Application of Ethical Theory to a Case Study Vignette - Essay Example

? Application of Ethical Theory to a Case Study Vignette APPLICATION OF ETHICAL THEORY TO A CASE STUDY VIGNETTE Most ethical decisions possess enough clarity for individuals to decide on their course of action rather easily. This is because most of these issues often pit wrong against right. Deciding on whether to embezzle company money, for example, is not a real ethical dilemma since this is stealing. However, things can become murky when there is more than one vital responsibility, right, or value. In this case, one has to choose one unpleasant alternative. This can be defined as an ethical dilemma, where more than one value can be defined as right, thus causing a conflict. This paper aims to consider an ethical dilemma faced by Jagdeep, a HR manager in a stock-listed firm. The firm, in response to a difficult economic climate, has taken a decision to restructure, which will involve selling off one less profitable operation and streamlining most of its support functions. Inevitably, this will cause compulsory layoffs at the firm. As part of the team working on this plan, Jagdeep knows that the plan is a top secret because it is price sensitive. Hannah is a colleague of his who also happens to be a former college-mate, and they often have drinks after work. Hannah, in charge of a five-member team, is eager to hear about the restructuring progress from Jagdeep over drinks one day, wanting to know if her team will be affected. This is of particular importance to her since she is very concerned for her employees and knows of their personal plans, such as two members who plan to take substantial new mortgages. Jagdeep finds himself in a dilemma, as he knows that two of her members are on the redundancy list. Jagdeep faces a real ethical dilemma. Two right values creating a conflict for Jagdeep in making this decision are loyalty and truthfulness. As the case shows, telling a friend the truth would show disloyalty to the firm that pays his perks and treats him well. The paper explores theoretical approaches to making ethical decisions. The approaches are not perfect and may lead to differing conclusions. Using various approaches will help Jagdeep think comprehensively and carefully about various dilemmas and to prevent him from coming to accident-prone conclusions. At the least, Jagdeep can have a degree of satisfaction from thinking thoroughly about the issue and analyzing it from all possible angles. Jagdeep can also explain the process of decision making if asked by both parties in the future. Consequentialist Theory The consequatialist theory can also be referred to as the teleological theory (Banks, 2011: p34). When Jagdeep is attempting to decide on whether telling Hannah is wrong or right, the theory puts more focus on the consequence of the action or decision. One the best-known Consequentialist theory is utilitarianism. According to utilitarianism, ethical decisions need to maximize societal benefits, as well as minimize any harm it may cause. In this theory, what is of importance is the net balance the good consequences over those that are bad, overall. The utilitarian approach to Jagdeep’s dilemma would involve the identification of all affected stakeholders in the situation and seeking alternative action and the consequences, benefits and harms, for each stakeholder. A stakeholder is understandably any individual or group of individuals that have a stake with the restructuring plan at Jagdeep’s firm. In Jagdeep’s situation, this includes his friend Hannah, Hannah’s colleagues, his boss, Jagdeep himself, other co-workers, and the firm. The list is quite long, making the consequences even far-reaching, whether he told Hannah about the laying off, of her team members or not. The Consequentialist approach needs Jagdeep to perform a mental calculation of all benefits and harms of the resulting consequences, considering each stakeholder individually (Griseri & Seppala, 2010: p46). What would be the consequence of Jagdeep telling Hannah what he knows of the lay-off? What would be the societal consequences not telling Hannah about it? One potential harm that Jagdeep could cause by telling Hannah of her team member’s fate is that, she could tell her colleagues and throw the entire firm into chaos. As a result, more people than was initially planned could end up losing their jobs. Jagdeep could also lose his boss’s trust as the information had been given to him in confidence and he could, in fact, lose his job. In turn, this could portend even worse consequences for his family, which depends on him a breadwinner. A potential benefit for of telling Hannah about the lay-off plans could be the retention of Hannah’s loyalty and friendship (Boatright, 2009: p54). Another benefit might be Hannah’s use of the information to counsel her colleague to cancel the high value mortgage they were planning on taking out, as well as stop the other from buying their dream yacht. After Jagdeep has considered the harms and benefits of telling Hannah about the lay-off plans, doing a thorough analysis estimating the benefits and harms, the best decision is that which yields society the greatest net benefits. Thus, if more people were to be hurt than benefited, by his decision, to inform Hannah, then the utilitarian approach would be to keep the information away from Hannah. This perspective requires Jagdeep to think extensively about societal consequences and not just consequences to him and his friends such as Hannah, or even his boss. During the conduction, of this sort of analysis, Jagdeep should consider making a table to that could help him sort out most of the conflict’s complexities via identification of various stakeholders, as well as anticipated benefits and harms (Fullerton, 2011: p56). However, arriving at a conclusion concerning the actions that he thinks would be for the greater good is still a difficult thing to do. The Consequentialist approach is extremely practical, as well as helpful when thinking through ethical dilemmas. However, a challenge to this theory has to do with the difficulty in obtaining all information, which Jagdeep would have required when making an evaluation of all the various stakeholders (Fakhry, 2012: p12). In business, it is difficult to be in possession of all the facts, and it could be totally cumbersome to make calculations concerning all the benefits and harms of the ethical dilemma. It is easy to list all the potential benefits and harms to her friends and herself. Nevertheless, it becomes difficult when she has to list all the potential harms, as well as benefits, to all the other stakeholders who may be