstanding principles that everyone should follow and transcend mutual benefit. Rights, laws, and social agreements are valid not because of a item society'due south laws or customs, but because they balance on the premise of universality. Justice and equality are examples of principles that are deemed universal.

Case: The universal principle is: It is incorrect to take credit for another'south piece of work. You lot have an ethical duty to requite credit where credit is due. Information technology would be an unjust upshot to have credit for someone else'due south work. Not merely might laws (i.east. company lawmaking) be broken but one's role in society might be compromised. Each person who contributes to the report has a right to receive equal credit, assuming each had most the same role.

The Rights Theory plays a part in post-conventional thinking in that the co-workers accept an ethical right to be given credit and y'all, as the conclusion-maker, have a duty to give them that credit. For me, this is the bottom line of how all-time to deal with the decision of whether to give credit to co-workers. Alternatively, ask how you would feel if your determination to have credit for the project and only mention the co-workers was the headline of tomorrow's newspaper. Would you be proud to defend your action?

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ideals Sage, on July 25, 2018. Visit Dr. Mintz's website and sign up for his newsletter.

Is it Ethical to Have Credit for Someone Else'south Work?

Weighing Alternative Courses of Activity

I'm oftentimes asked whether it is upstanding to take credit for the work done by a co-worker. The purpose of this web log is to share my knowledge on the issue and provide food for 'ethical thought.' It is based on the following example study.

Assume you have worked for an organization for five years. Your work has been exemplary past all standards, including functioning evaluations by your supervisor. The department head only appear that 1 of two workers will be promoted to the position of assistant supervisor to supplant a departing employee, which carries a $ten,000 higher annual salary. You believe you deserve the promotion and demand the extra money to aid pay for your child's medical expenses. You and a co-worker up for the promotion recently finished a project with iii other team members. Yous were in charge of the project. The upstanding question is whether you should submit the study under your proper name and just acknowledge the team members participation or submit the report as a team effort. Presume in the former case, you are probable to increase your chances of getting the promotion.

The model used to evaluate this decision is Kohlberg's Model of Moral Development. Kohlberg argued that people develop their moral sense sequentially using iii levels and half dozen stages of moral reasoning. Hither is a brief overview of his model and responses to the moral dilemma.

Level i: Pre-conventional

Stage 1: Obedience to Rules; Avoidance of Punishment

At this phase, the individual focuses on the physical consequences of an action to determine the goodness or badness of a conclusion and seeks to avoid penalty while exhibiting deference to those in authority.

Instance: Yous might present the project written report every bit a team endeavour to avoid detection by the department head and maybe beingness punished for misrepresenting the work. Alternatively, you might take credit for the report if you believe there is piffling take a chance of being caught and punished.

Phase 2: Satisfying I's Own Needs

In Stage 2, rules and authority are of import but if acting in accordance with them satisfies one's ain needs (egoism). This is a "what'due south in it for me" position, in which right beliefs is defined in a short-sighted style which does not consider one'south reputation or relationships to groups of people other than when information technology promotes 1's ain interests.

Case: Different Stage i which is motivated by the fear of being caught and punished, in Stage 2 yous are motivated by self-interest. You may ignore the overall team effort, or at to the lowest degree downplay it, in order to go the promotion. You lot may accept credit for the report if you believe it will lead to your promotion with no negative effects on your position within the system. However, if you believe your relationship with team members could be irreparably harmed past submitting the report every bit your ain, then you might decide it'due south non worth the risk to have full credit.

Level 2: Conventional

Phase three: Fairness to Others

In Stage iii, an individual seeks to do what is in the perceived all-time interests of others, including those in a peer or work group and those to whom the individual reports. Weber refers to this stage as Good Boy/Nice Daughter Reasoning. At this stage, skillful behavior or right decision making is understood as that which pleases or helps others, so that the conclusion maker is seen past others who are important as a skilful male child or nice girl.

Example: At this stage of reasoning, correct or wrong is judged in the context of one'south relationships with others. The needs of the work team may be seen equally taking precedence over one'southward own self-interest so that you would not take full credit for the report; otherwise you risk your relationship with others.

Phase four: Police and Lodge

Stage 4 beliefs emphasizes the morality of law and duty to the social order and orientation towards stock-still rules. 1'south duty to guild, respect for authorisation, and maintaining the social club become the focus of decision making. The decision maker assumes the role of a generalized member of guild, and reasoning relies on a formulation of the social system as a consistent set of codes and procedures that utilize as to all members of society. The focus shifts beyond the piece of work group to include all members of society.

Case: Here, your decision would exist motivated by post-obit the law, which includes the code of conduct of the organisation that may or may not address taking credit for another'southward work. If the lawmaking prohibits taking credit for some other's work, then y'all may determine it'southward morally correct to give credit to the entire squad. To do otherwise risks a possible breakup in the social order in the organization. What if everyone took credit for someone else's work? Laws may exist broken and chaos might occur in the organization.

Level iii: Post-conventional

Stage v: Social Contract

In Phase 5, an private is motivated past upholding the basic rights, values, and legal contracts of order. That person recognizes in some cases that legal and moral points of view may conflict. To reduce such conflict, individuals at this stage base of operations their decisions on the greatest skillful for the greatest number of people" -- a rational calculation of benefits and harms to guild.

Case: Reasoning at this stage would exist driven by values such as honesty and personal responsibility. The purposeful charade of others is e'er wrong. What is right for you to do is share the credit. This is a situation where you would counterbalance the harms and benefits of alternative deportment. The deed utilitarianism method calls for balancing harms and benefits of alternative deportment. Some might utilize it and rationalize it's best to have full credit. However, the rule utilitarianism method argues to follow the rule: Never accept credit for something you have not done, regardless of the consequences to yourself and others.

Phase 6: Universal Upstanding Principles

At this phase, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles that anybody should follow and transcend common benefit. Rights, laws, and social agreements are valid not because of a particular society'south laws or customs, but because they rest on the premise of universality. Justice and equality are examples of principles that are accounted universal.

Example: The universal principle is: It is incorrect to take credit for another's work. You have an ethical duty to requite credit where credit is due. It would be an unjust result to have credit for someone else's work. Not just might laws (i.e. company code) be broken but one's role in society might be compromised. Each person who contributes to the written report has a right to receive equal credit, bold each had about the same function.

The Rights Theory plays a role in post-conventional thinking in that the co-workers have an ethical right to be given credit and you, as the decision-maker, have a duty to give them that credit. For me, this is the bottom line of how best to bargain with the decision of whether to give credit to co-workers. Alternatively, inquire how you would feel if your conclusion to take credit for the project and merely mention the co-workers was the headline of tomorrow'southward paper. Would you be proud to defend your action?

Web log posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ideals Sage, on July 25, 2018. Visit Dr. Mintz'south website and sign upward for his newsletter.

chickbuthationd.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.workplaceethicsadvice.com/2018/07/is-it-ethical-to-take-credit-for-someone-elses-work.html

Share this post