Every individual possess a distinctive moral responsibility and principles that influence his or her actions and behaviour. The conflict that arises in these personal views and opinion is what we know as a dilemma. I have been an employee of company X since past 5 years. The company is a small and medium-sized enterprise. Lately, I have faced a situation at my workplace that have put me in an ethical dilemma. The manager of our company Madam A, seem to have favoured a particular employee in our company named Mr B. Now we all know that favouritism is a form of unethical act, which is not acceptable at any workplace. However, Madam A has offered Mr B with increment who coincidently is the son of her good friend. Mr B works as a junior subordinate in our company and until now have not been a significant contributor for the company, nonetheless, was privileged with an increment. Such action is a clear violation of professional ethics and I am not willing to accept it.
The company will have a negative impact as a result of favouritism. The head of management is responsible for offering promotions and assign an employee with responsibilities based on his or her capabilities. However, when these are compromised and the management ignores employee value then the company shall cease itself to attract skilled and qualified employees. The company is bound to be damaged eventually as it compromises with qualified employees and practice favouritism instead. Employee favouritism can also be termed as employee cancer since it creates an unjust environment in the workplace, which eventually generates conflict among employees and thus, downgrading the company’s position and reputation (Bute, 2011). A sickness as such must be uprooted completely then only it is possible for it to be cured. Therefore, I am in a situation of ethical dilemma to pick an option to either report this unjust practice of favouritism to the Director or endure this situation silently as my other colleagues do. After a lot of thought, I decided to go for the former option. The Director of the company was co-operative enough and listened to the entire scenario. He decided to investigate the matter and take necessary actions against it.
One of the characteristics of an ethical issue is moral intensity, which influences the ethical level of a decision (Jones, 1991). It is less likely for an individual to take unethical decision when there is high level of moral intensity of an issue (Coram et al., 2008). In order to increase the chances of healthy competition among employees the authorities of the company must be reported with such unethical practice of favouritism then only such practice can be eliminated from a workplace. In reference to the social consensus, the amount of support that I received from my peers in exposing the unjustified practice of favouritism at our company to our Director increased my moral intensity. Adding to this, our Director already knew about this ill practice of favouritism in our company and he did not delay a minute in initiating investigation about this reported matter, as it would hamper company’s position as well as reputation.
The shorter the amount of time between the investigation procedure and its resulting outcomes the greater shall be temporal immediacy and moral intensity (Jones, 1991). The resulting outcome after the completion of investigation will bring in immediate amendments in the employees welfare of the company. The above-mentioned scenario includes the managerial Head Madam A, the Director of the Company including the employees Mr B, me and my other colleagues therefore, the level of proximity is high as every individual belongs to the same organisation. One of the components of moral intensity is concentration of effect, which includes the opposite function of the total number of people being affected by the ethical act (Jones, 1991). The action adopted by me brought positive impact in employees’ morale as this fixed the issue of favouritism and brought in a more stable rewarding system. Hence, the company’s reputation was also regained by discarding the unjust act of favouritism from the workplace.
Since 1980’s, corporations tend to form a set of code of ethics which have a bunch of discretionary statements. It allows an organisation or a profession to allow reasonable beliefs, actions and values and to develop a behaviour among employees which is ethical in nature (Crane & Matten, 2010). It is because of code of ethics that I was able to define ethical dilemma. Madam A violated the company’s code of ethics as she practiced an unfair and unjustified act that was not acceptable from a high-end professional like her.
Stakeholders are individuals who either can affect or be affected from the achievements of business goals (Van & Greenwood, 2011). Henceforth, being an employee of the company X, I am legally bonded with the company’s status. It is necessary for me to strive to do my best regarding the injustice practice that affects me as well as my fellow colleagues. However, my designation does not allow me to eliminate the injustice act of favouritism from the company X and because of which I had to seek help from my senior authority. The Director is a dominant stakeholder of the company and being the legitimate policy maker of the company has the right to investigate the matter (Mitchell et al., 1997). In addition to this, he possess the power of eliminating such unethical act from the workplace as he did in this scenario.
