BUSINESS ETHICS 2150 Final
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
North Carolina A&T State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MGMT-427
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by DukeManatee2145
FINAL EXAM
Harold MaGee
DECEMBER 15, 2023
BUSINESS ETHICS 2150
Webster University
Relevant Facts:
Joe, recently promoted to District Manager of Computer Operations, is informed by Mary, his supervisor, that the CEO received an anonymous letter stating that a recently installed system is not performing as expected (Hartman, 2017, p. 112). Joe had previously reported the system's poor performance to Mary. Mary, the original supporter of the system, instructs Joe to draft a reply to the CEO, stating that the system is performing as projected and achieving all savings portrayed in the original justification documents. Mary threatens Joe, indicating that failure to comply may raise doubts about his ability to perform as a District Manager (Hartman, 2017, p. 114).
Ethical Issues:
Mary's directive to provide a misleading reply to the CEO raises ethical concerns about truthfulness and honesty in reporting the system's performance. Joe is faced with the dilemma of whether to remain silent about the system's shortcomings or to speak up, potentially jeopardizing his position (Hartman, 2017, p. 122).
Primary Stakeholders:
As the District Manager, Joe is directly affected by the ethical dilemma and potential repercussions. As Joe's supervisor, Mary plays a key role in the situation and faces potential consequences based on Joe's actions. The CEO is a primary stakeholder as the recipient of the anonymous letter, seeking accurate information about the system's performance. Those affected by the system's performance are indirect stakeholders, as their work may be impacted.
Ethical Alternatives and Constraints:
Joe can comply with Mary's request, providing a reply that misrepresents the system's performance. However, this compromises the ethical principles of truthfulness and honesty. Joe can bypass Mary and report directly to the CEO about the system's actual performance, upholding the principles of transparency and accountability (Hartman, 2017, p. 128). However, this might jeopardize Joe's relationship with Mary and his position. Joe can express his ethical concerns to Mary and seek guidance on finding a solution that aligns with honesty and integrity (Hartman, 2017, p. 130). This alternative involves open communication but may not guarantee a resolution.
Ethical Decision-Making Models:
Applying ethical decision-making models, such as the Utilitarian Approach, Rights Approach, and Virtue Ethics, can help Joe evaluate the consequences, consider individual rights, and uphold moral virtues (Hartman, 2017, p. 135). For instance, a Utilitarian analysis would weigh the overall happiness and well-being of all stakeholders,
including the CEO, employees, and Joe. The Rights Approach would consider the right to truthful information for the CEO and the right of employees to an accurate representation of the system's performance. Virtue Ethics would encourage Joe to
demonstrate virtues such as honesty, integrity, and courage in addressing ethical dilemmas.
In conclusion, the ethical and legal principles applied in this case involve careful consideration of truthfulness, transparency, and accountability. Joe must weigh the potential consequences of his actions on various stakeholders while upholding his commitment to ethical principles.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Reference
Hartman, L. P. (2017). Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity. McGraw-Hill Education.