These individuals normally suggest that it is easy to make decisions without considering ethical issues, and then analyzing the action afterwards (Paele & Blanchard, 1988).
The existence of the “grey region” between wrong and right does not act as an excuse for ignoring ethics. The “grayness” aspect can be removed from the ethical dilemmas through taking time to analyze and understand a decision. The ethics check has been formulated to analyze three questions that arise out of a given ethical situation.
Ethical decisions should be similar if the answer to any one of the questions is contrary or negative. The first question is: is the issue legal? Legal decisions adhere to government and organization regulations and laws. The second question is: is the decision balanced? Ethical decisions should always result in win-win situations. This ensures fairness to all parties concerned. The third question is: what feelings are derived by the decision maker? The feeling of ethical decision is positive, rewarding and fulfilling. This makes the concerned parties proud of the outcome (Paele & Blanchard, 1988).
Ethical mentoring concept illustrates that illegal or unethical actions in society or organizations rarely occurs because people intend to do wrong. Instead it begins with insignificant breaches which gradually increase in scope and scale. This makes the poor action be considered the norm or acceptable. Ethical mentors assist people to effectively handle situations involving potential conflict in values and ethical lapses. The ethical mentors also assist people increase their ethical awareness, to enable them avoid ethical dilemmas. They also provide resources to ethical leaders to create an ethically conscious organizational culture (Paele & Blanchard, 1988).
Effective ethical mentors include the professional