Business Ethics: The of Super Software Company - Case Study Example

? Business Ethics Business Ethics Introduction The case of the Super Software company givesa good illustration of practices been carried out in the business world today and their consequences on the company. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the ethical dilemma in the case, not on factual grounds but on the basis of theories of ethics and morality. An overview of company’s segments will be provided which will be affected by the CEO’s decision in this case and parameters that have to be looked by the company to come to an appropriate judgment. Key Issues in the Case Evaluating on Rational Grounds The issue highlighted in the case ignites several other issues, all which are significant to consider in the business environment. Richard Smart, who is currently serving as the CEO of the company has taken the company to a new height. Because of his contributions in company’s growth and success, he is admired by the board of directors and stakeholders of the company. However, the basis on which he was appointed on the seat of CEO was nullified, when the truth was unleashed about false information of his degree from the Harvard University. This explains that he was actually not the deserving applicant, but was selected by misguiding the company about his true qualifications. Another factor that can be assumed on this basis that there might be other lies he had told to the board members to get the position. Therefore, the entire image of Richard Smart is now in serious doubts. The standing dilemma is that the company is doing good business in his supervision and expelling him would affect the market position of the company. However, the decision on this issue is not limited to the direct success or collapse of the company alone, and there are other factors too that are crucial in ensuring smooth work flow in the company. Among these factors, the concern and issues from stakeholders are of significance importance. Issues that can arise from employees, customers and stockholders have to be evaluated in the decision process. The truth, that the CEO has shown false education document, cannot be kept hidden for long, and would raise doubts in stack holders about the management system of the company when they will learn about this truth (Weiss, 2009). Presenting false documents in the business world is considered an ethical crime and there are definite set of rules for such criminals. When investors will come to know that they have been dealing with a fraud CEO or ‘criminal’ to be precise, their relations and motivation in investing in the company would certainly be lower down (Weiss, 2009). This can directly affect the productivity and market standing of the company, which is against the interest of every individual associated with the company. Moreover, when this issue will come in the knowledge of company’s employees, their trust and respect level for company’s leadership would certainly be decreased. On the other side, replacing the current CEO with a new one will also result in the same thing, as a black spot on company’s supervision and management will remain in the minds of employees (Weiss, 2009). Another critical element is the pressure exerted by the government or general stock holders. Stock holders would certainly pressurize the board of directors to bury the issue from media and customers. Once the image of the company is damaged in front of their customers, it is very hard to regain that reputation (Weiss, 2009). However, if any of the competitor companies got to know that Super Software has built false reputation in the market with a fraud CEO, it can bring reveal this in a press conference. This might lead the company in paying heavy penalties to the government and losing customer loyalty as well. The worst scenario would be when the government is involved in the matter as this could bring the toughest time for the company in defending the reason for hiding the truth. The only way to avoid this happening is to think of a way out from this dilemma, by thinking both rationally and ethically (Weiss, 2009). Evaluating on Ethical Grounds There are various dimensions in this case which has to be evaluated on ethical parameters to come to a decisive conclusion. For this reason, the ethical principles of Virtue Ethics and Utilitarianism can be used (Mill, 2001). Virtue ethics supports the ideology that any act should not be judged by its consequences, but by the one performing the action. Aristotle, the inventor of this theory, forwards that every action is done for a reason which can be interpreted differently, and cannot serve as the only grounds to judge a personality. For example, function of the knife is to cut any object that comes in front of it. Therefore, if it cuts a finger then this cannot be regarded as an immoral act as the knife is just performing its function (Mill, 2001). Similarly, a man should also be judged by his virtues and character and not by any specific action. Arguments given by philosophers supporting this theory illustrate that one common action could have different consequences in different scenarios and thus, cannot rightly judge the intention of the doer. Hence, the personality of a person should be judged by the moral character