Business Ethics Issue - Essay Example

Business Ethics Issue I was an employee at a software company, and I always found it necessary to obey ity. My immediate superior was Kevin (not his real name), the 37-year-old manager of our department. Many times, for unknown or purely personal reasons, Kevin gave me much consideration when it came to minor infraction of company policies, which I myself sometimes violated. He promised not to reveal these things to the CEO on the condition that I should remain obedient to him. He also believed that we were so close since I was next in line to him in terms of position and qualifications. In late August two years ago, I saw a problem with the way Kevin handled the other employees in our department. I noticed that he was being cruel to them like giving them too much work despite the busyness of their schedules and worse, without any extra compensation. The number of employees complaining about Kevin’s harsh policies was increasing to the point that they were all voicing out to me what they believe I should do. Everyone of them was telling me that I should report Kevin to the higher superiors of the company, and they believed that it would lead to my promotion as the next manager. Word has reached the CEO that something was going wrong in the department although Kevin denied all of these allegations. However, since the CEO did not completely buy what Kevin had said. He called for a closed-door meeting between the other employees who were somehow implying aggrieved status as well as me, being second in line for the position of manager. When the CEO and his assistant entered, they reminded us of two things – our allegiance to them, thus implying that they expect the truthfulness of our testimonies, and the urgency of the situation, since several employees have been voicing out their grievances over social media. Moreover, they underlined the fact that the purpose of the meeting was to determine the truth and to determine the proper measures to mitigate or eliminate the problem. However, what happened was that the CEO noticed that everything seemed hesitant to say anything during the closed-door meeting. Thus, the employee issued a report to be written by me within 24 hours. I was therefore left with three choices. The first was to tell the truth about the matter while at the same time risking my friendship with Kevin and risking my own reputation too since he would therefore reveal to the CEO my past misdemeanors. The second choice was to deny the allegations of the other employees, thus risking my popularity among them and their loyalty towards me if I had to be promoted someday. The third was to quit my job and therefore not become a part of this dilemma. Based on the choices presented above, the main business ethics issues involved include the respect for the rights of the employees, which Kevin has obviously violated. There is also a breach of conduct not only by Kevin but by the employees who are beginning to demonstrate against him and his harsh policies. There are also corresponding compliance and governing issues concerning how Kevin dealt with his employees (Oster). Of the three options previously stated above, the first one – telling the truth about Kevin – would entail a lot of pressure on the friendship that I had with Kevin as well as on the trust that we both had for each other. Trust is very important not only in friendship but between a superior and a subordinate. If this one is breached between a superior and a subordinate, and between two subordinates or between two superiors, then there is a chance that the parties involved would not be able to work well any longer. Nevertheless, the first option does not consider the other employees as merely essential. It only considers those who are on top. Somehow, this choice violates the stakeholder theory, which states that “effective management requires the balanced consideration of and attention to the legitimate interests of all stakeholders,” or anyone who has a stake on the firm (Hasnas, 1998). This means that, although the rest of the employees are just mere employees, they are still considered stakeholders of the company because they have a stake on the firm, and they should therefore be considered especially important in every decision that concerns them. The second option – denying the employees’ testimonies – is all about the choice whether to reveal or suppress knowledge the public deserves. In this option, where the stakeholder theory must be applied, the decision has to be based on how the extra work given by Kevin to the employees is adding up to their stress. The stress caused by the extra work somehow violates the rights of the employees to have everything that they do rightfully compensated. This means that their rights are blatantly and obviously being violated by Kevin. They should therefore be justly compensated. Thus, the issue must actually be in their favor. Another thing is that, if the utilitarian principle were to be followed, it should be the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people, thus the employees should be given more favor compared to Kevin alone or our relationship together (“What Are Basic Business Ethics Theories?”). Moreover, it is not only that this is a case of a utilitarian principle, but rather it is also telling the truth. Based on Kant’s categorical imperative, or deontological ethics, it is one’s duty to tell the truth whatsoever happens (“Business Ethics: Kantian Ethics”). Thus, if I had to deny the truth about Kevin’s harsh policies towards the employees just for my own personal interests, then it is a clear violation of deontological ethics. It is therefore imperative that the truth had to be revealed. If utilitarian ethics had to be considered regarding the possible consequences of revealing this truth, then the possible consequences should be assessed depending on which one is more significant to the company – the group of around 30 employees in the department or the expertise of Kevin as a manager. Moreover, another consideration that I had to make when trying to make a decision based on utilitarian ethics is considering which is a more desirable option if the truth be told: the employee’s trust in me or Kevin’s. If I were to assess the situation using personal utilitarian ethics, I would say that telling the truth would somehow make me gain more since the CEO and the employees would trust me better. This would be the easiest way to obtain a promotion. On the other hand, if I were to favor Kevin, the only guaranteed outcome (according to him) would be his trust, and he did not promise me any promotion, knowing that perhaps we were both close competitors for his position. Besides, I would not be able to guarantee even the trust since no