involved. One would need a crystal ball in order to do this and foretell the future and the consequences of one’s actions. Nevertheless, it becomes vital when using this approach to assess the potential consequences in an accurate manner. Jagdeep has a responsibility to collect and utilize all relevant up-to-date information on all the stakeholders available. According to this approach, Jagdeep should remember that most decisions on ethical dilemmas strive to maximize societal benefits. The most challenging aspect for Jagdeep, when making this decision, has to do with stepping away from him and thinking broadly about the consequences for all the affected stakeholders. This step, in the very least, is a guarantee to Jagdeep that he will make a decision with a wide scope of thought, as well as allowing him to consider the consequences that otherwise, would not have been considered. Another difficulty that Jagdeep might face if he uses this theory is the fact that the minority’s rights could very easily be trampled on in favor of the majority (Geirsson & Margaret, 2011: p29). For example, he could argue that he has more to lose by angering his boss, who pays his salary and has been of real help to him over the years, than by not telling Hannah, who is not even on the chopping board. This greatly undermines the rights of the two-team members, who would suffer if they were laid-off, but had taken great financial risks. This theory remains vital to making decisions like Jagdeep’s for a number of reasons. Utilitarian thinking underlies most economics and business literature. Secondly, most people admit that taking all consequences into consideration is extremely vital to making good and ethical decisions, especially if this is done with the society in mind (Graham, 2004: p11). Most studies into ethical decision-making have found that most managers in business rely on this approach, so Jagdeep would be well informed to follow it. Deontological Theories Rather than putting its focus on consequences, deontological approach would seek to ask Jagdeep about his ethical duty now that she knew about the lay-offs (Krantz, 2011: p19). Decisions made under this theory on what is wrong or right are based on abstract, broad, universal principles of ethics such as respect for human beings, compassion, responsibility, justice, rights, loyalty, fairness, and keeping promises. Certain moral principles would be binding for Jagdeep if he were to use this approach, regardless of whichever consequences. Thus, some actions can be considered to be wrong even if the action’s consequences were found to be good (Crane & Matten, 2010: p8). Using the deontologist theory would focus Jagdeep on what is right, based on values and principles like honesty, while using the earlier theory would focus on what Jagdeep thinks will maximize societal benefits. Knowing the important values and the way to prioritize them is a vital first step in the comprehension and application of this approach to his ethical dilemma (Sharp, 2009: p19). Jagdeep needs to ask himself what his most important values are. Which values are Jagdeep most willing to adhere consistently to and how will he prioritize them in the occurrence of a conflict. Jagdeep should attempt to keep his list as sparsely populated as possible, with only those that he believes are most vital to him. When attempting to make a decision on what values to consider, he should think back to any recent dilemma he has had to face up to, and consider the values that guided his behavior. Selection of his ethical values must be a well thought out process. For example, most people consider promise keeping as one of their top values. However, in this case, Jagdeep must also consider if promise keeping makes a requirement of him, to breach additional, vital values, such as justice or obedience. If he had promised the firm’s management that the information was to be kept confidential, then, he must decide if that trumps honesty towards Hannah. Whether he should keep his promise to the management, or be honest with his college-mate is a dilemma that he must resolve. If he were to select loyalty as his most vital value, he would need to decide whom he is more loyal to, the boss or Hannah, since multiple loyalties cause conflict when confronted with the lay-off situation. Some theories under this approach put more focus on rights, rather than principles, duties, or values (Sharp, 2009: p19). Depending on circumstances, rights can be considered as either negative rights or positive rights. One party’s rights may conflict with the rights of another party, such as situations where the rights of the firm to seek extra cash by laying-off its workers conflict with the rights of its workers to know about it in advance in order to make arrangements and cancel any new financial commitments. Furthermore, in this case, one party’s rights are related, generally, to another party’s duties. Therefore, if an agreement exists, which the firm has the right to keep the information secret, then the employees in the know have a duty to keep it on the low. Determination of the appropriate right, principle, or rule to follow can be done using various ways. One concerns the use of moral rules contained in the bible and the biblical tradition, such as doing unto others as Jagdeep doing unto Hannah as he would wish Hannah to do unto him (Jesus et al, 2008: p34). However, this golden rule should only inform his decision if it is ethical. References Banks, Cyndi. Ethics : theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, cop., 2011. Boatright, John. Ethics and the Conduct of Business-6th Edition. United States of America, Pearson Education, Inc. 2009. Crane, Andrew. & Matten, Dirk. Business Ethics. United States: 3rd Edition Oxford University Press, 2010. Fakhry, Majid. Ethical theories . Leiden: E.J. Bril, 2012. Fullerton, George. Handbook of Ethical Theory. Charleston: Forgotten Books, 2011. Geirsson, Heimir. & Margaret, Holmgren. Ethical theory : a concise anthology. Peterborough : Broadview Press , 2010. Graham, Gordon. Eight Theories of Ethics. London: Routledge , 2004. Griseri, Paul. & Seppala, Nina. Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsiblity. Andover: Cengage Learning. 2010. Jesus, Conill. Christoph, Luetge, & Tatjana, Scho?nwa?lder-Kuntze. Corporate citizenship, contractarianism and ethical theory : on philosophical foundations of business ethics. Hants : Ashgate Pub. Company, 2008. Krantz, Susan. Refuting Peter Singer's ethical theory : the importance of human dignity. Westport: Praeger, 2011. Sharp, David. Cases in business ethics. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications, 2009. Read More