Business Law Ethics - Boeing Company - Case Study Example

Name: Course: Tutor: Institution: Date: Business Law and Ethics Ethical Dilemma Based on the Brown case study it is apparent that the procurement officer is engaged in an ethical dilemma. In this regard, this analysis asserts that the ethical dilemma is a conflict of interest on the procurement officer and the Boeing managers respectively. In a conflict of interest ethical dilemma, as Jennings (40) stated, individuals are exposed to the risk of conflicting their individual interest with their employers’ interests. Therefore, Brown is faced on one hand with the interest of safeguarding and supporting her daughter and son in law to secure a job before they lose their unemployment benefits with an opportunity at the Boeing Company where she has connections. On the other hand, she is faced with the contrasting Company interests where interactions with the Company suppliers are limited and fair and equal treatment is a work ethics and moral virtue. Therefore, in the process of safeguarding her family interests through establishing links with the Boeing Company managers, with the promise of a preferential treatment in the venture’s procurement process, Brown is faced with a conflict of interest. This is because the approach violates her company regulations as well as falling short of the industry expectations. Other Perspectives Dishonesty Besides the developed ethical dilemma, the Brown case can be evaluated based on a wide range of ethical perspectives. On one hand, is the perception of being dishonest. In this regard, ethical principles require individuals to be truthful and honest in their actions. As such, all the conducted actions, especially in business operations should be open to public scrutiny and as such meet the overall public expectations. Therefore, any business actions conducted by the respective employees should be transparent and free of public criticism. As such, business actions by organizational employees are deemed to be honest and equally applied to all in a transparent and equitable manner. Nevertheless, an evaluation of Brown’s action demonstrates a culture of employee dishonesty. In this case, the manager despite the realization of the existing procurement rules engages in a conspiracy with the Boeing Company managers. As such, the conspiracy is based on the attainment of individual gains and the satisfaction of personal interests at the expense of the company interest. If the proposed deal is successful Brown would individually gain while the company would lose through the procurement of inappropriate products or at high prices over the market rates. Therefore, this illustrates the perpetuation of dishonesty, culture perpetuated by Brown, which is not only unethical but also decreases organizational profitability. Misuse of Powers Additionally, an alternative ethical perception of the Brown actions is the perception on the taking unfair advantage and misuse of entrusted power and responsibilities. In this regard, each and every organizational employee is entrusted with a given level of powers and autonomy to make individual decisions. However, the limit and cap for making such decisions and using such powers is based on the need to benefit the organizational interest both in the short term and long run periods (Jennings 42). As such, the evaluation establishes that Brown applied and used her powers excessively. In this regard, although the acquired industry relationships with the Boeing Company managers was expected to facilitate a successful business relationship maintenance, Brown misused the powers entrusted to her as a means of achieving her own interests. Therefore, an evaluation of her behavior can be described as unethical in that she uses her powers for the unintended personal uses. Rationalization Although as discussed above Brown’s actions could be described as unethical by a majority of people based on the listed perspectives, it could be argued that the actions were rational and appropriate. On one hand, a rationalization justification could be based on the fact that although unknown to the public, most of the managers and organizational employees are involved in mutual benefit practices, where the employees use the established industry links to enhance their career development as well as promote the attainment of their own individual interest. To this end, although organisations are aware of these practices, they at time s promote them as a means of promoting their employees satisfaction and increased motivation, as well as serving as an indirect employee value proposition to attract and retain employees in such respective organizations. On the other hand, an individual rationalization of the action could be argued that it does not directly hurt anyone. In this regard, if Brown’s daughter secured an employment with the venture and the Boeing Company, and the subsequently submitted viable supply proposals to the procurement department, then the whole process would serve Brown’s interest while neither hurting her organization or the Boeing Company interests. Ethics Model Analysis Based on the ethical analysis described above, this assessment establishes that in order to counter and resolve the challenge, the Blanchard and Piale model is ideal for the application. In this regard, the model is based on a three questions model based on which the ethical and rationalization of an action could be based, namely an action legality, its balanced nature, and how it seeks the doer feel. On one hand, a legal evaluation of the action establishes that in essence, the action is not illegal. This is based on the fact that there is no legal justification and evidence that Brown has used her powers inappropriately in allocating the company any of the contracts illegally. Moreover, the offer to advance employment to her daughter is not illegal if she is employed and awarded the opportunity based on her qualification merits as compared to other vacancy candidates. On the other hand, an evaluation on the balanced aspect of the actions reveals a challenge. In this case, a perception of the scenario through the shareholders and competitors view establishes an unethical practice and thus should be avoided (Jennings 47). Finally, based on an individual feeling on the undertaken actions, Brown would be held captive by the Boeing managers, thus leading to a feeling of guilt and thus the action can be termed as unethical. Therefore, this assessment analysis, based on the balancing and individual feelings, perspective, establishes that Brown’s actions were unethical. Work Cited Jennings, Marianne. Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, London: Cengage Learning, 2002, Print. Read More