The Utilitarian, Libertarian, Deontological and Virtue Ethics in Business - Assignment Example

Name: Course: Topic: Business Ethics Assignment Institution: Date: Business Ethics Assignment Introduction Ethics refer to the behaviour or code of conduct that govern a group or an individual. It is the complex of beliefs, standards or ideas that characterizes a group or people. Aroskar et al (1997) stated that a dilemma is a situation that presents the choice of alternatives that are equally unsatisfactory. Based on these two definitions, an ethical dilemma can be defined as the situation in which the choice to be made would compromise the standards, beliefs or ideas of the organization. Such situations present a challenge to the management since the choices made both have undesirable effects. This paper shall explain the ethical dilemmas that are faced in the case study by Hasson (2007). The paper will also Compare and contrast the utilitarian, libertarian, deontological and virtue ethics perspectives on the dilemmas identified. Finally, it will Identify, explain and justify an ethical perspective that will work best in the situation faced in the study. Briefly explain the main ethical dilemma(s) in the case study The main ethical dilemma in the story has to be an issue that pushes the company or the individual in a situation that will make them choose the right thing for them, or decide to satisfy the interests of the stakeholders. In the case study, Mike Fields faces the dilemma of whether or not to unravel the scheme. He has to decide between straining the relationship between his boss and himself or to maintain the cordial relationship by not revealing the scam. However, he decides to blow the whistle on the channel stiffing scheme by Greg Wilson, the divisional sales manager. This scheme involved shipping of goods to a few of Greg’s bigger customers and then billing and booking those sales with a side agreement that they would not have to take the ownership, they could return the shipments made at any time and they could also get a discount of 2 % on goods that they accepted and paid for in the subsequent quarter. This scheme was meant to meet quarterly targets of sales and to trigger bonuses. Owing to this whistle blowing, Mike was wrongfully terminated and he filed a law suit against the company. Another dilemma in the case study is that of Greg Wilson. He is faced with the choice of deciding between going ahead with the scheme that will make him and his sales team perform highly, by giving some of bribery to the customers. This bribe or kick back involved the exchange of benefits to consumers so as to attain some advantages in their business transactions. While such a scheme would increase the performance of the sales team, it is against the policies of the company. In addition, the success of the scheme would be beneficiary to the sales team in terms of reputation and would have an overall benefit to the company in terms of profits made. The dilemma is for Greg to choose between benefiting his team and the company or to maintain company policies and perform normally. The number of departures that were experienced by the company after the scheme had taken effect indicates that the individuals were aware of the scheme and knew it would compromise their ethical standards (Hanson, 2007, pp. 34). Terry Samples, the sales vice president at Galvatrens, is faced with the dilemma of choosing to listen to the allegations by Mike and punish Greg for the scheme, or to ignore the allegations. The right standards would require that the vice president looks into the matter and deal with Greg based on the findings. However, Terry chooses to fire Mike, an act of retaliation on what Mike did by revealing the scheme. Resignation of the vice president of sales with no proper reason could be as a result of the ethical compromise that he was faced with. He compromised the ethical standards of the company and fired Mike rather than handle the issue reported to him. The best way to go would have been to carry out an investigation of the scheme. In addition, the grounds by which he fires Mike raise some ethical issues. Another ethical dilemma in the case study is faced by the customers. They have been presented with a scheme that would make their transaction with the company easier than it has been. However, the whole essence implies bribery in some form. Therefore, the customers have the choice of deciding to compromise their professional interaction with the company and take in the idea of the scheme or report to the company management about the scheme presented to them by the sales manager. The services they get from Galvatrens can be offered by another company; meaning the customers has the option of not staying loyal to the organization by pursuing their own interests. It is interesting to note that the investigations revealed that the customers chose to ignore the offer made to them by Wilson. The CEO of Galvatrens, Chip, is faced by the dilemma of choosing between supporting the employee or supporting the company. The dilemma is to decide on corporate gain or to follow the concern of employees. Chip focuses on the quantitative aspects of the company by allowing the senior HR vice president to obstruct the company policy of confidentially resolving ethical issues through appointing an ombudsman to regulate and oversee any issues. The CEO supports the decision to deny and fight the charges raised by Mike on wrongful termination. The COO of Galvatrens, Harry Mart, is also faced with the dilemma of handling the tip raised by Terry on misconduct in the company or neglecting the issue. His role is meant to oversee the daily operations of the company. It is his negligence of the issue that led to the company facing litigation by Mike. The COO therefore failed to address the human resource aspects of the operations of the company. From the dilemmas discussed, it is clear that the mentioned individuals were faced by the decision to make between following the rightful standards or choosing their own approach based on what they thought would suit them or the company. The situations faced were dilemmas because they presented the choice between what was ethically right and what was not right but would still work for the organization. Compare and contrast the utilitarian, libertarian, deontological and virtue ethics perspectives on the dilemma(s) you have identified Mike Fields discovered the channel-stuffing scheme and considered the consequences of his actions in making his decision. First, he was faced by the challenge of not revealing the scheme and as a result, taint the image of his company to their clients. On the other hand, blowing the whistle on the scheme would risk his relationship with his boss and would even lead to termination of his job, just as it did. The other appropriate way that the company would have handled this case would have been to punish the sales manager, Mr. Grey, after investigation of the whole scheme. Mike Fields approach was utilitarian since he considered the consequence of his actions and realised that the only way to realise the overall good of the company would have been to reveal the scheme. While this had the risk of him losing his job, he would