Discuss about the Case Study for Applied Business Ethics of World Bank Policy Research.
Discrimination is a common phenomenon in a professional atmosphere (Kadiresan & Javed, 2015). This leads to the generation of ethical dilemmas in the workplace. I faced several ethical dilemmas during my professional career, however, the one I faced during my stint at a pharmaceutical firm at Singapore, was the most prominent. I was working as Manager-Operations in the firm. The pharmaceutical company had a male dominating environment with very less number of female employees. One day, a new female employee was recruited and joined office on Monday. She was not accepted by her office colleagues. She was treated as if she was an alien. The male employees passed inappropriate comments to the new employees which made her feel awkward. The female employee complained to me regarding the harassment. As per the company policies, the concerned male employees were penalized. I pondered upon the fact and thought of transferring the female employee to a more secure job location or a different job role. However, my seniors argued that this action was completely discriminatory and was not in accordance with the company policies. I could have transferred the female employee but that could stir controversy among the male employees. This decision was considered as an unethical conduct in a corporate organization.
The business organization has certain regulations regarding the transfer of employees (Divanbeigi & Ramalho, 2015). The transfer should be made at the best interest of the organization (Ferner, Edwards & Tempel, 2012). It should not be based on the personal interests of the employees. I had knowledge regarding the organizational rules, however, I personally felt the plight of the employee (Divanbeigi & Ramalho, 2015). It is my duty to provide optimum working environment to all the employees (Tsaur & Tang, 2012). Being a female employee, doesn’t mean that she should be a subject of entertainment. I want to place the female employee in a secure position but this involved a lot of subsequent issues. My decision would impact both the existing male employees at the office as well as the new female employee. If the female employee is shifted to a secure job role then the rest of the employees would resent. They may also demand shifts in their favorite job roles. On the other hand, this decision may demean the female employee too. She may feel that she is segregated and may feel left out. I was in a dilemma regarding my possible actions in such a situation.
Gender discrimination in the workplace is a common phenomenon (Smith, Oades & McCarthy, 2013). We live in a patriarchal society which is reflected in the professional organizations too. Women are harassed for no reasons and unfair discriminations are made (Lim, 2015). In spite of their high qualifications and years of experience, they are not treated equally like men. They have to face embarrassment, abuse and torture at the workplace (Shah et al., 2012). These issues reduce the productivity of the employees, otherwise which would have increased the output of the female employees (Smith, Oades & McCarthy, 2013). I am compassionate about the female employee but I should not forget that I am operating in a professional environment. I have to solve the employee’s concerns by satisfying the rules of the organization.
The Shareholder View of Business states that the managers should take decisions that are best for the concerned shareholders (Klettner, Clarke & Boersma, 2014). My employees are the most important shareholders and I should provide them best work experience within the limits of law. This issue is a serious ethical concern as it is concerned with unequal power distribution between the employees and the employers. The organization has certain rights of employees that are applicable to all (Klettner, Clarke & Boersma, 2014). The employee possesses the right to safeguard from discrimination (Klettner, Clarke & Boersma, 2014). The female employees are protected from the clutches of ruthless male employees. They have the right to be treated equally in the workplace (Yousaf et al., 2014). They should deserve respect from the colleagues. They have the right to work in a harmonious workplace where the entire employees coexist peacefully. She should enjoy equal opportunities as enjoyed by all the other employees (Yousaf et al., 2014). The concerned employee should be free from sexual harassment in the workplace. I wished to secure the fundamental rights of the employees. It is the duty of a manager to look after the welfare of the employees- both male and female. If someone is not getting the fundamental rights, I must consider the matter seriously.
The discrimination in Singaporean organizations includes the partial treatment of the employees which is not based on their qualifications or experience (Napasri & Yukongdi, 2015). In this case, I was proposing the idea of giving more preference to the female employee based on a harassment complaint only. It was not related to her education level, experience level, skills or the performance at work. The discrimination would lead to the damage of my image as a manager. I may be viewed as a “partial manager” if I give favorable treatment to an employee based on the gender. If I do not implement this decision, then the female employee may continue to be harassed by her male counterparts. This would also affect the performance of the employee.
