Ethic theory on the Workplace - Case Study Example

 Case Study Ethics Introduction Ethical dilemmas are a common phenomenon in the modern-day workplace as individuals are faced with situations that challenge their morals, ethics and conscience (Hackley et al., 2008). The case study in question discusses such a case which requires some ethical decision making in spite of the consequences. The case study discusses a scenario in which a well-established airline company wishes to venture into a thriving Waskhazia nation. This can be possible through obtaining landing rights in this country. An opportunity has emerged where the entity could possibly get these landing rights. Kamal is in charge of this deal and he should bear in mind that it could change the company’s fortunes. However, if he succeeds in closing the deal, he could receive a handsome bonus that could help in a number of personal commitments like taking care of his ailing parents. This means that if he fails to get the bonus and the anticipated promotion life will be hard for him and his family. This is one side of the coin as obtaining the landing rights in this case is difficult and there is a plethora of legal and bureaucratic problems associated with it. Kemal was relying on the help of a local manager meaning that he was well connected and understood the local system. This marked the start of an ethical dilemma as the manager was asking for some money from the company to sweeten the deal and buy gifts for some influential individuals. If the gifts were not handed as asked, the landing rights would be offered to a rival company which had also shown considerable interest. This qualifies as corruption since the expense on the ‘gifts’ would be recorded in the financial books as an expense in form of payment to oversees officers, government fees and marketing (Hackley et al., 2008). This paper offers advice on the best decision that Kemal should take based on the various ethical theories learnt in the course work. First, there are two kinds of ethical theories, consequentialist and non-consequentialist. There are two consequentialist theories that include egoism and utilitarianism (Shaw et al., 2009). Ethical egoism is the first theory that can be used to give an answer as to what Kehal should do. According to the theory, Kehal should give the gifts that the influential individuals are demanding. In this way, he will be acting in his own interest as prescribed by the theory. This is because it is assured that the airline will be granted the landing rights once the influential individuals receive what they demanded. Once the company has obtained the landing rights, Kehal will receive the promotion as well as a bonus. This will help him to cater for the medical expenses of his ailing parents and sort out all his commitments. Egoism is largely viewed as a consequentialist theory since it focuses on the consequence of an action for the agent instead of the final outcome. In other words, the theory is based on self interest and its major strength is that it evades the possibility of a conflict between self interest and morality. It would be rational for Kemal to offer the gifts to the influential individuals since by pursuing his interest morality is equated to rationality. The second consequentialist theory that can help in cracking the ethical dilemma is utilitarianism. Based on this theory Kemal should not hand the gifts demanded by the local manager to be given to the influential individuals. The theory states that the actions that individuals undertake should be aimed at maximising happiness for the greatest number of people (Shaw et al., 2009). The theory adds that human beings are rational and self-interested and this goes a long way in proving why Kemal would be highly tempted to grant the wishes of the influential people. However, if this is done various parties would be negatively affected, for example, other companies interested in the landing rights and the members of the public. If Kemal followed through with the deal, it would be risky for the company if reported to the authorities. The airline’s reputation would also be adversely affected. Basing the decision on utilitarianism it can be concluded that Kemal should not give the gifts to the influential individuals. The other category of ethical theories is referred to as the non-consequentialist theory and is made up of Kant’ ethics, virtue ethics and the duty of care approach (Shaw et al., 2009). Kant ethics is popularly referred to as deontology or duty based ethics. Using this theory, Kemal is advised not to buy the special gifts for the influential individuals. People are rational beings and should learn how to make moral decisions. Giving the key individuals the gifts that they had asked for is immoral and amounts to corruption. Furthermore, Kemal’s organisation harshly campaigns against corruption, and as an employee, he is obligated to abide by this critical policy. Secondly, the virtue theory is based on the character of the individual (Shaw et al., 2009). Therefore, if Kemal is a virtuous individual he is likely to make the right choice for the company. However, if he is not a virtuous, he would engage in an illegal action. The virtue theory looks into the character of the individual as well as the morality of their action. The theory advises against making the decision to honour demands of the influential individuals. It is based on various aspects including bravery, justice, temperance and prudence (Harris, 2008). Since virtue ethics advocates for morality and all that it represents, Kemal should not spend the money set aside for the project irrespective of whether it is within the budget or not. Finally, the duty of care theory stipulates that Kemal owes the duty of care to various individuals and, therefore, the actions he will undertake should take this into consideration. Kemal has a duty of care towards the airline’s management, competing companies for the landing rights, the government and members of the public. Therefore, Kemal has the duty to make a decision that is in the best interest of these parties. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is one theory that proposes that Kemal should give the gifts to the influential individuals for the company to get the landing rights. This is the egoism perspective. Other theories take into account the impact that the decisions would have on other parties directly or indirectly linked to the deal. The outcome proposed is not fair to Kemal’s family because his ailing parents are likely to suffer more as he does not have enough to cater for their wellbeing. If Kemal could have granted the wishes of the powerful individuals, he could have gotten the bonus which this means he could have afforded his parent’s future health care costs. The solution is also not fair to the company because if it loses the landing rights to a competitor, it will lose its competitive edge in the market. However, this decision is fair to the company in the long term as it will avoid any legal action of corruption nature. Fairness refers to absence of bias to both parties that are involved in a given action or decision (Shaw et al., 2009). The case would remain the same even if the giving of these gifts was barred by the law. This is owing to the fact that the giving of these goods is viewed as corruption in the first place (Harris, 2008). Therefore, there would be no significant difference in the advice given in the above discussion. Based on the ethical theories discussed in the paper corruption is wrong and would have a negative impact on various parties directly or indirectly. The advice that is based on the egoism theory solves this as Kemal cannot simply take an action that is in his self-interest if at all it is prohibited by the law. On the other hand, the answer given in the discussion would remain the same even if the gifts demanded were expensive like overseas trips, cars and holidays. Conclusion The above discussion presents an ethical dilemma in which an airline employee is involved in negotiating landing rights in a new market. Based on the advice presented by the ethical theories it is clear that Kemal should not give the gifts to the influential individuals despite the fact that their expenditure is within the budget of the project. Kemal should undertake actions that benefit the majority of those directly and indirectly involved. Kemal is also obligated to follow his company’s policy against corruption as well as the law. References Harris, H. (2008). Promoting ethical reflection in the teaching of business ethics. Business ethics: A European review, 17(4), 379-390. Hackley, C., Tiwsakul, R. A., & Preuss, L. (2008). An ethical evaluation of product placement: a deceptive practice? Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(2), 109-120. Shaw,WH, Barry, V., & Sansbury, G. (2009). Moral issues in business. Australia: Cengage Learning. Read More