Ethical Dilemma Description

In the organisation in which I worked as an intern, fairness and equality were one of the
values that all the employees were supposed to maintain. The organisation had several
policies in place to guard against discrimination, nepotism, fraternization and even sexual
harassment. All the employees in the organisation are expected to report any suspected
cases to the Human Resource department for serious disciplinary. The discipline may
entail interdictions, demotions or even summary dismissal.

I noticed that there was a case of discrimination at the organisation. Our department was
only composed of six men. Towards the end of the internship, one lady joined our
department. I realised that one of my colleagues was making sexual advancements
towards the lady. I would see the lady complaining and warning him to stop sending her
text messages. I noticed my colleague sometimes grabbing her by the hands forcefully
and smiling at her. At one point our manager got wind of the issue. He organised a
meeting and talked to all of us. He explained what sexual harassment was and referred
all of us to the human resource manual. He wanted us to read and familiarize ourselves
with the contents of the document. He, however, warned us not to mention the issue to
the human resource manager. However, the issue did not stop. The man continued
harassing the lady. The manager decided to do something unusual. He used his powers
and moved the lady to a different department. In doing so, the lady automatically gained
employment into the organisation. His main reason was that he was trying to protect the
lady from harassment by moving her where she would only have to deal with her fellow
ladies, The lady had only been with us for about two weeks before she was given the
promotion to move to a higher position where she would supposedly be safe.

Ethical Dilemma Justification

The issue at the organisation was an ethical issue since it not only went against the policy
of the organisation but also went against the Equal Opportunity Act. It was a dilemma
since reporting the case would end up affecting three people at the organisation; the
manager and the two employees at the centre of the issue. The organisation describes
discrimination as either treating or proposing to treat someone unfavourably as a result
of their protected characteristics. It also includes bullying an employee due to their
protected characteristic. The Equal Opportunity Act as Brown and Trevio, (2006) states,
Protects people from discrimination in their places of public life which include workplaces,
shops, clubs, and schools and so on. This was clearly a case of direct and indirect
discrimination at the workplace.

The manager decided to favour an employee who was sexually harassing another simply
because he had a special liking for him. He even warned us against reporting the issue
to the office of the human resource. However, the situation was not the same for other
employees. At the start of the internship, one employee was dismissed by bullying
colleagues at work. The manager was very quick to report the issue to the human
resource managers who acted with a lot of speed and got rid of the boy.

However, in this case, the manager not only acted in a manner that went against the rules
of the organisation but also directly favoured someone who was breaking the rules. The
human resource manual requires such cases to be documented and shared with the
human resource office and warning given or dismissal carried out according to the final
decision made by the human resource office. The manager clearly went against the
stakeholder theory which as Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts and Chonko (2009)
argue, acts as the custodian of morals and values in an organisation. Such actions as
Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes and Salvador (2009) state, had an effect on
demotivating employees which would eventually interfere with their productivity in the
organisation. This would eventually interfere with the requirements of the shareholders
whose main purpose as Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, and Kuenzi (2012) maintain, is to
maximize the profit making ability of an organisation. The behaviour of the manager also
clearly went against the agency theory. As an agent of the organisation, he was expected
to act in the best interest of the shareholders as Bass and Bass (2009) maintain. In this
case, he was openly going against the policy that had been put in place by the
shareholders of the organisation. In this case, the manager was guided by his own self-
interests as opposed to being guided by the interests of the company. This according to
Akker, Heres, Lasthuizen and Six (2009) is wrong.

The situation was further compounded by the manner in which he promoted the lady to a
higher position. Again he acted based on his own self-interest. The manner of the
promotion was discriminatory in nature. The promotion was based on the ladies protective
characteristics and not on merit as is required in the organisation. There were people
within the department who were more qualified than the lady whom he promoted. His
actions as Resnick et al. holds, were in line with the virtue ethics theory since they were
benevolent. They were also in line with the utilitarian theorists since as Ciulla (2014)
maintains they were meant to maximize the well-being of the lady. However, the
promotion was discriminatory in nature since it went against the rules of promotion at the
organisation that is based on merit and performance evaluation.

Ethical solutions.

