Ethical Behaviour in Business - Essay Example

Name Essay 24 June 2008 Analysing Ethical Issues in IT Introduction In our world today, Ethics are an issue that hound the everyday life. The ability to distinguish and behave according to what is right and wrong is the supreme goal of any human being’s life. Ethics assist people in resolving the dilemma of choosing the right from wrong and in differentiating between what is moral and what is immoral? Ethics are usually based on religion, education, environment, personal values, etc. In business, ethics are a vital tool in the overall decision making process. The relationship between the two is somewhat contradictory and ambiguous (Boomer, 1987). Still ethics are the guiding stars by which most of the businesses adhere to. By definition, business ethics are a set of standards and principles that direct behaviour in the world of business. Behaviour that is ethical is critical in business because business is a vocation that is founded on a trust in the actions of every single individual involved in every single matter. Our economy is based on business and any worthwhile business must be based on the assumption of trust. In order to identify ethical behaviour in business, it is a good idea to be armed with the knowledge of ethical theories and the underlying analysis of the said thoughts. Applications of these ethical theories to virtual situations do help the individuals in formulating decisions that mould both attitude and behaviour. With a thorough knowledge of relevant ethical theories a person may be able to decide which theory is most appropriate in a given situation and can base his or her principles upon the said theories. An Ethical Analysis Using Normative Ethics Subsequently, behavioural models of ethical and unethical behaviour do aid managers in identifying the reasons behind an employee’s action, and then arrive at a reasonable decision on how to best address that particular employee and the situation at hand. The given case study contains many questionable acts committed by the concerned professionals. An attempt to qualify these acts as being ethical or unethical in the light of the existing ethical theories will surely prove to be immensely enlightening. Concerning Professor Johnson Professor Jeremiah Johnson’s decision of accepting a grant from Industry Development Program (IDP) to conduct a software assurance research project despite being aware that his Software Assurance Theory may not be a viable project definitely constitutes a questionable act. The Professor’s act of accepting a grant for the particular project do seems to be ethical, as being a mature and learned person he exhibited a postconventional level of maturity that considered the quest for knowledge above other things. The probability of the detection of his behaviour being fairly low with no existence of base motives, this act of his is no doubt legal. Being an academician, he was definitely guided by the unwritten professional ethic of placing knowledge above short term profits. This decision is also in tandem with the academic environment in which he works. This decision certainly stands its grounds as per the Theory of Subjective Relativism. In the given context, what is ethical or unethical will depend upon the concerned authorities’ mode of thinking. Kantianism also supports this decision that is conclusively based on the personal and universal belief in the sanctity of pure research. Such decisions do contribute to the welfare of all humanity in the long run, which Utilitarianism justifies as being ethical. Social Contract Theory also seems to support this decision as everybody knows that all practical applications do find their source in the pure academic research. Hence the given decision of Professor Jeremiah stands to be ethical by all norms and principles. Professor Johnson’s use of the SCM software from other grant to further his SAT project can be justified on the same grounds. It is a known fact that scientific research is a cash guzzling affair and requires ample resources and assets. An Ethical Standpoint on CTU’s Act Another questionable act is the Charlston Technical University’s (CTU) decision to implement a student smart card project without the benefit of disclosure to students of what information shall be stored on the smart cards. This decision though being fairly legal does compromise on social sensibility. It is also unprofessional in the sense that it is one sided and authoritative and has been taken without taking into confidence the student bodies. It does have the potential to vitiate the academic and professional environment in the given organisation (Staff). Relativism does not support this decision as no individual without any exception cherishes any unsolicited access to personal information and it negates the principles of Subjective Relativism. However the University’s decision can be appreciated if it is motivated by the Kantian dogma of achieving the overall welfare of students. Principle of Utility also tends to support it in that context. Still this decision fails the Social Contract Theory by showing scarce respect for individual privacy and opinion. Thus this decision deserves to be qualified as unethical. Brian Wilson and Normative Ethics Brian Wilson’s act of soliciting unauthorized access to Altiora Consulting’s marketing system by using the secretary’s account name and password also stands to be questionable (Taylor, 1984). This defies all norms and principles of law, society and professionalism. This decision of Brian Wilson betrays an unscrupulous and eavesdropping personality that will not hesitate to challenge the norms of law and morality, provided such acts go without being detected (Lykhen, 1957). Brain definitely has a safety motivated personality. Subjective Relativism may support this act but it definitely stands to be unethical by Kantian standards. Brian resorted to this act without any consideration for its utility or overall benefit. This act of Brian also betrays the Social Contract Theory. Thus this decision of Brian is unquestionably unethical. Brian’s second questionable act of copying the details about