In the above-mentioned scenario, I could have taken into consideration more than one approach in order to judge the ethical dilemma. My decision to report the activity of favouritism to senior authority is a consequentialist approach, which was morally right thing to do (Rand, 1957). I believe in equality and fair play at work in terms of rewards and appreciations or any other aspects. I will not hesitate to report such unethical act to my seniors even though it risks my job. Now if I had taken the utilitarian approach then I would have to consider how much my decision of reporting the unethical act to senior authority do well for the maximum number of people (Bentham et al., 2005). The reporting of the matter to the Director as observed in the scenario lead to the elimination of the practice of favouritism from the company. This resulted in increased employee morale and productivity. In addition to this, a fair and equal working environment was secured. The reputation of the company also improved. Hence, the level of benefit for the employees as well as the company is maximum.
In this scenario, both the consequentialist and non-consequentialist approach would have worked efficiently. Henceforth, I could have also took the non-consequentialist approach. In order to justify my decision to report the unethical act to the Director, I put forward the Kantian ethics maxim 1 which include the consistency concept (Kant, 1785). I believe that there should be a fair working environment everywhere. Equality in workplace is not just a moral responsibility of the authorities of the company even so it also increases the growth of the company. An equal and justified work environment boosts the morale of employees resulting in increase in their productivity level. Depending on the extremity of biased treatment of employees, the employee has a right to charge a lawsuit against the company which would ultimately weaken the company’s position for an extensive period (Imani, 2017).
In order to establish fairness and consistency in a workplace the company must provide a detailed description of the job, a transparent reporting structure and methodical assessment (American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2008). Prior to the hiring procedure, a company must give out a clear job description, the core responsibilities that comes with the job, a proper clarification regarding the qualifications that are required for the particular job. In addition to this, a 360-degree feedback system should be used for a fair and consistent review of the employees. The 360-degree feedback system is a new review system that gathers feedback from employee’s supervisor, colleagues and his or her own self-evaluation (Massingham et al., 2011). This system would enable a fair rewarding procedure and thus, ultimately eliminating the unethical practice of favouritism. It is obvious that these approaches can never solve the issue of favouritism in its own. The purpose of these approaches are meant to determine major ethical considerations for specific issues. In addition to this, it is in our hand to deliberate the unethical issue, carefully compare and contrast both the facts.
Motion: This Business School Believes That Ethical Leadership is Impossible in A Shareholder Focused Economy
Mr Gustavsson belongs to a utilitarian ethical group. He is completely against the argument which states that in a shareholder dominated economy the practice of ethical leadership is unsustainable. He believes that every company must follow the human rights and other governmental policies of the third world. This ideology puts him in the Kant’s maxim stage 2 of human dignity (Kant, 1785). The concern he feels for the young executives that they might face ethical issues and thus, the character of his shows signs of Kant’s maxim stage 2. He is a dormant stakeholder, as he only possesses power to influence the company and lacks the power of legitimacy and emergency claims (Mitchell et al., 1997). Later, Mr Gustavsson turns out to be a dangerous stakeholder who possess power and emergency claims, however, lacks legitimacy (Mitchell et. al, 1997).
Jan Edwards holds the authority of a chief executive officer and she as well stands against the above-mentioned arguement. Jan being an entrepreneur has a huge role in taking the company into the heights of success. In addition to this, she also enthusiastically takes part in charity events. Her actions put her in Kohlberg’s stage 4 of moral development as she responsibly performs her duties and responsibilities towards the society (Kohlberg, 1971). She holds the position of a dominant stakeholder.
Deshi, an undergraduate business student stands for the motion that in a shareholder dominated economy the practice of ethical leadership is unsustainable. His believes lie contradictory to business ethics as making profit is the only way to be successful in business. Hence, in context to Kohlberg’s moral development Deshi stands at stage 3 (Kohlberg, 1971). Deshi’s character determines him to be a good oriented boy who follows the business school’s ethics. However, he obeyed to study business school ethics, as it is mandatory to study the subject as part of the university’s syllabus. Therefore as a student, Deshi falls in stage 1 of Kohlberg’s moral development (Kohlberg, 1971).
