The Business Ethics Decision-making Process

Business Ethics Institutional Affiliation Student’s name Course Name /Section Professor’s name Submission Date Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc511206909 \h 3Ethics PAGEREF _Toc511206910 \h 4Business Ethics PAGEREF _Toc511206911 \h 4Ethics Issue PAGEREF _Toc511206912 \h 5Ethical Decision-Making Process PAGEREF _Toc511206913 \h 5PLUS Ethics Model PAGEREF _Toc511206914 \h 8Identification of Lenses PAGEREF _Toc511206915 \h 9Application of Lenses PAGEREF _Toc511206916 \h 9The significance of Ethics in Business PAGEREF _Toc511206917 \h 12Impact of Ethics on Leaders and Followers PAGEREF _Toc511206918 \h 14Personal Experience PAGEREF _Toc511206919 \h 15Application PAGEREF _Toc511206920 \h 16Recommendation PAGEREF _Toc511206921 \h 17Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc511206922 \h 18 Abstract This essay entails a thorough analysis of a business ethics decision-making process and the assessment of possible resolution approaches through the various ‘ lenses.’ The introductory part defines ethics and business ethics and highlights its significance to a business internally and externally. The content featured in this essay has been drawn from the textbook and researching various peer-reviewed articles regarding business ethics. Additionally, this essay features the impact of establishing ethical standards in the workplace and how it affects the management decision-making process, working environment and the company culture. This essay also features several ethical theories and how they are applied in assessing a business’ sustainability, balancing scoreboards, and corporate social responsibility in organizations. Additionally, it also features a business ethics case study and dissects the rationale behind the management approach to the issue. The case study featured here is used as a reference guide on how to apply the business ethics in a real world environment. It analyzed in accordance to various ethical lenses and PLUS Ethical Decision-Making model to understand the rationale of the management decision against their employee and how the case affected the business internally and externally. Keywords: Ethics, Business Ethics, Ethical Standards, Ethical Lenses, Ethical Theories Ethics Definition: Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch in philosophy that deals with values concerning human conduct; wrongness and rightness of certain human actions, and the badness or goodness of the intent and outcome of those actions (Meyer et al., 2017). Ethics is individual’s situation-dependent application of moral standards, which he/she derived from the beliefs, traditions, and values that are predominant in societies,regarding what is perceived as wrong or right conduct (Anderson et al., 2014). Business Ethics Business ethics, also known as corporate ethics, is a type of professional ethics or applied ethics that examine moral principles and moral problems that arise in business environments (Meyer et al., 2017). Business ethics apply to all facets of business conduct and are relevant to the conduct of entire organizations and individuals within them. Theses ethics are embedded int the companies culture and come from organizational statements, legal systems, or individuals. These values, norms, unethical, or ethical practices are what businesses use as guidelines. They are beneficial because they assist those businesses to maintain a professional connection with their stakeholders (Ferrell, 2015). Simply stated, business ethics determine how businesses operate, how individuals are treated, and how business decisions are arrived at (Meyer et al., 2017). In business, one is not answerable to a certain individual, but is answerable to clients, customers, and stakeholders. Business ethics are multifaceted and they must be contextualized to arrive at a decision. Some business ethics are bound by policies but some other business decisions do not fall under the guidelines of the law which means; the business person must make their own moral judgment. Ethics Issue Scott Gerber, the CEO of the Gerber Group, encountered an ethical issue that prompted him to reconsider his decisions before firing one of his employees. When he realized that one of his employees was clocking his wife in, who was not showing up until three hours later, the company fired the employee immediately. Afterwards, the employee showed up alongside his father and the two begged for another chance. The employee explained that his wife had recently given birth, which meant that she could not leave for work, until he arrived home. Even though the decision was tough, Gerber and his business partner chose to pardon the employee and gave him another chance. He considered the period his father had worked with the company and why the employee had to cheat. His father had previously worked with the Gerber Group for two decades and was a loyal and devoted employee. As Gerber states “[We] decided to have him [Rehired]. The decision was exceedingly difficult since we technically caught him stealing from the company, and generally, we have a zero-tolerance policy for such behaviors. But because his father had previously worked for us for over two decades and vouched on his son’s behalf that he would never be caught in an act such as this again, we decided to give him another chance,” Gerber concludes. This case study exemplifies how complex ethical issues are to a company because they do not necessarily align with some policies. The