Decision Making Analysis - Essay Example

Naturally, approaching this from a common sense standpoint, the individual is presented with the issue of how to justify the demands that are made by the hiring entity and the supervisor himself. As the case denoted, pressure is being placed upon the supervisor with regards to pressuring the decision-maker to engage in something of an unethical unit of behavior. Naturally, as a new employee, the hiring officer is hesitant to go against the will and intentions of his superiors. Yet, from an ethical standpoint, as well as the universalism promoted by Kant and the social justice theory promoted by Rawls, he in fact has no choice but to at least discuss the situation with the supervisor and see if some type of understanding/agreement can be settled upon that would maximize the utility and ethical approach for each and every individual within a given situation.

Oftentimes, within a situation of work expectation and employment, and individual worker is presented with an ethical dilemma that does not readily lend itself to being interpreted to maximize the best good for each and every individual involved. . What is noted all too often in the business world is that individuals are too timid to bring such situations to the light of day for fear that they might be somehow retaliated against for doing so. However, even if this is indeed the case, weighing the situation and allowing for a determination of maximal good to be understood, there is little moral or ethical choice but would allow for one’s superior to be notified of the implicit unfairness of the way in which this particular employment screening process is taking place.

Rather than going directly to the boss and stating what is wrong, a much more tactful, and perhaps appropriate level of response, would be to merely mention the situation and ask if the manager/boss had any recommendations with regards to how the equity of the process could be improved upon. Once again, with regards to the case in question, it is the requirement of Joe to ensure that the issue is brought to the attention of the superiors as possibly representing an unethical and unfair hiring process.

Whether or not he is rewarded or punished for this, it is the right choice not only with regards to the fairness and equity of the hiring process but also with regards to the safety that such a decision could mean with regards to litigation if such a hiring practice were ever leaked and came to the general knowledge of an individual who applied and did not get the job. In this way, the reward for doing the right thing and bringing this situation to the attention of his superiors also has the added reward of being able to provide a level of safety with regards to the role in which Joe might have otherwise played in such a scheme should it ever have been uncovered and litigated.

There are few situations in which doing the right