My decision making is affected by several factors such as demographic, gender, age, national culture, psychology, personal values and integrity (Craft, 2013). The psychological factors affect my actions in a particular work environment. I am an individual with high internal control. I like to undertake responsibility for my actions and accept the consequences of my actions. My personal values also help me in taking decisions. It is my personal choice to address my employee’s rights. I like to maintain moral principles as well as values while taking crucial decisions. The moral intensity would have an influence on the decision making of the manager (Craft, 2013).
The importance of education is immense in effective decision making (Craft, 2013). It teaches us to implement ethics in our professional as well as personal lives. The Universities in Singapore emphasizes on ethical decision making in corporate organizations (Craft, 2013). The “Code of Ethics” is being taught in universities and the same is applicable in professional organizations too (Craft, 2013). This states the expectations from the employees. I am also an employee of the organization and it is my duty to safeguard the interests of my fellow employees. I strive to create a “humanized” workplace, which is an innovative type of workplace that promotes meaningful work and sustainable jobs. I aim for creating a meaningful workplace in which the jobs are designed to meet the psychological requirements of the employees. The professional life should be enriching to an employee rather than being an obstacle in the path of success.
I can undertake the non-consequentialist theories which involve the identification of certain duties for the agents to perform (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2016). This approach would help me to preserve the human dignity. The dignity of the female employee is of utmost importance. This theory would also help me to maintain the natural rights of the employees (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2016). I would be able to do the fair treatment of the female employee. It is the right of the employee to work in a respectful environment. I would transfer the female employee in a more secure job role where she would face minimal issues of sexual harassment.
Alternatively, I can take the utilitarian approach of solving ethical dilemmas (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2016). This approach would help me to support the concerned female employee for her happiness. If she is transferred to a more secure job location, she would get mental peace and it would reduce her pain to a great extent. She can concentrate on her job and her productivity rates would increase considerably. I should calculate the benefits as well as disadvantages of my decision and select the best alternative. The value of an unhappy employee is measured with the resentment of the male employees. The point of view of the male employees can be heard and they can be given a suitable answer. However, there is no appropriate answer to the problems of the female employee. Hence, decision needs to be taken in favor of her.
The egoistic approach cannot be actually considered in this scenario (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2016). This approach would enable me to highlight my own interest and ignore the interest of the organization (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2016). I cannot ignore the interests of the organization. I have to take such a decision that satisfies the objectives of the organization as well as provide suitable solution to the concerned female employee. However, I would like to support the female employee in every possible way.
I would select the well being of the employees after considering the above influences and the various personal characteristics of mine. This alternative would satisfy personal ideologies and ethical beliefs.
The character of Mike Gustavsson was against the debate motion. He supported education on ethical leadership and considered that the top management of a firm is responsible for creating an environment of sustainable ethical leadership. He possessed high moral values, as described in Virtue Ethics of Normative Ethics (Hursthouse, 2013). He is in Maxim 3 of Universality in Kant’s Ethics as he is a discretionary stakeholder. He belongs to the Stage 6 of the Kohlberg’s theory (Gibbs, 2013). He possesses universal principles such as human rights, equality and justice. He demonstrated universal ethical principles. He failed to respect the rights and equality of his daughter and hence he can be placed in the stage 5 of Moral Development Theory (Gibbs, 2013).
Jan Edwards displayed ethical leadership in a shareholder focused economy. Clean Solutions Inc. focused on ethical leadership models in addition to the profitability parameters. This was displayed by their immense participation in the charitable involvements. The firm focused on the education concerning ethical leadership and emphasized that graduates should possess social responsibility skills, interpersonal skills and people management skills. The firm also believed in the principles of the shareholders. Jan can be considered as a dominant stakeholder as she demonstrated power and legitimacy. She demonstrated the elements of Triple Bottom Line- social sustainability, environmental sustainability and economic sustainability (Savitz, 2012). She demonstrated characteristics of feminist ethics model. She can be placed in Stage 2 of the Kohlberg’s model. Jan can be regarded as an individual seeking self- actualization and self-esteem, as per Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (Funder, 2015). Jan concentrated on improving the community by showing mutual respect and justice to the community. She could be placed in Stage 6 as she wanted to modify the current trend by her own ethical principles, even if it deviated from the workplace norms.