one can actually trust a man who hides the truth. A liar would continue to lie even to his closest friends – that is what I have always believed in. The utilitarian principle is complicated in this case since it would be difficult to consider whether it should be my own interests or the company’s that should be taken into consideration. The more likely theory that should therefore apply in such a complicated situation should be deontological ethics. Meanwhile, on the matter of my misdemeanors before, I regard it as both my and Kevin’s fault to conceal them. However, while adhering to the principles of deontological ethics, I was just hoping these misdemeanors would simply be forgiven and forgotten. After all, they did not concern the whole company. The third option – quitting the job and avoiding making any decision altogether – is more like escaping one’s responsibility to tell the truth. In this particular choice, there is the idea that I would simply try to avoid hurting both parties and thus breaking their trust. However, this would also be unavoidable since such a decision would surely cause the employees to believe that I did not choose to help them or to take sides with the truth. This would be a big blow to my reputation too for some of the employees, if not all of them, would think that I did not choose to be truthful, honest and dignified in this case. Worse, they would look at me as one fearful employee whose fear proved that I would not be capable of any position of leadership in the company. Besides, if I had to do this, the CEO would then become suspicious of the matter and would eventually find out the truth about Kevin. He would then most likely be reprimanded and terminated or demoted anyway. Moreover, if I had to quit, it would not matter much to Kevin, and my resignation would even allow him to think that I condoned his actions. My resignation would therefore just perpetuate his harsh policies towards the employees. Personally, I had no connection with any of the employees but I could not bear to think that I had a friend who was naturally harsh to them. My friends would reflect on what kind of person I am, not anymore in terms of business but in terms of morality. Thus, if one were to ask me, I would rather make a choice where I did not just have my personal interests given consideration and value but also my sense of morality. The friendship that I had with Kevin was useful but as he could treat others harshly with no remorse, I was led to think that he could also just easily do the same thing to me if he wanted to. Perhaps, he would not do it when he still did not have the reason to but I could sometimes feel in my gut that he would sooner or later. Kevin had a sort of air of superiority in him, and sometimes I would find him in situations where he would curse just anyone or talk behind someone’s back. I therefore could not think of any possibility that he would not do the same thing to me if my own back was turned. Ours was therefore a friendship which was more of utility than that of a true friendship. Besides, personally, I would not want to make friends with someone who is in a high position but who is hungry for power. People like this would sooner or later ruin not only themselves but also their friends of convenience. The decision that was finally made was the first option – to tell the CEO the truth in the report and to reveal Kevin’s harsh policies to the higher authorities. The reason for this was multifold but mainly it was all about deontological ethics. According to the Kantian theory of ethics, one should only do something that one believes is morally right in all situations (Johnson). If therefore it is wrong to lie, then this is something that I should not do in all possible situations especially in this one. The truth must be one of the core principles of the department and of the whole company itself. The truth must therefore also be one of the core principles of every leader of the company – both Kevin and me, as well as the employees in our department and everyone else. In terms of utilitarian ethics, the decision that I made was also very practical and was of a great benefit to the employees. First of all, it helped the employees – the greater number of happiness compared to the happiness of Kevin and me. Now that I had a much better job somewhere else, I am sure that the employees had a much better manager before I left. Secondly, I gained the reputation of a good and honest man, and I was sure I was admired not only by the employees in the department but also by my superiors in the company. I therefore had no shame whatsoever when I left the company. Thirdly, perhaps partly because of my honesty, I was given favor when I formally apologized for what I had before that I knew Kevin had hidden. Although Kevin, upon termination, did not reveal these things to the CEO, I took the initiative to do so. Perhaps, also, out of pride, this is why I decided to transfer to another company many months later. Lastly, my decision was able to help the company, especially by uprooting one corrupt individual (Kevin) that could have actually eventually affected the whole company in the long run. Honesty is the best policy, and honesty and goodness are implied in Kant’s deontological ethics. The point of everything in life is that there is something greater than money, position and power. Eventually, one cannot be proud of advancing in life at the expense of other people. In the company, the best thing to do to ensure the quality of work output is to make sure that the employees are in good hands. If this cannot happen, then eventually the whole company is affected, and my loyalty to Kevin would not be able to compensate for any huge loss that every one of us would eventually suffer from. This is not using the slippery slope fallacy or assuming too much but it is possible since Kevin was handling a big department. Moreover, as a human being, I had to consider also utilitarian ethics and not only deontology. My decision had its own personal advantages to me, and I was also thinking not only about the truth of the matter but also of the good that it would give to the employees and the company itself. Top of Form Bottom of Form Works Cited “Business Ethics: Kantian Ethics.” Information Technology at Nui Galway, 2014. Web. 7 Jun 2014. Hasnas, John. “The Normative Theories of Business Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed." Georgetown University, 1998. Web. 8 Jun 2014. Johnson, Robert Neale. “Deontological Ethics.” n.d. University of Missouri. 6 Jun 2014. Oster, Kenneth V. “List of Ethical Issues in Business." Chron, 2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2014. “What Are Basic Business Ethics Theories?” Wisegeek, 2014. Web. 6 Jun 2014. Read More