Steps to Ethical Decision - Essay Example

Steps to Ethical Decision Introduction In the recent past, there has been an increasing call for clear and sound ethical provision within organizations. The moral stipulation should be carried down to departmental as well as individual level. Ethical dilemmas are unique circumstances that put a person into a conflicting position of generally good and moral consideration (Selart & Johansen, 2011). It is a state of a trial to human conduct about what is right or wrong for a situation. To assess how good or bad a step may be, a decision maker must always look at the situation and consider all the viable alternatives. More often, the decision at stake is often a compromise of many other possible alternatives. Myriads of ethical dilemma faces individuals in an organization finance position. In the financial management position, one often get an opportunity to be among those who are involved in the tendering process in an organization. More often, being a member of such committees comes with a set of unique challenges. One such dilemma is the conflict between receiving cash as appreciation from a supplier who wins a tender to make particular supplies to your organization. Evidently, it remains a clear manifestation of ethical decision-making because they offer voluntarily given from a content businessperson at the same time receiving the offer could jeopardize personal integrity. Besides, it may force you to vote for the supplier in the subsequent tender placed in future or upon expiry of that tender. Assumptions of the case study Three main assumptions that define how this issue could present an ethical challenge. The conflict involved is to what extent is the appreciation token genuine but not a bribe. More apparently, the winner of a tender out of good will decides to present appreciation to the entire panel openly inform of either cash, a party or any other form that may appear inducement. No doubt, many will find it within the sound business practice considering it happens publicly and more importantly out of the willingness of the rich supplier. Secondly, such offers are hard to be defined within the context of bribery because this is not done in secret, and everyone gets an entitlement to a fair share. Lastly, this occurs after the panel has established successfully that the supplier justly deserves the tender, however accepting gifts or goodies could jeopardize other potential competitors in future. Concisely, some parties may argue that it may be unethical to accept offers from business partners. However, the manner at which this offer is given appears fair and not an inducement. When trapped in such a dilemma and case, the eight clearly outlined steps are fundamental in bringing the conflict to sanity. Basic Ethical Principles Issues to Consider Situation analysis of benefits versus burdens. While some decisions may appear ethical, it may bring huge burden to an organization. Loss of integrity and the perception of lack of fairness are two critical challenges that may accrue from a controversial ethical decision (Selart & Johansen, 2011). Analysis should be consistently evaluated alongside the principles of ethical decisions. Each of the step taken should involves analysis of the basic elements of justice, fairness and integrity. Coming up with an ethical decision in this case need analysis at every stage. More importantly, the overall good over personal or even organizational benefits should be fundamental focus. The most tragic decision is to rush through issues with a total disregard of elements of ethics. The following steps encapsulates elements of ethical decisions that should be important. In addition, in every phase some elements will feature more than others. However, the most common themes at every phase are justice, integrity and moral good. Steps to a Sound Ethical Decision-making Gather the facts It is important to ensure that information regarding the offer and position of the supplier is clearly defined. While such action can be hurried through, it is highly important to define to what extent is panel informed on the offers from suppliers. Some of the information needed here include, what could be some of the motivating reasons for the generosity. Possible information could be obtained from other business that have once had a transaction with the supplier. When a decision to take the gifts is rushed, it may come to haunt the organization management committee and as such serious scrutiny need to be done. Furthermore, information on the net worth of the business of this supplier and possible future intentions to take over the entire committee to disadvantage competitors should be considered. Lack of time to deliberate on the issue by gathering all necessary information can be dangerous because it may put the business in an awkward position in the public. All the facts, validations, anecdotes and raised opinions should undergo the approval process to ensure that they are evidence based (Selart & Johansen, 2011). Such information gains credibility from the panelists. The relevancy of the gathered information is detrimental in coming up with the ultimate decision. Define ethical issues From the situation created above, the ethical dilemma ought to be defined after collecting all the necessary information in step one . In this case, the ethical decision to be solved is the conflict between taking a token of appreciation from a supplier who wins a tender or reject. A panel