Mei-Hua Felung acted against the debate motion. She emphasized the importance of ethical leadership in an economy that is focused on the shareholders. She maintained her leadership based on ethical grounds even after the presence of external factors such as public perceptions, tax rules, legal obligations and others. She is present in Stage 5 and Stage 6 of the Moral Development Theory by Kohlberg. She possesses good interpersonal relationships with external as well as internal stakeholders. She is also aware of the existing tax laws as well as the individual rights. She is trained in the accountancy regulations and hence belonged to Maxim 1 of consistency in the Kant’s Deontological theory (Dierksmeier, 2013). She needed to undertake legitimate actions as she was the accountant of the firm. She demonstrated ethical leadership and maintained the image of the accountant by adopting tax avoidance measures.
Deshi Chen supported the debate motion as he believed that ethical leadership is not required in business school courses. He emphasized on the fact that ethical leadership usually prevents practicality in situations. He argued that ethical leadership is not recognized all round the world. It is not even rewarded. The world gives more importance to profit generation rather than ethical leadership. Deshi demonstrated the theory of egoism by treating himself morally correct. He also displayed least utilization of personal interests. He displayed the Stage 2 characteristics of the moral development model (Cushman, 2013).
All the four characters, except Deshi, strongly believed in the fact that ethical leadership is possible in a shareholder based economy. They also believed that business school should incorporate classes on ethical codes of behaviors. Deshi was the only person who didn’t believe in ethical course in business schools. Deshi can be regarded as the most ethical person due to his transparency while Mei-Hua can be considered as the most unethical one (displayed speech-act contradictions).
“The Case of the Holiday” was reviewed and the ethical dilemmas concerning each character are identified. The character of Boris is explained in detail.
Boris faced a high degree of ethical dilemma, which was discussed by Team 1. The dilemma was caused due to the planned holiday of Boris and coincidence of the holiday with the product launch of the client. This situation forced Boris to think about whether he should cancel his holiday plans for the purpose of important professional commitments. His dilemma concerned that whether he should dilute the business prospects by postponing/cancelling the product launch or focusing on his personal life progress (the expense of relationship with Swee Lan).
The team 2 depicted the ethical dilemma of Boris’s manager. The manager had an ethical dilemma between the requests of the client, profitability of the company and employee welfare. He did not want to spoil the holiday plans of Boris, however he was also reluctant to let go a valuable client that would bring repeat orders for the company. The manager was responsible for safeguarding the interests of the company and to prevent it from any kinds of financial loss. He was in a fix to jeopardize the lucrative prospects from the organizational point of view.
The ethical dilemma of Swee Lan was portrayed by Team 3. She faced the dilemma after discussion with Boris regarding cancellation of their holiday at Hong Kong. She has certain influences on the decision making of Boris. She made Boris experience ethical dilemmas between the work commitments and relationship commitments. She didn’t wanted to compromise the career prospects of Boris, but at the same time, she wanted to materialize the holiday plans. The dilemma of Swee Lan was derived from the reaction of her parents, which fostered relationship dilemmas in Boris.
The last team, Team 4, discussed about the ethical dilemmas of Boris’s colleagues. They reacted after hearing that Boris had cancelled his holiday for the benefit of the organization. Marcus and his friends wanted to implement “enhanced employee standards” in the organization. They feared that the consequences of Boris’s decision could impact their lives in the future as well. As a result, they were connected with Boris from an empathetic point of view. This is the reason they criticized the decisions of Boris. They presumed that it was really a tough decision to select one between Swee Lan and the manager.
The ethical dilemma of Boris can be explained by various ethical theories. Boris was in the Stage 1 of Kohlberg’s moral development theory (Gibbs, 2013). He was obedient in his workplace (by cancellation of his trip) so that he is not punished or dismissed from the workplace. If he declined the product launch of the client he may be considered as “inappropriate” for the company, which may lead to any forms of punishment. He also displayed utilitarian rule as he accepted the request of his presence at the product launch, which meant a lucrative career for him (Hayry, 2013). The moral intensity of Boris is featured by social consensus, proximity and consequences. There could have been various consequences like fall in the career, spoilage of relationship with Swee Lan or Marcus. Boris displayed “Type A” characteristics – aggressiveness, competitive spirit and ambitious outlook (Broad, 2014). He displayed a high degree of ownership and he was interested in the work related matters. He portrayed egoistic approach by giving maximum emphasize to task completion rather than the opportunity costs involved. He chose to be present during the product launch of the company and hence sacrifice the meeting with Swee Lee and her parents.