Whereas Mei Hua stands against the motion which states that in a shareholder dominated economy the practice of ethical leadership is unsustainable. Being a senior manager, she strongly believes that it is essential to obey the stern code of ethics and accountancy guidelines that falls as part of ethical leadership. She falls in the utilitarian ethical group as she has benefited as well as satisfied the company’s shareholders by saving millions of taxes (Burns & Hart, 1970). By doing so, she is benefiting the company as well as the company’s shareholders. She believes that as she is favouring the company, the company as well must favour her in return. This belief puts her in Kohlberg’s stage 2 of moral development. She also follows the duty bound behaviour where she follows the company’s rules, policies, and thus making her a part of Kohlberg’s stage 4 of moral development. She also possess all the three attributes of a definitive stakeholder, which are legitimacy, power and urgent claims (Mitchell et al., 1997).
In the case of Borries and his decision to cancel the sanctioned holiday, a lot of issue arises as various characters in this scenario faces ethical dilemma. In addition to this, the other characters of this scenario have a varied range of response towards Borries’s decision.
In the initial stage of the situation, it is observed that Borries’s Manager faces an ethical dilemma that whether he should implore Borries to postpone his holiday for the sake of working on a company’s new project. The Manager has given Borries the right to make the final decision regarding the holiday. Adding to it, he has also offered him for full reimbursement of the expenses that he made for his vacation. This attitude of the Manager towards Borries puts him in stage 2 and 3 of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (Kohlberg, 1971). It is also noticed that in this scenario, the manager is identified as a dependant stakeholder since he has urgent claims and legitimacy, however, lacked power as he has given Borries the right to make a choice regarding his holiday (Mitchell et al., 1997).
Another character of this scenario is Swee Lan, girlfriend of Borries, who holds prominence in this scenario since, Borries was supposed to make a trip down to her hometown but now has to cancel since he has decided to stay for the sake of new project work. This has put her in an ethical dilemma to either support Borries’s decision of cancelling the holiday or disagree with his decision. However, Borries’s decision has left Swee Lan and her parents disappointed as it is observed that Asian family has priority for relationship and family values (Vieregge & Quick, 2011). Thus, putting her and her family in stage 4 of Kohlberg’s moral development (Kohlberg, 1971). In addition to this, they were identified as a discretionary stakeholder since they only possess the attribute of urgent claim and would not be able to influence Borries’s decision.
Marcus and his friends are yet other characters of this scenario who are affected by the decision of Borries. They have a belief that if Borries rejects Managers request then it would set a new example since they would respond similarly if they face a homogeneous circumstance in future. Their belief of hoping that Borries would reject Manager’s request puts them in Stage 2 of Kohlberg’s moral development. Adding to this, they are as well identified as discretionary stakeholders since they lack the power to change Borries’s ultimate decision.
Now, coming into the main character of the scenario Borries, he is falling into a dilemma of choosing between his personal and professional life. He has to make a choice of either staying with plan of taking a holiday trip to visit his girlfriend and her parents or take the decision to cancel his holiday for the sake of working in the new project. This situation clearly fulfils the six dimensions of Jone’s moral intensity and identifies it as an act of ethical dilemma. The intensity of his decision for both the options are extreme. If he chooses to cancel his trip then it might jeopardise his relationship with his girlfriend and if he chooses to reject Managers request then he would fall short of favours from his manager and would affect his performance review. In extreme case, his company might lose a significant client.
Now, if we take the entire scenario in context of magnitude of consequences, then if Borries chooses to cancel his trip then the company would be benefited, as he would be able to handle the new project. However, this decision would put a negative impact on Borries’s personal life. However, in context of social consensus, the Manager as well as the client would appreciate his decision and strengthen the relationship but his girlfriend and his friends would disagree with his decision.
The ultimate decision of Borries was to cancel the trip and resume his work to handle the new project. This approach has put him in a utilitarian ethical group (Burns & Hart, 1970). The tough decision has made him hope that it would favour him in way of a promotion or a reward. This thought has put him in Kohlberg’s stage 2 of moral development. In addition, his decision has put him in Kant’s maxim 1 since he has prioritised his duties and responsibilities of his professional life.