leave with his shoulders high since he would have done the right thing in blowing the whistle on the scheme. According to Robertson and Walter (2007), the utilitarian approach works in the consequentialist philosophy that holds that the correctness or how wrong an action is depends on reference to how good or how bad the consequence of the action is. Therefore, the action by Mike Fields was based on this philosophy since he considered how good and how bad the consequence of revealing and not revealing the ongoing scheme would be. According to Van de Burgt et al (2008), the deontological ethics approach focuses on behaving morally without regarding the consequences of the actions. Based on this approach, Mike Fields approach to the problem in the company can be linked to the deontological approach of ethics. This is because he was aware of the effects of blowing the whistle on his job. We are told that his work performance had deteriorated over the last ten months of his stay at Galvatrens. This meant that any extra strain on his relationship with his boss would result in him losing his job. Even with this in mind, Mike goes ahead and decides to do what he thinks is morally right. He had no consideration of what the consequences of this action would be on him. Mike does the necessary duty of blowing the whistle because he thinks it is the right thing to do. Based on the acts of Greg Wilson, his actions can be referred to as teleopathy. Goodpaster (2004) purported that teleopathy refers to an unbalanced pursuit of some purpose by individuals or by organizations. This kind of approach affects reasoning, perception and action in the way the individual perceives the world. This definition suggests that Greg Wilson’s approach is teleopathic. Greg has been faced by the temptation to raise the sales made by the company. However, the means by which these sales shall be raised is a compromise to the policies of the company. However, he is inclined to one side; the side of increasing the company’s sales, and he does not consider the consequences of his actions. This pursuit of his goals of raising the sales was rooted in the desire to make his department perform better. It could also be argued that his actions were governed by the goals of his department. He has to work and make sure that the sales made by the company re high. Therefore, when faced by the opportunity to increase the sales, he decides to work unethically. This brings in the teleopathic approach. According to Jost and Jost (2009), virtue ethics refer to a framework where the main focus is on the agent and the person performing the action rather than the consequences of the actions. This approach to moral ethics implies that the individual will neglect the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. This approach was used by the COO and the CEO of the company. The two knew of the repercussions of their actions after realising there was a scheme ongoing. However, they chose to neglect the part of the fired employee and went ahead to defend the company, holding that the employee was rightfully terminated. Gardimer (2003) further added that under the virtue ethics, account of the significance of the emotional human experience element is not considered. This reflects the acts by Chip and Matt as they decide to ignore the right way of handling the issue faced by the company. In addition, Terry Samples, who is the vice president of sales, also decides to follow the virtue ethics by ignoring the moral way of handling the matter at hand and deciding to fire Mike Fields. In fact, the vice president tries to blackmail Fields by telling him that he would either take up a lower post and a transfer to a new town, an act that would not work well for Mike Fields, or he would lose his job. Therefore, Terry did not give due consideration to the employee. Rather, he paid attention on the company. His resignation after one week of this action reveals that his conscience was not clear on the issue. Identify, explain and justify an ethical perspective that you think will work best in the situation – you may want to use a combination of ethical perspectives. In the situation, the best ethical perspective in solving the issue would have been the utilitarian approach. This means that the company’s management should have considered the consequences of the actions from an overall perspective before making the best decision. Having been faced by the issue that would easily spoil the reputation of the company, it would have been appropriate for the company to consider how the company would be perceived by the clients and prospective employees. As noted in the case study, the company had at some point been faced by low application of MBA students. This would be attributed to the reputation of the company on how it treated its employees. In fact, Hasson (2007) stated that it had been revealed that the company was not the place to be; and this was the reason for the defection and the low application by MBA students. The company should have considered such consequences in handling the issue of the scheme as well as handling the firing of the employee, Mike, since this would be considered by prospective employees together with the company employees as they work for the company and as they look forward to working with the company. Conclusion Individuals in the company were faced by a lot of ethical dilemmas. Each of the individuals used their own ethical perspective in making their decisions. However, the choices made had their own consequences and while some individuals considered the consequences in making their decisions, some were one-sided and only focused on their interests. Whatever the perspective, the consequences would be faced based on the decision made. As noted by Beeri et al (2013), the best approach would have been the one that protects the interests of both the company and its employees in the long run. References Aroskar et al, 1997, Ethical Dilemmas and Nursing Practice, 4th Edition, Appleton and Lange Stamford, Connecticut. Beeri et al, 2013, Advancing Ethics in Public Organizations: The Impact of an Ethics Program on Employees’ Perceptions and Behaviors in a Regional Council, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 112, Iss. 1, pp. 59-78. Gardimer, P. 2003, A virtue ethics approach to moral dilemmas in medicine, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol 23: 297-302. Goodpaster, K., 2004, Ethics or excellence? Conscience as a check on the unbalanced pursuit of organizational goals, Ivey Business Journal Vol 1, pp. 1-9. Hasson, R., 2007, Why Didn’t We Know?, HBR Case Study, Harvard Business Review, pp. 33-44. Jost, J. & Jost, L., 2009, Virtue ethics and the social psychology of character: Philosophical lessons from the person–situation debate, Journal of Research in Personality, 43: 253–254. Robertson, M. & Walter, G. 2007, A Critical Reflection on Utilitarianism as the Basis for Psychiatric Ethics, Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, Vol 2, Iss. 1, pp. 1-3. Van de Burgt et al, 2008, Journalism Ethics in Perspective: Desirability and Feasibility of a Separate Code of Conduct for Online Journalism, Journalism Ethics in Perspective, University of Amsterdam. Read More