In this case, the manager should have been guided by the virtue ethics theory which Dinh,
Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden and Hu (2014) greatly propose. Despite the fact that he
had a special attachment to the boy who was sexually harassing the lady, he should have
done the right thing by reporting the issue. Reporting the issue would have resulted in the
punishment of the boy and would have discouraged such an act at the organisation. This
as Shin (2012) holds, would have been for the better of all the stakeholders in the
organisation. By reporting the issue, the manner would have adhered to the stakeholder
theory to the latter as Fry and Kriger, (2009) posits. It would have proved that the
organisation was operating according to the laws of the land and that it valued the rules
set by the shareholders, rules of the land and that it also cared about the well-being of
the employees as Bello, (2012) maintains. This would have been in line with the utilitarian
and the deontologists point of view. Reporting the case as Ruiz, Ruiz and Martnez,
(2011) maintain, would have maximized the well-being of the lady employee as the
utilitarian theorists hold.

Besides that, the manager should have encouraged the employees within the department
to report the issue. Warning the employees not to report the issue put them in danger
since they were not acting to the requirements of the organisation. The organisation policy
clearly stated that such issues had to be reported to the human resource department who
would then deal with them in accordance with the disciplinary policy of the organisation.
Despite the fact that helping the lady was charitable or even benevolent as the virtue
theorists maintain, the manner in which it was done went against the rules of the
organisation as outlined by Mayer, Kuenzi, & Greenbaum, (2010) maintain.

The manager used his powers to move the lady to another department by way of
promotion which was not right. Despite the fact that consequentialists would define virtue
as traits that yield good consequences and deontologists would define virtues as traits
that are possessed by people who fulfil their duties, the manager failed by not following
the right procedure (Kalshoven, & Boon, 2012). His actions may have been done out of
good intentions and well-being of the lady, but they went against the rules of the
organisation. If everyone were to be guided by virtues that they thought that were socially
acceptable, the organisation would be plunged into chaos by several different decisions
that are not backed up by policy.

The employees are very important stakeholders. They are the driving engines in any
organisation. Whenever there are such types of favouritism, the employees in an
organisation get demotivated which as Mahsud, Yukl and Prussia (2010) argue,
eventually interferes with the performance of the organisation. The employees may,
therefore, cease acting in the best interest of the organisation. As an employee, the
manager should have acted in the best interest of the organisation by following the laid
down rules. In the case of the promotion, he needed to have followed the right channels
which entail discussing the need for promotions with the human resource management
based on the performance of the employees which is done twice a year. The lady did not,
therefore, qualify for the promotion that she was given. There were other people who were
more qualified to get to the position that the lady got. This would be in the best interest of
the stakeholder theory which would require him to act in the best interest of the
organisation and not individuals.
Part 2

Appendix A

The group dealing with the case of Mike Gustafson argued that Mike was a baby boomer
who believed in the real corporate social responsibility. The groups argument that Mike
believed that it was the role of top level management to ensure that the organisation was
ethically responsible seems to hold some water. From the words of the group members,
the role of a code of conduct should be used to guide the actions of all the employees of
the organisation and must be enforced by the people at the top level management. The
groups believed that top management was supposed to put their beliefs of corporate
governance into action. The group quoted the exact words which state that the young
executives mouth the words corporate code but do not put it into action. The executives
of an organisation as Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber (2009) posit, are supposed to care
for the environment through their actions and not just by word of mouth or through the
acknowledgement of rules that state that organisations must be socially responsible. The
group argued that the employees as part of stakeholders did not care about the
community which was part of the stakeholders. The group argued that it was the role of
organisations and not the business schools to practically instill the role of corporate
governance into their young executives. Mikes theories were associated with
Deontological ethical theories. The argument given was that the young executives must
focus on their moral obligations and duties and do what is right which concurs with what
Eisenbeiss (2012) asserts in his work. I seem to concur with the argument of the group.
Mike was probably from a generation where a lot of care was put on social responsibility.
The millennials would not hold corporate governance with a lot of seriousness unless its
instilled into them practically at work and not theoretically from their business schools.

The group that discussed Jan Edwards painted her as a true believer in corporate
governance and social responsibility. Jan was painted as a person who would describe
ethical leaders as a people who would sacrifice their time for the good of the society. She
came out as someone who believed that business and ethics could work together as
Schaubroeck et al. propose so long as the business people understood the meaning of
the word ethics. However, there was some conflict of interest in her movement. The
shareholders were as Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog and Folger (2010) assert, seen as
people who capitalise in profit maximization and would prefer employees who sacrificed
everything to achieve this. The group argued that the argument of Jan was based on a
Deontological theory which holds that leaders are morally obligated to do that which is
right. The assertion by Jan is justified since she tries to advocate for business
performance but also insists that executives must go out of their way to try and help
people in the society.