and virtues he or she portrays in their daily lives and not by some specific actions or events (Athanassoulis, 2010). This can be further explained by the Agent- Based Approach used in the virtue ethics model. Formerly, the corporate sector was driven by the action based approach, in which the intention and character of any person was judged solely by his actions alone. This focuses on a given set of laws and guidelines and evaluated if the person has violated any laws in performing any action. These guidelines are also termed as the codes of ethics in the corporate sector. On the contrary, the agent based approach tells that any action should not be restrained within the boundaries of definite laws or rules, but the moral aspect of actions should also be considered. In this regard, if any act violates corporate rules but achieves moral excellence, then it should not be penalized or discouraged (Dobson, 2007). A similar theory in this respect is of Utilitarianism. This theory slightly differs from the virtues theory in its prime focus to the outcome of the action regardless of the moral character of the one performing it. This theory is driven by the principle that any action would have certain consequences. If the consequence promotes ‘happiness’ in the society or in people associated with the action, then the act is justified no matter if it opposes the defined laws (Andre & Velasquez, 2013). This is again a very straight forward explanation of rating and categorizing moral and immoral acts. Later, the theory was modified to explain that the happiness should not be just for oneself but for the happiness of the greatest number of people. This helps to form a better understanding of an action performed under any circumstances. Hence, it can be said that if an action brings happiness to a number of people but despair to other greater number of people, than it cannot be justified as an ethical act (Becker & Becker, 2001). Now connecting the case with these ethical theories it can be observed that the act of Richard Smart do violates the corporate code of ethics as he cheated on the board members to get the position of CEO. However, in the light of the two theories discussed above, his act of lying cannot be considered as an immoral act, as it brought success to the company and benefited a greater number of people (Dobson, 2007). The loss of any other person, who could have gotten the position of CEO on the basis of merit, is comparatively lesser than the gain of managers and employees of the company. Moreover, by the theory of virtue ethics, a single act cannot define and articulate the true objective or nature of a person. Therefore, if the current CEO is considered as a virtuous person by his deeds, than this act of his should be considered ethical and done for a good reason. This statement can be justified by the fact that the new CEO had the potential to lift the market share and reputation of the company, but did not have documented evidence of his qualifications. Hence, for this reason he had to give false information and documents without which he might not have gotten a chance to show his potential (Andre & Velasquez, 2013). Personal Opinion Personally, I would have considered this is an immoral act because the CEO has initially lied for his own benefits and for the company’s success. However, I would not have drawn a personality review based on this event, but have talked in personal with the new CEO to find out the need of lying and hiding his actual qualifications. If I would be at the position of a board member, then I would have asked the new CEO to get admission in the Harvard University only, which makes him realize that his lie is not completely ignored but is given a second chance (Weiss, 2009). In the mean while, the company will be govern in the supervision of the former CEO, Dr Victoria Patel and will follow the footsteps of Richard Smart. If the new CEO fails to impress board members with his efforts in the given span of time, than he will be taken back in the company but at the position of General Manager and not CEO. It will be easier for the company to hide the truth from open exposure, when the person is isolated from the company. I would ask other members to help him in his admission phase as he has helped the company in its difficult phase. With this, the company can further polish the person who is an asset and avoid chances of people and media pointing fingers on the company (Weiss, 2009). List of References Andre, C. & Velasquez, M., 2013. Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. [Online] Available at: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v2n1/calculating.html [Accessed 22 January 2013]. Athanassoulis, N., 2010. Virtue Ethics. [Online] Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/#SH3a [Accessed 22 January 2013]. Becker, L. & Becker, C., 2001. Theory and Practice. Encyclopedia of Ethics, 3(2), pp.1706-08. Dobson, J., 2007. Applying virtue ethics to business: The agent-based approach. [Online] Available at: http://ejbo.jyu.fi/articles/0901_3.html [Accessed 22 January 2013]. Mill, J., 2001. Utilitarianism. Research Report. Onatario, Canada: Batoche Books Limited. Weiss, W., 2009. Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach. Mason, USA: Cenage Learning. Read More