may purport to take an appreciation from a supplier, which may be perceived by critics as a promise that was made before to compel the committee to award the tender unfairly. A decision contrary to a request may appear unwillingness to build a cordial relationship with business partners. More importantly, this token could be a business trip or a gift that would be beneficial to the organization or individual. The most difficult issue is drawing a boundary on what extend would such engagement affect morals and professional culture in an organization. While the need to adhere to rational thinking in ethical decisions is important, there are a number of ethical principles. Honesty while providing facts and argument guides every ethical step. Tendency to fabricate facts, falsifying information and misrepresenting facts in the first step obscures the entire importance of the ethics. Thus, the initial step in decision should strive to collect valid data from reliable persons. Secondly, objectivity goes hand in hand with honest (Selart & Johansen, 2011). Any information collected to help in arriving at a sound and acceptable decision should be purely objective. Subjective information causes biasness and untruthfulness to moral good. Identify the affected parties (stakeholders) Indeed, stakeholders in such issue will include both direct such as supplier and your organization. The two identified direct stakeholders are the parties involved in the issue. The supplier is presenting a form of partnership to the business, and the tender panel finds itself at a strange and challenging situation. Similarly, other unseen players that could be affected are other potential suppliers. This is because if the panel considers token from the current supplier, it may build commitment with the business and may find a soft spot for consideration in future considerations. Other possible stakeholders include the public; the perception of the members of the public who may get access to such business involvement may raise concern on the fairness in tender allocation. The external outlook of any legal matter is often complicated than the intrinsic glance. Therefore, the ethical definition have to rotate around the principles and policies of the involved parties. More often, analyzing ethical decisions involves answering three fundamental questions. Firstly, if one party is gaining from a situation, for instance a business transaction above. Is it at the expense of another party? Essentially, this is the crucial question that an ethical decisions balances. Some scholars refers it as a rule of private gain. If one party unfairly benefits from a transaction or a situation, this will amount to bride of the value of integrity and fairness (Zhong, 2011). Secondly, consider the extent of hurt if everyone does the transaction. This is an important rule is estimating how just a decision is by bringing issues at a level ground. Asses the injury level in using the previous situation and any procurement panel receives gifts from those allocated the tender. Certainly, this could get controversial because it may include defining what has been institutionalized (Zhong, 2011). In addition, any decision made must be to the advantage or disadvantage of one party. More importantly, there should be a reflection on how would the world be if anyone received gifts or packages from suppliers. Identify the consequence One of the biggest lose to the organization is a loss of integrity and trust from business partners (Trevino and Nelson, 2014). For a successful business, public confidence should be at its best. Unethical decisions in dealing with business operations are some of the biggest things that will make people lose confidence in your business. The consequence of the transaction can be grave if misinterpreted by the other parties. For instance, it will appear as a deal done prior to tender allocation between the members of the tender panel and the supplier. Although the offer is totally a decision of the tender winner, officials who were involved in vetting will have a hard time explaining, why there was an offer from the supplier. However, it is important to note that the token from the supplier happens much later after winning a tender. As a matter of business principle, there would be no harm if a partnership were built on the organization and supplier. The seriousness impact on the perception of the possibly compromised panel would certainly come out even within the employees. As a result, the action may put the company’s name under scrutiny, and its reputation would be compromised. Identify the obligations. Consequently, assessment of the short-term and long-term negative implications remains a relevant tassel. The firm may lose its fame in its short-term period but the implication may be a long-term benefit to its progress. There are two main obligations to be met under this situation. The supplier ought to honor stipulation of the tender and supply listed items as agreed without expecting anything in return apart from payment. Even after extending the token of goodies to the business or individuals, the terms of the contract still holds (Trevino & Nelson 2014). More importantly, the future tender allocation would not be based on the offers extended because they were not an obligation, rather a personal decision by the supplier. In return, the business has an obligation of paying for goods and services provided. Besides, any future tenders should be placed afresh in the