Ethics, Sustainability and Culture - Coursework Example

Ethics, Sustainability and Culture Name Institution Date Introduction Ethics is defined mainly by the beliefs that exist in a community or group of people. Basically ethics is the main guideline for a community. Generally, ethics can be defined as the rights or wrongs that individuals do whenever they make decisions. Whether an action is right or wrong strictly depends on the norms and the practices in the specific community. According to Shaw, Barry and Sansbur, (2009), the laid out code of behavior is important when defining ethics. Some actions may be ethical in one community while in another community it is not ethical. The culture of the people is also an important determinant of whether an action is ethical or not. Cultures of different people around the world differ and this may cause misunderstanding on whether the actions performed by individuals are ethical. In the business world, the issues of ethics affect the outcome of certain activities that needs to be done. The issue of ethics will also strictly depend on the concerned individual. Ethics at times presents challenges to business managers on whether to make decisions or not. A manager may at times be forced to do unethical activities for the sake of the company. This is because being ethical in some business decisions might lead to severe consequences for both the company and the employees. Losses might occur, job cuts might be experienced or even the company may fail to secure an important and profitable contract. At the same time being unethical might save the company and the employees but the public image of the manager and to some extent the company might be damaged. Being ethical on the other hand might lead to losses but also the company’s public image will be maintained. Contravening the ethics for the purpose of benefiting an individual cannot be however justified. Both the actions and the results will be wrong (Shaw, Barry, & Sansbury, 2009). a) Work situation at my present employment, which posed an ethical dilemma I work for an Engineering firm as a technical manager. My main duty entailed negotiation of contracts on behalf of the company. The company mainly depends on me for obtaining contracts which enables it to sustain itself and serve its clients. The company was facing financial difficulties because it had not been awarded any major contract for long time. This situation was almost leading to the total collapse of the company. A government agency advertised a multi million contract that involved the construction of a dam within the municipality (Hansson & Palm, 2005). Many companies had applied for the same contract and it proved to be quite competitive. Winning the contact would be a very difficult task and yet it was a must win situation for the company to avoid collapse. If our company was to be awarded the contract, then it stood to benefit a lot and its financial crisis will be a thing of the past. As the person in charge of negotiating the contract, there was a lot of pressure from the company’s directors who wanted the company to be awarded the contract. Due to working with various organizations, the Chief Executive Officer of the government agency awarding the contract was a personal friend. However he had insisted on being given some amount of money so as to facilitate the contracted. The Dilemma According to the business ethics it is wrong to canvas in order to be awarded the tender (Hansson & Palm, 2005). On the other hand it was against the policy of the company to engage in such acts. If any one in the company was found engaging in such a behavior, strict displinary action would be taken against them. This made it impossible to even tell the directors about the issue. However if the company was awarded the contract then it would benefit a lot from it and directors were already pilling more pressure to ensure that the company is awarded the tender (Boatright, 2007). The chances of the company being awarded the tender were very slim due to the competition and the fact that it had not carried out any major works for a long time. This was a real big dilemma that was a test for ethics. The matter then was a secret and could not be shared with any one for the fear of the outcome. Parting with the money will not only ensure that the company benefit, but the entire staff. This was because the directors were considering laying off some workers as a measure of addressing the issue at hand. The relationship the Chief Executive Officer was also being tested. Legally it was the right thing to report the matter to the authorities for prosecution. This is because the conduct of the Chief Executive officer was not only unethical according to the business code of conduct, but also a crime according to the law. It was however not advisable to take any steps that will also lead to the collapse of the company. Reporting him would mean the end of friendship and the beginning of animosity. It could also lead to severe consequences like revenge. On the other hand it would be unethical for me to fail to report the matter. This is because being an associate of crime would lead to prosecution and bad public image. An official who has been charged with unproffesionalim conduct will find it difficult to secure employment with any other organization. Starting a private company will also be difficult since there will be little trust from the public. With these entire dilemmas at hand I had to act for the common good and ensure that an amicable solution is found. The main focus was however to ensure that the company does not collapse as we would all loose our jobs (Lagan & Moran, 2005). b) An explanation and Justification on how I resolved it He situation required therefore required a good and conclusive decision to be made. It resulted to critical analysis of all the consequences of making any decision. The first analysis was the benefits the company was going to gain from the decision I make. Any decision had consequences for the company. Accepting to part with the money would mean success for the company and its employees. This will also translate to personal benefits like promotion and salary increment. At this point personal benefits were however not in the picture and were not in any way planned. On the other hand refusing to part with the money will mean failure for the company and job losses. Job losses was not a good experience for the employees since they will be forced to go through difficult times in search for new opportunities considering the fact that the world economy was not performing well. This situation meant that job opportunities were minimal. Most of the staff members were also very hardworking and were fully committed in the operations of the company. Another aspect of my consideration was the relationship with the bosses after making any of the decision. Failure of the company to be awarded the tender will mean poor working relations with the bosses and it may even translate to salary cut. This is because the entire management was looking up to the opportunity as a means that will solve the company’s problem. On the other hand securing the contract will mean that the relationship with the bosses will improve since they will view me as the person who saved the company from possible collapse. However, for this to happen it will only mean parting with the money (Boatright, 2007). Personal relationship with the Chief Executive Officer was also among the issues to be considered. Parting with the cash will mean good and even closer personal relationship with the Chief Executive Officer. This will also increase trust and the possibility of securing more contracts from the same government agency will be quite high. This is because the agency had a number of contracts in the coming months. On the other hand, refusing and reporting the Chief Executive Officer will mean bad personal relationship with him since in this case I would have been viewed as a traitor. Other companies might also effuse to work with us if they had