the smart cards project also authenticates the above analysis and classifies it as unethical. His decision of passing on this information to others also offends the nonconsequentialist theories like Kantianism and Social Contract Theory in the sense that the smart cards project was not a secret well kept from students. Hence student bodies were free to voice their protest against it if they needed to. Now revealing any details about it at this juncture will only foment more trouble in the institution (Layton). Brian Wilson’s unethical act of using Altiora’s property to print his assignment also further reveals his lack of conscience and unscrupulous personality. Altiora’s Behaviour Altiora Consulting’s plans to sell to both CTU and SunState University (SSU) the same basic system gained from the specifications taken fro SSU betrays the customers’ trust and confidence and infringes the intellectual property laws (Simon, 1976). This decision also goes against the established and respected social and professional ethics. Such a corporate fraud may qualify the test of Relativism, but will definitely falter at the alter of Kantianism. Altiora Consulting’s is motivated by the urge for augmenting short term profits and compromises the requirements and well being of its customers. Doing so, it defies the principles of Utilitarianism and Social Contract Theory. Therefore, this decision of Altiora Consulting’s can be branded as being unethical. Altiora’s non-disclosure to CTU about the inferiority of its specifications and its plan to use SSU specifications for the basic system quoted for both the universities again significantly contributes to the same line of argument and thereby stands to be unethical and unprofessional. Bommer et. al’s Analysis Many a times it has been seen that managers tend to follow a bifurcated ethical system. They do not incorporate the general social values and ethics in their work culture, unless they are not meticulously incorporated within their professional or work environment. How often do we hear the excuse that ethics do not or can not go along with business? Such an attitude tends to regard business as a dry and mechanical activity devoid of all ethics and the subsequent emotions related to them. Bommer et. al’s model tends to grapple with this dilemma in a very realistic and scientific way. Professor Jeremiah’s decision of accepting a grant for a nonviable project is motivated by the academic environment in which he works and is devoid of any legal glitches or malicious intentions. His academic background certainly endorses the sanctity of pure research, without any craving for short term gains. Any other thorough research professional in his place would have taken the same decision. By doing so he exhibited a capacity for independent thinking and a moral sovereignty. Thus his decision is definitely ethical. The CTU’s decision of going ahead with the smart card project though being perfectly legal do exhibits a deficiency of social sensitivity and democratic norms. It seems to be purely motivated by short term goals and expediencies and conclusively compromises on the spirit of openness and student participation. As juniors mostly imitate the attitudes of their authority figures, this decision of CTU will have a detrimental impact on the students in the long run. This decision is in conflict with the academic spirit of openness and liberality and is thus unethical. It will only motivate the students to resort to dissent or to solicit unethical means to escape detection and possible persecution. The questionable acts on the part of Brian Wilson like stealing secretary’s account name and password or copying and transferring the details of smart card project to outside sources are unquestionably illegal and unethical. Neither they adhere to legal standards nor do they satisfy acceptable social values and mores. These acts on the part of Brian also betray the professionally established standards of conduct in the IT industry. Brian resorted to such behaviour because he was quite sure of not being detected, which betrays a personality prone to instant gratification at the cost of ethics. Such examples do have the potential to vitiate the over all work environment. Altiora Consulting’s intentions of selling both the CTU and SSU the same smart card system designed as per the specifications submitted by SSU and of not informing CTU about the inferiority of its specifications refutes all acceptable standards of legal compliance, social ethics and professional norms. In fact such depravity on the part of the higher officials in this firm reveals the unethical work culture prevalent in it that is guided by a raw hunger for short term profits. Such a compromise of legal dictates, professional values and customer confidence definitely calls to be dubbed as unethical and immoral. Conclusion Ethics do play a vital role in the world of business. Most of the businesses go by trust and ethics are the bulwark upon which rests the foundations of all genuine and authentic enterprises (Boomer). Thus Relativism taken alone can not serve as a sole criterion for establishing the integrity of business decisions. Any above board business decision must not only qualify the established social, legal, professional and personal principles of morality but must also stand to be true on most of the existing and recognized theories and doctrines of ethics. Hence all the professionals and businesses must go through the intense process of ethical catechism that is a must for securing safe and secure economies and societies. Works Cited Bommer, M. May 1987, A Behavioral Model of Ethical and Unethical Decision Making, Journal of Business Ethics: pg. 265 Layton, E.T. 1981, The Revolt of the Engineers, OH: Care Weston Reserve University Lykhen, D.T. 1957, A Study of Anxiety in the Sociopathic Personality, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55, 6-10 Simon, H. 1976, The New Science of Management, New York: Harper and Row Staff: 1979; Gifts to Buyers, Purchasing, April 11, 19 Taylor, R.E. 1984, White Collar Crime Getting Less Attention, The Wall Street Journal, Vol. 203, No. 23, p. 27 Read More