market. Such obligations should be seen to create fairness to both parties as well as indirect stakeholders. The decision to be arrived at must have three elements that is fair by all standards, just to parties and is subject to agreed obligations of the initial plan. Consider your character and integrity The most important aspect of any ethical decision-making is the issue of ensuring individuals, and organization character and integrity is not interfered at all. Personal decision and collective responsibility are needed for the decision to be sound and sober. The most desirable outcome is the one that do not undermine the suppliers and other potential investors. More importantly, the reputation of the organization must remain unquestionable by actions of those who speak or act on its behalf. Integrity is perhaps the most central element that distinguishes ethics from laws. The pursuit for ethics is informed by the need to remain sincere, unbiased and consistent. Any decision made outside these elements are not only unethical, but also immoral. Besides, carefulness in assessing situations and facts presented should be transparent and no party should be given advantage over the other. Openness is another important element that defines ethics. Any decision made in analyzing an ethical decision should lay the issues and rationale for the course of action taken bare. If there were suspicion of withholding information, this would certainly bridge the minimum standards for ethical decisions. To ensure that minim ethical standards are not compromised, it is important to do two things. Firstly, those involved in such a transaction must review all relevant articles addressing organization-supplier relations. Issues must be laid bare, identify any legal conflicts, and situational analysis must be quickly be done (Trevino & Nelson 2014). Also, identification of areas where there is limited knowledge and overhaul of issues posing controversy should be addressed. The ultimate goal is to ensure the business goodwill and reputation is not jeopardized. At this stage, seeking ethicist advice is desirable, however where there is a clear defined direction a decision should be made and the parties should be ready to own the action. Most significantly, the consideration of the personal values are character is a subject of concern, since it dictates the possibility of having an amicable solution. Think creatively about potential actions After reviewing relevant materials and information regarding the issue, a prudent decision should be subjected to an in-depth analysis. Whereas knowledge of the law and common practice may create avenues to handle ethical dilemmas, the impact in the real world may not necessarily be a true reflection. Currently, a business operates in an environment full of competition, establishing a name for a business and a good reputation are critical. It is, therefore, important to think and review any issue that can bring conflicts and put the name of the business at risk. Trevino & Nelson (2014) agree that despite a decision being a shared responsibility, it should reflect personal beliefs, virtues, and aspiration. Consideration of personal view and morality of actions should be first assessed before deciding on the alternative course of actions. The general principles governing the ethical decision-making is whether decision arrived at reflects the will of all parties involved. However, it is difficult to create harmony in such circumstances but the aspect of moral good should be the majority consideration. Check your “gut” Some of ethical decision can be quite costly; one should gather courage on the decision made and be ready to defend the position. Arguably, ethical decisions are often controversial; any perspective of an issue appears sound and valid. However, out of different alternatives that exist, only one such option can be taken at any point (Trevino & Nelson 2014). The choice taken should reflect fairness, justice and integrity among the parties involved. In essence, it should be an informed daring action that can be rightly argued and appear fair among existing alternatives. Conclusion In finance career, there will be different ethical decisions to be made. An example provided involves tender allocation and receiving any form of a gift from a supplier either for personal or organizational benefits. Before accepting or rejecting offers, it is wise to consider the facts and review on the theoretical practices surrounding the issue. While it may not be entirely obvious, ethical decisions should be made in a structured manner. One of the requirements of integrity is to refrain from accepting offers that would appear to influence actions within any setting. The degree to which it may influence actions remains debatable. The above case study is a simple reflection of a possible ethical dilemma that will face a finance career person. The most crucial thing to do should lie within elements of fairness, justice and principle of moral good. Reference Selart, Marcus, & Svein Tvedt Johansen. “Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: The Role of Leadership Stress.(2011)” Journal of Business Ethics 99: 129–143. Web. Trevino, L. K. & Nelson, K. A. Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. (2014) 6th edition. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-11-858267-1 Zhong, Chen-Bo. “The Ethical Dangers of Deliberative Decision Making. (2011)”Administrative Science Quarterly: 1–25. Web. Read More