been using the same methods to secure contracts. This was an issue to be considered before making any decision. Reporting the matter will also need that court visits will be a must and this will waste a lot of productive time that may have been used for other activities. Another issue that required utmost consideration was personal dignity. This was because, as person of high integrity there will always be some guilt regarding the decisions made. This is because going against ethics will mean living with guilt and sometimes regret. This may also lead to development of the behavior of going against ethics. It would also have serious future implications. On the brighter side, the ethics will be broken but the company will have been saved from possible collapse leading to job loses. So by accepting to go against ethics, the staff will benefit. On the other hand, maintaining ethics will also lead to other consequences. This will also translate into guilt since it will be sad to see workers being retrenched and yet the situation could have been solved by simply complying with the demands of the Chief Executive Officer (Mautner, 1997). After carefully analyzing the situation it became clear that going against ethics had far much better implications than maintaining the ethics. Both the company and the staff would benefit from the decision other than maintaining ethics and live with the guilty of seeing workers being retrenched and the company collapsing. So the only way out was to comply with the demand of the Chief Executive Officer. However I had to ensure that nobody else knew about the deal and if by any means it is discovered then I had to take full responsibility. The consequences of making that decision were good as had earlier been anticipated. It was a tough decision and it was not easy to make. However I had to make the decision for the sake of the company (Bredeson & Goree, 2011). The company was awarded the multi million contracts and as a result it was able to pay all its debts and none of the workers was retrenched. On the other hand the personal benefits were good and a salary increment was awarded as a result. Although it would have been more ethical to decline the salary increment offer, it was wise to accept. This was to avoid any suspicion that would have been brought about by declining to take the offer. Since then, the company was able to secure more contracts from the government agency and its profile was greatly boosted. The company was able to prosper and it was able to beat most of its earlier competitors. All theses were reasons to justify the decision i made of going against ethics. However nobody ever got to know what really what transpired otherwise it would have led to serious consequences not to mention the collapse of the whole company. My personal relationship with the Chief Executive officer of the government agency became good and great respect developed until his tenure ended in the government agency. The workers who were facing uncertain situation also congratulated me for the efforts they thought I made to beat all the other competitors. Most of the competitors however could no understand how we were awarded the contract but no legal issue arose as a result (Bredeson & Goree, 2011). c) Relation of my solution to a consequential and/or non consequential approach to ethics and an assessment of my action Consequentiality theory relates to the consequences that will arise after taking a certain measure. It judged whether the action is right or wrong based on the outcome or the results of taking the action. This theory basically deals with the outcome of making a certain business decision. It judges the action if the results are meant for the common good and benefit to the organization or it just benefits an individual. The theory suggests that it is wrong for an individual to make unethical business decision for their own benefits. This action results to exploitation of other business partners and it may lead to creation of bad public image towards the individual or the concerned company (Bauman, 1995). According to my situation the decision to part with some cash so as to be awarded the contract can be judged according to the outcome of the whole process. The outcome of the solution led to the prosperity of the company and the workers. The solution was not for a selfish reason and for the benefit of any individual. Therefore according to this theory of consequentiolist the solution to my dilemma can be justified. Although the process in itself was not ethical but it was meant top achieve a certain ethical solution that was aimed at saving the company from possible collapse and also the workers from retrenchment that would have led to joblessness. The management could not have concurred with the action by the outcome saved the entire company (Holsinger, 2011). Non consequentialist theory on the other hand judges the action itself and does not consider the outcome. It judges whether the action is ethical or not ethical. The theory is strived at trying to reduce unethical actions. However depending on the extent of the actions, they can be determined whether they are right or wrong. According to this theory my actions of complying with the demands by the Chief Executive officer and offering money in order for the company to be awarded the contract was wrong. According to this theory other measures could have been taken to maintain the ethics regardless of the outcome of the situation and the opportunities it presented. This theory therefore seeks to preserve ethics regardless of the consequences. It suggests that any action that is not ethical cannot be justified entirely. My solution according to this theory was not only unethical but also an offence since it is against the business codes of conduct and it resulted to qualified companies being locked out (Lagan & Moran, 2005). Conclusion According to the paper business management may at tomes present individuals with complex situation. The dilemma might present the individuals with situations that may force them to go against the ethics. This may lead to serious consequences to the individuals if they are found contravening the ethical standards. The dilemma presented to individual may affect them personally or they may affect the entire business organization depending on the decision the take. Some of the ethics individual contravene may also lead to criminal offences depending on the laws of the particular country or community. This is according to the paper. Some individuals however contravene the ethical standards for their own benefits. According to the paper such behavior is not justified. However, when the ethical standards are contravened in order to bring a positive move in an organization, it can be justified though not completely. The only justification will be the results and the outcome but not the action. The theories of consequentialist and non consequentialist have also been highlighted in the paper to try and judge the solution that I undertook when the ethical dilemma arose. According to both theories the actions are not justified but the results can be justified. References Shaw, W. H., Barry, V., & Sansbury, G. (2009). Moral issues in business (1st Pacific ed.). South Melbourne: Cengage. Holsinger, K. (2011), Consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist theories of ethics. Retrieved on December 19, 2011 from Hansson S. O. & Palm E. (2005). The ethics of workplace privacy. New York: Peter Lang. Bredeson D. & Goree K. (2011). Ethics in the Workplace. London: Cengage Learning. Mautner, T. (1997). Dictionary of philosophy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Bauman, Z. (1995). Life in fragments: Essays in postmodern morality. Blackwell: Oxford. Boatright, J. R. (2007). Whistleblowing. In Ethics and the conduct of business (5th ed., pp. 92‑115). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall Lagan A. & Moran B. (2005). Three Dimensional Ethics: Implementing Workplace Values. Content Management (SAN 902-4964), 2005 Read More