The first part of the essay needed to identify a business related ethical dilemma in my professional life. The identification of the dilemma demonstrates my critical thinking abilities (Paul & Elder, 2013). There are many instances of my professional life that I could have citied. I have chosen this particular dilemma because it was concerned with the ethical behavioral aspects in the workplace. The presence of the interpersonal skills also helped me to successfully complete this module. The first part of the essay demonstrated my problem solving skills, decision making skills and assertiveness (Proctor, 2014). I worked with others in my workplace to explore and ponder over the existing issues. I identified, explained and provided a solution to the existing problem. I identified the main issue and utilized my decision making abilities to propose a solution. I decided on the issue and communicated my ideas as well as beliefs to the concerned entities. I have flexibility in my work approach as I was concerned with the most appropriate practices that would be best for the concerned employee (Allen et al., 2013). I am able to convey my decisions to my colleagues and hence display team working skills. I respected the opinions of my team members.
The second part of the essay needed me to analyze the characters in the given case scenarios. My analytical abilities, self confidence and positive attitude helped me to review the given case studies (Robles, 2012). The display of the ethical leadership role by the given characters was critically analyzed by me. The characters also displayed resembled to the popular ethical theories such as Kohlberg’s theory and others. I identified the similarities as I am confident about my abilities. I also possess good communication skills, both verbal and non-verbal communication (Robles, 2012). This is because I am able to write down my thoughts in a coherent manner. This module helped me to understand the practical implementation of Kohlberg’s moral development theory and Kant’s deontological theory in a professional environment.
References
Capuzzi, D., & Stauffer, M. D. (2016). ACA Counseling and Psychotherapy: Theories and Interventions. John Wiley & Sons.
Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 221-259.
Divanbeigi, R., & Ramalho, R. (2015). Business regulations and growth.World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (7299).
Ferner, A., Edwards, T., & Tempel, A. (2012). Power, institutions and the cross-national transfer of employment practices in multinationals. Human Relations, 65(2), 163-187.
Kadiresan, V., & Javed, N. K. (2015). Discrimination in Employment and Task Delegation at Workplace in the Malaysian Context. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 5(7), 29-41.
Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2014). The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 145-165.
Lim, L. Y. (2015). Beyond gender: The impact of age, ethnicity, nationality and economic growth on women in the Singapore economy. The Singapore Economic Review, 60(02), 1550020.
Napasri, T., & Yukongdi, V. (2015). A study of Thai female executives: perceived barriers to career advancement. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 4(3), 108.
Shah, M. A. M. M., Jody, J. M., & Shahudin, M. H. (2012). Gender Discrimination at the Workplace: In the Purview of International Legal Framework and Islamic Approach.
Smith, I. P., Oades, L., & McCarthy, G. (2013). The Australian Corporate Closet, Why It’s Still So Full: A Review of Incidence Rates for Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Gender Identity Discrimination in the Workplace. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 9(1), 51.
Tsaur, S. H., & Tang, Y. Y. (2012). Job stress and well-being of female employees in hospitality: The role of regulatory leisure coping styles.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1038-1044.
Yousaf, S., Humayon, A. A., Rasheed, M. I., Ahmed, H. M., & Danish, R. Q. (2014). Factors Affecting Retention of Female Employees in Organizations.
Part B
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work–family conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility.Personnel Psychology, 66(2), 345-376.
Broad, C. D. (2014). Five types of ethical theory (Vol. 2). Routledge.
Cushman, F. (2013). Action, outcome, and value a dual-system framework for morality. Personality and social psychology review, 17(3), 273-292.
Dierksmeier, C. (2013). Kant on virtue. Journal of business ethics, 113(4), 597-609.
Funder, D. C. (2015). The Personality Puzzle: Seventh International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company.
Gibbs, J. C. (2013). Moral development and reality: Beyond the theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt. Oxford University Press.
Hayry, M. (2013). Liberal utilitarianism and applied ethics. Routledge.
Hursthouse, R. (2013). Normative virtue ethics. ETHICA, 645.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2013). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Pearson Education.
Proctor, T. (2014). Creative problem solving for managers: developing skills for decision making and innovation. Routledge.
Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 453-465.
Savitz, A. (2012). The triple bottom line: How today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success–and how you can too. John Wiley & Sons.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download