It has been evaluated that the most constructive skills that exists in a workplace are soft skills such as teamwork and communication skills; in fact, to some extent they appear to be more significant than professional skills (Fang, Lee & Koh, 2005). I am fortunate that I was able to learn and even improve my soft skills with the help of this module of Applied Business Ethics. I learnt the essence of teamwork as a way of discussion with my group members along with in-class debate and presentation task.
With the help of this module, I was able to apply Kant’s maxim 2 of human dignity in the discussions held in my group. I respected everyone’s feedbacks and perceptions that I received from my group members. I was able to learn the significance of communication with my group members until we reached consensus. The module helped me to identify other ethical approaches for instance, Kohlberg’s moral development stage 2 and 4 (Kohlberg, 1971).
It is quite evident that there might be a rise of conflict in a group since everyone has their own ideas and opinions. However, by practicing Kohlberg’s stage 2 of moral development we were able to identify our goal, which was to excel in our studies. Therefore, we strived to achieve that by applying best views and ideas.
References
American Society of Clinical Oncology. (2008). Strategies for Career Success: Effective Staff Management. Journal of Oncology Practice, 4(6), p. 305-309. Doi: 10.1200/JOP.0866501
Bentham, J., Etienne, D., Hildreth, R. (2005). Theory of Legislation: Translated from the French of Etienne Dumont. Adamant Media Corporation. p. 58. ISBN 978-1402170348.
Burns, J. and Hart, H. (1970). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Borgerson, J. L. (2007). On the Harmony of Feminist Ethics and Business Ethics. Business and Society Review, 112 (4), p. 477-509.
Bute, M. (2011). The Effects of Nepotism and Favouritism on Employee Behaviours and Human Resources Practices: A Research on Turkish Public Banks. TODADE’s Review of Public Administration, 5(1), p. 185-208.
Coram P., Glavovic, A., Ng, J. and Woodliff, D. R. (2008). The Moral Intensity of Reduced Audit Quality Acts. Auditing, 27(1), p. 127-149. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy.lib.sg/docview/216744978?accountid=12691
Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization, 3rd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University.
Fang, X., Lee, S., and Koh, S. (2005). Transition of Knowledge/Skills Requirement for Entry-Level IT Professionals: An Exploratory Study Based on Recruiters’ Perception. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46, (1), p. 58-70.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In A Different Voice: Women’s Conceptions of Self and of Morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), p. 481-517.
Imani, F. (2017). How to Treat Employees Fairly in the Workplace. Work.chron.com. Retrieved 08 August 2017, from https://work.chron.com/treat-employees-fairly-workplace-3070.html
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical Decision-making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), p. 366-395.
Kant, I. (1785). First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of Moral Development. Moral education, p. 23-92.
Massingham, P., Nguyen, T. N. Q., Massingham, R. (2011). Using 360-degree Peer Review to Validate Self-reporting in Human Capital Measurement. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(1), p. 43-74.
McMahon, J. M. and Harvey, R. J. (2007). The Effect of Moral Intensity on Ethical Judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(4), p. 335-357. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9174-6.
McMurtrey, M. E., Downey, J. P., Zeltmann, S. M., and Friedman, W. H. (2008). Critical Skill Sets of Entry-Level IT Professionals: An Empirical Examination of Perceptions from Field Personnel. Journal of Information Technology Education, 7, p. 101-120.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward A Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), p. 853–886.
Rand, A. (1957). Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House, p. 731.
Stuebs, M. and Sun, L. (2015). Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility. International Journal of Law and Management, 57(1), p. 38-52. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy.lib.sg/docview/1648568055?accountid=12691
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review, 11, p. 601-617.
Van, H. J. and Greenwood, M. (2011). Bringing Stakeholder Theory to Industrial Relations. Employee Relations, 33(1), p. 5-21. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425451111091627
Vieregge, M., and Quick, S. (2011). Cross-cultural Negotiations Revisited. Cross Cultural Management, 18(3), p. 313-326. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527601111152842
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