a) Work situation at my present employment, which posed an ethical dilemma I work for an Engineering firm as a technical manager. My main duty entailed negotiation of contracts on behalf of the company. The company mainly depends on me for obtaining contracts which enables it to sustain itself and serve its clients. The company was facing financial difficulties because it had not been awarded any major contract for long time. This situation was almost leading to the total collapse of the company.

A government agency advertised a multi million contract that involved the construction of a dam within the municipality (Hansson & Palm, 2005). Many companies had applied for the same contract and it proved to be quite competitive. Winning the contact would be a very difficult task and yet it was a must win situation for the company to avoid collapse. If our company was to be awarded the contract, then it stood to benefit a lot and its financial crisis will be a thing of the past. As the person in charge of negotiating the contract, there was a lot of pressure from the company’s directors who wanted the company to be awarded the contract.

Due to working with various organizations, the Chief Executive Officer of the government agency awarding the contract was a personal friend. However he had insisted on being given some amount of money so as to facilitate the contracted. The Dilemma According to the business ethics it is wrong to canvas in order to be awarded the tender (Hansson & Palm, 2005). On the other hand it was against the policy of the company to engage in such acts. If any one in the company was found engaging in such a behavior, strict displinary action would be taken against them.

This made it impossible to even tell the directors about the issue. However if the company was awarded the contract then it would benefit a lot from it and directors were already pilling more pressure to ensure that the company is awarded the tender (Boatright, 2007). The chances of the company being awarded the tender were very slim due to the competition and the fact that it had not carried out any major works for a long time. This was a real big dilemma that was a test for ethics. The matter then was a secret and could not be shared with any one for the fear of the outcome.

Parting with the money will not only ensure that the company benefit, but the entire staff. This was because the directors were considering laying off some workers as a measure of addressing the issue at hand. The relationship the Chief Executive Officer was also being tested. Legally it was the right thing to report the matter to the authorities for prosecution. This is because the conduct of the Chief Executive officer was not only unethical according to the business code of conduct, but also a crime according to the law.

It was however not advisable to take any steps that will also lead to the collapse of the company. Reporting him would mean the end of friendship and the beginning of animosity. It could also lead to severe consequences like revenge. On the other hand it would be unethical for me to fail to report the matter. This is because being an associate of crime would lead to prosecution and bad public image. An official who has been charged with unproffesionalim conduct will find it difficult to secure employment with any other organization.

Starting a private company will also be difficult since there will be little trust from the public. With these entire dilemmas at hand I had to act for the common good and ensure that an amicable solution is found. The main focus was however to ensure that the company does not collapse as we would all loose our jobs (Lagan & Moran, 2005). b) An explanation and Justification on how I resolved it He situation required therefore required a good and conclusive decision to be made. It resulted to critical analysis of all the consequences of making any decision.

The first analysis was the benefits the company was going to gain from the decision I make.

Read More