A qualitative research aimed to synthesize and brainstorm global moral standards from the Thai professional viewpoints. Global moral standards as viewed by the Thai professionals have been developed based on the ideas across North America, Europe, Asia and Australia. The methods involve roundtable discussions gathered from 100 professional participants working in a government sector, a private sector, and a nonprofit sector to resolve moral problems in a practical sense and to plan for moral standard policy. The results show that 1) Respect for the rights of people, others and organizations goes along with national constitutions; 2) Justice to everyone in organizations communicates with the public; 3) Responsibility for regular duties and impromptu situations establishes the mutuality of colleagues, organizations and the public; 4) Leadership shows high-patience, generosity, and bravery to the public; 5) Adaptability responds to possible changes, allowing human resources at all professions survive in society; 6) Dedication to quality serves nonstop service improvement; 7) Professionalism has equipped personnel resources with skills, knowhow, and speed to serve their public interests; and 8) Honesty with oneself, others, and organizations holds on the righteousness. To authorize universal moral standards in society, human and mind values projects are initiated.
Contribution / Originality:This study originates new formula of morality dimensions based on the best practices of each institution across North America, Europe, Asia and Australia. The paper's primary contribution is finding that global moral standards can regulate deviance in workplaces, professions and authorities.
INTRODUCTIONStruggles of moral dilemmas as management conflicts are one of the main reasons existing in organizational settings (Afzalur, 2002; Alakavuklar & Cakar, 2012). Moral problems are situations where decision-makers must consider more value or duty alternatives but can only honor one of them (Figar & Đorđević, 2016;Kvalnes, 2014).Individuals violate at least one important moral concern, regardless of decision making in different levels of moral issues, not limited to, genuine dilemma, compliance problem, moral laxity, and simple problem (Geva, 2006). Moral dilemmas in workplaces are often ambiguous, rapidly outspread, and extremely complex (Okkonen, 2017;Treviño, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006).Moral issues in social service can make a high moral intensity (Kelley & Elm, 2003). The situations that lead to a high moral intensity are among falsifying client data, allowing broken programs, determining biased client eligibility, falsifying office accuracy ratings, treating office reports on client interviews to increase staffing levels, interpreting mandates to benefit certain clients, assisting caseworkers in finding alternative clients, allowing clients to falsify data, ranking clients by need levels, ignoring client information, and avoiding realizing social service