loyalty of the employees’ father and the moral reason why the employee had to cheat outweighed the reasons why the company fired the employee and they decided to rehire him. Ethical Decision-Making Process Ethical decision making is complex and companies do not have a perfectly laid out plan outside their policies on how to deal with ethical issues. Many companies face business ethics decisions almost daily. Some are straightforward and require little conscious deliberation - doing what is right simply comes naturally; whereas some can be extremely challenging and complex. While we all know how to distinguish right from wrong, the process of deciding on and implementing what is right is not always simple. Unquestionably, ethical decisions are often the most challenging and complex decisions made in business (Ford, 2013).They also bear the most significant outcomes. The ethical decision-making process will not resolve all the ethical dilemmas present in a business; however, it is intended to allow businesses to take a structured and disciplined approach that helps in directing the actions of business people (Mattison, 2000). Decision makers might use one of the dominant ethical theories – rights, utilitarianism, or justice In the textbook, the ethical-decision making process incorporates various steps. First, take time and establish where the problem stems from. In the case above, the problem arose when the employee began clocking in his wife who was not around and it is stealing from the company and breaches their contract agreement. Sometimes the root of the problem is not obvious as it signifies an underlying policy problem. For example, in this case, the man clocking time for his wife might signify the way the company handles lactating mothers and if there could be a policy that could help them work and get paid or have a paid maternity leave. After defining where the problem stems from, some initial analysis is required and this is necessary as it determines whether the case might need amendment of the company policies. In this case, irrespective of the decision arrived, it might prompt the management to consider reviewing the company policy in favor of lactating mothers. The illegality of the ethical issue has to be considered. Some ethical issues might not have a direct policy they violate but under the company assumes that common sense prevails. For example, if an employee is a freudian and makes fun of a disabled colleague who is unable to some tasks, this is an ethical issue that might not have been captured in the policies. As per the societal standards stealing is wrong and there are policies against it. Questions that can help in determining whether an action has legal implications are: Is there anyone who has been harmed by the decisions or actions of another, if so, in what way? Does the action contravene an existing law? Third, options and possible consequences need to be identified. Establishing the root of the problem and establishing its legality, helps arrive at a decision and the preferred course of action, any advice for methods of handling a matter should be filtered through the lens of how it may or will impact others (Jones, 1991). For the Gerber Group, options and possible consequences were discussed before deciding on how to handle the employee. For example, if the employee was fired, the company would be asserting its strict adherence to its policies and law, but it would have lost an experienced and hard working employee who was pivotal to its operations. Additionally, it would send a message on how the workforce needs to observe the company policies, but also send a signal of how it handles retired employees or those having challenges in their family. Fourth, options should be evaluated. The pros and cons of each available option should be evaluated. This is fundamental in reaching a decision. The notions of outcomes sought, that is, (striving to do what is beneficial for individuals or teams at large) and means utilized (striving to do things the right way) are fundamental to ethical thinking. A leader’s decision should indicate a fair balance between outcomes sought and means utilized to achieve them. Fifth, the best option should be selected and implemented. Arriving at an ethical conclusion requires a final reflection on what the preferred decision is under the given circumstance, a reasonable and just decision that will be valid where an ethical dilemma exists (Gabbay, 2013). Since the decision will likely impact many (i.e., the employee, his father, his wife, and newborn child), it had to be carefully made. Putting a plan of action or decision into effect requires the consideration of various things (Jones, 1991. Once a decision is made, a leader should question him/herself if he/she can accept responsibility for the decision made and if the preferred decision can go public. These questions need consequential evaluation, not only for the decision itself, but for the resulting effect of the decision. This consequential impact, which could be social, professional and emotional, could extend far beyond those directly associated with the dilemma. The workforce, the employee and his family’s future could very well be shaped by this decision. PLUS Ethics Model One of the most utilized and widely cited ethical models is the PLUS Ethical Decision-Making model. To form a cohesive and clear approach to enforcing a solution to an ethical dilemma, this model is established in a manner which offers the leader “ethical filters” to