In 500 words, contain at least 2 in-text citations Reply to the Thread
Thread: Imagine you are a policy analyst at XYZ University located in central Virginia. You have made a fairly accurate prediction about the cost to move from FCS (Football Conference Series) to FBS (Football Bowl Series) status at XZY University. You discover your supervisor is going to the President of the university to present his prediction that is half the cost of your prediction. According to Chapter three of Weimer’s textbook, how should you respond? Would a person with a biblical worldview respond any differently, why or why not? Be sure all your claims and conclusions are supported by an authoritative source.
In 150 words each, at least 1 in-text citation each
Replies: You will reply to at least 2 of your classmates’ threads. You should focus on how they perceived the issue through a biblical worldview and how their biblical worldview agrees with yours or how their biblical worldview differed. Be sure all of your claims and conclusions are supported by an authoritative source.
Reply to N In 150 words each, at least 1 in-text citation
After reading the thread for Forum 1, the core issue is that a supervisor is going to the president of the university with false information regarding the cost of the prediction made by the subordinate. There is no clarity on whether the supervisor is intentionally producing false information, but for the sake of discussion, I will say that the supervisor is aware of their unethical action. If the subordinate is aware of the unethical decision, action should be taken to correct the situation. When considering chapter 3 from Policy analysis: Concepts and practice, Weimer (2017) discussed that one should voice their objections to the policy with their supervisor. The chapter highlighted the value of conflict. In particular Weimer stressed the importance of first informally discussing objections to a supervisor, and then writing a memoranda if necessary. As a subordinate, I need to address my concern to the supervisor and object a proposal with false information. Even though the right approach is to object inaccurate policy proposals, Weimer (2017) also discussed that there is a cost to the protest. By protesting a proposal, one could suffer personal costs such as time, energy, offense from superiors, or the potential of losing influence over future issues regarding policy. So, one must consider their options first.
If a subordinate speaks out against a supervisor, one may consider that subordinate to be a whistleblower, but Weimer suggests that there are four conditions for when “whistleblowing” is necessary. The four conditions which include exhausting all channels of protest within the agency before submitting any official objections to the policy proposal, determine the legal bounds of the violation by the supervisor, be convinced that the violation will be harmful if not reported, and then be able to support the accusation with evidence (Weimer, 2017). By following the four conditions, one can justify their decision and have credible reasoning and evidence for their protest against the supervisor. When one counters false information and unethical dealings, that individual will display their loyalty to their respective agency.
Not only should one consider the conditions of their decision against unethical situations, but the bible provides a clear and authoritative guide to how one should approach a supervisor presenting false information. James 4:17 (English Standard Version) says that, “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” God commands us all to be truthful and to maintain integrity. From a biblical worldview perspective, the bible reaffirms that one should protest and counter a supervisor’s unethical decision. Subordinates may feel overwhelmed and afraid to address their supervisor, but the truth should be pursued, and misinformation should be protested. In the military there is a common phrase that says, “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.” Another issue of ignoring the supervisor’s decision is that the supervisor could feel invincible and then repeat their dishonest action. It is more beneficial to end the issue from the moment it is noticed than allowing the problem to continue.
References
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2017). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN: 9781138216518.
Reply to J In 150 words each, at least 1 in-text citation
The situation outlined in this prompt would be cause for pause, evaluation of the situation, and consideration of how to handle this ethical concern. According to Weimer and Vining (2017) if I had provided my “client” or in this case, my supervisor with a financial analysis that significantly differs from the analysis he or she is going to be presenting, I should first privately speak with him or her. The purpose of this conversation is to first seek a better understanding of the situation and to learn if the misrepresentation is intentional. It would be important for me to be open in my inquiry, not making any assumptions. Hopefully, I would have a high confidence in my own predictions that I had previously communicated to my supervisor, if I am making such an inquiry. Wiemer and Vinging (2017) explain, “We should keep in mind that, because analysis involves prediction, analysts rarely enjoy complete confidence in their conclusions. Careful analysts check the sensitivity of their results to changes in critical assumptions and convey the level of confidence they have in their conclusions to their clients” (p.52).
When I approach my supervisor, if we are able to come to a mutual understanding with the concern and the prediction is corrected for the presentation, there is no further issue. However, according to Weimer and Vining (2017) if we cannot agree and I have cause to believe that this misrepresentation is intentional, then I should consider the potential harm of the misrepresentation and move into the stages of whistle-blowing However, it is important to also note that Weimer and Vining (2017) also discuss that for whistle-blowing to be ethically justified, Peter French proposes that there are four necessary conditions that should be present. Therefore, I would want to take those steps, before pursuing further action.
The steps for approaching this issue as outlined above, are aligned with a biblical worldview. Specifically, the notion of approaching my supervisor in private to discuss the issue aligns with scripture. Matthew 18:15 (ESV) states, “If your brother sins against you, go and confront him privately. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” If the supervisor and I did not come to an agreement, this is when the next step of a Christ-follower (Matthew 18:16), would deviate from that which is presented in the textbook. Where the model differs, is that the Christ-follower would then take one or two others with them. Without knowing the structure of the organization, I am unsure who I would take next, but I would go again myself with someone else to confront the situation with me. I would likely take someone at a similar level to my supervisor with me. Again, the choice would largely depend on how much harm I would think could be caused by the situation. If he or she would still not adjust the analysis then I would request to meet with his or her own supervisor with my supervisor also present to again, confront the situation.
This situation would be difficult to walk through. However, the knowledge I have as a Christ-follower coupled with the strategies outlined in the text, provide me with a sound perspective and tools for how to approach the situation.
References
Weimer, D. and Vining, A. (2017). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