make decisions (Bartlett, 2003). The PLUS model purposefully excludes anything associated with making profits so that leaders can concentrate on values rather than generating revenue. Every letter in PLUS signifies a filter that can be utilized by leaders in decision making. P –Procedures and Policies: does the decision adhere to the policies established by the companies? L – Legal: Will the decision violate any legal regulations or parameters? U – Universal: how does the decision relate to the principles and values set for the organization to operate? Does it align with the company’s cultures and core values? S –Self: Does the decision meet the leader’s standard of justice and fairness? (Bartlett, 2003) This very lens appropriately fits with the virtue approach that makes the five common standards which will be discussed later in the essay. These filters can be incorporated into the decision-making process so that leaders have a clear ethical framework as they embark on the decision-making process. Determining the problem automatically requires leaders to see if it is violating the ethical filters of PLUS. It should also be utilized in assessing the viability of decisions that are being considered for implementation. No model is perfect, but the aforementioned is a standard method of considering four critical components that have a substantial ethical impact (Ferrell, 2000).All decisions must consider the impact to all stakeholders. This reflects the Utilitarian approach discussed earlier. This approach seeks to do good for most and avoid harming others. There are various components to take into consideration when making ethical decisions. Regulations, procedures and policies, public opinion, perception, and also a leader’s morality constitute to how choices that question business ethics should be handled. While no approach is perfect, a useful framework and a well-thought-out procedure can make handling ethical situations simpler. While various situations may require certain steps to go before others, the above approaches are standard processes that leaders can utilize to approach ethical decision-making (Ritter, 2006). Identification of Lenses Decision makers, in this case, CEO Scott Gerber and his business partners, are required to evaluate decisions through all five ethical lenses critically. The five lenses of ethical insight: The utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, the ethics of Aristotle’s Justice, the ethics of Locke’s freedom (rights), Aristotle’s ethics of virtue, and Kant’s ethics of debt (common good). Application of Lenses There exists five ‘lenses’ through which individuals can view moral issues.The first lens is the lens which regards the highest balance of good over evil; this perception accepts that every moral dilemma or situation presents both disadvantages and advantages.This lens is identified as the Utilitarian ethical approach or theory. In this perception, the ethical action course is one that brings with it the greatest balance of good (Noel, 1997). However, the challenge here is; what suits one person, culture, or organization, may be unsuitable for another. The theory affirms that the ethical approach is the one that brings with it the greatest good for the greatest number (Meyer et al., 2015).John Mill and Jeremy Bentham held that, we should maximize the good, that is, bring forth “the greatest good for the greatest number.” The Gerber Group was successful in executing this when they chose to rehire the employee because he had a wife, newborn son, and possibly a father who were depending on him. Thus, the decision was made for the greater good of the employee and his dependants. The second ethical lens utilized for this analysis is that moral issues are based on the philosophy that individuals possess dignity depending on their ability to select what they will do with their lives. Secondly, is that people have fundamental moral rights to have their choices respected; as long as their choices do not impinge on or violate the choices and rights of others. This theory asserts that each person has a right to be provided with the truth and to be treated as a whole. As stated by the rights theory, an action is considered ethical if it regards everyone’s moral rights. According to this theory, what the employee did was very unethical as he violated the company’s policies and failed to inform the CEO of his situation, which would have otherwise been understood and dealt with separately; thus avoiding all the trouble, he had to go through to regain his job. The third ethical lens utilized for this analysis is founded on Aristotle’s philosophy which asserts that equal should be treated equally while unequal is to be treated unequally. This lens defines the concepts of discrimination and favoritism which it utilizes as metrics to assess the ethical nature of inaction or action (Hayibor, 2017). The justice or fairness theory asserts that favoritism offers advantages to a few select with no sound reason for distinguishing them. It posits that discrimination foists disadvantages on persons who are no different from those on whom they are not enforced. Therefore, it concludes that both discrimination and favoritism jointly and singly are wrong, unjust, unfair hence unethical. Based on this theory, the action the employee received was favoritism reason being; a second chance was given him only because his father was a previous employee; this led the CEO and his associates to rule in his favor. Had it been another employ...