In the case of Mei Hua Felung, the group argued that ethical leadership entailed adhering
to rules that govern conduct and behaviour within the organisation even if they conflict
with the rules that guide good ethics and professional conduct outside the business. The
arguments by Mei- Hua Felung are found not to hold any water. She insisted that so long
as workers adhere to the rules of the organisation, they can be deemed as being ethical
leaders. However, by following the rules of the organisation, they could be breaking
fundamental laws which is ethically wrong according to Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber,
(2009). Her argument that ethical behaviour can work side by side with the interest of the
shareholders is right as explained in her context. The groups argument was that the
whole idea was meant to maximize profit for the shareholders.

As the group maintained, Mei is not an ethical leader. She does not encourage her team
to be ethically responsible for ensuring that their actions conform to the law of the land.
She insists on following the organisations conduct of conduct even if it conflicts with the
law of the land. Meis thinking goes against the utilitarianism theory as fronted by Avey,
Palanski and Walumbwa (2011) since it results in benefits that only favour a few people.

Deshi Chen comes out as someone who believes that the main aim of a business is to
make profit. The group argues that Deshi Chen would describe business ethics as hurdles
that get in the way of making profit. The group claimed that Deshis point of view was
drawn from his experience with the real business environment. He believed that ethics
was a just a word that was used to get stakeholders on board but was not practised in
businesses. The group maintained that his assertion that business ethics did not hold
any merit was based on his personal encounters with unethical businesses and did not
hold any merit since there are many business that still uphold ethics. His thinking was
purely based on egoism theory as fronted by Dinh, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden and Hu
(2014) since he was determined to maximize his own self-interests.

From the case, perhaps it is the responsibility of the business schools to ensure that they
instil practical significance of business ethics into their students and teach them the
importance of balancing personal interests, shareholder interests and the interests of the
community.

Appendix B

The case involving Borries portrays a lot of ethical issues. The employees of the
organisation spent an average of 50 hours per week which is legally wrong. They are
clearly being overworked. They are doing more work than they should be doing. Besides
that, certain employees are compelled to arrive as early as 5 am to meet tight deadlines.
The ethical dilemma in this case stems from the fact that they cannot report the issues
for the fear of losing their own jobs. Besides that the employees do not belong to any
trade union. This therefore means that they lack the much needed union protection which
can give them some immunity if they protest against harsh treatment at the organisation.
The lack of union representation therefore means that the employees cannot collectively
fight for better terms or better treatment within the organisation. They are forced to comply
with the laws and regulations at the organisation without question.

Besides that it clearly comes out that employees do not have personal time. They are
forced to social within themselves in the organisation which evidently has created strong
bonds among the employees. However, employees are by law entitled to certain number
of leave days a month which they are supposed to take at their own discretion. In this
case, this does not seem to apply since the employees can only go on leave at the
discretion of the organisation. The situation is clearly evident in the case of Borries who
is forced to cut short his holiday with his girlfriend to take care of the needs of the
organisation and the clients. The case of Borries is a clear testament that the organisation
only cares about the needs of the shareholders. Too much concentration is placed on
profit maximization to benefit the shareholders at the expense of employees of the
organisation. The voices that are considered important in the organisation are the voice
s of customers and management. Besides that, employees are fired very quickly when
the organisation realises that they are unsuitable which is ethically wrong. There is need
for warnings, mentorships and so on after performance evaluations before finally making
the decision to fire an employee.

The ethical dilemma in the case of Borries clearly stands out. It is the history of the
organisation to get rid of employees who are found to be unsuitable. The actions of
Borries were perhaps guided by the fact that he would be fired if he did not put the
organisation first. His response to his colleagues who blamed him for letting go of his
holiday proves that his reasoning was based on utilitarianism theory. He claimed that his
action as Bello (2012) asserts, was meant to ensure that as many people as possible
were happy which in this case included the organisation and its clients.

Perhaps his colleagues were guided by the contractualism point of view. They all had the
feeling that Borries had the right to go for his vacation. They believed as Fry and Kriger,
(2009) hold that it was morally right for an employee to go for his vacation. Going by
natural rights theory, the actions of the organisation clearly violated the right of Borries to
go for vacation and have his own personal time. A lot of emphasis was put on the needs
of the organisation which going by the consequentialism theorists as Shin (2012) asserts,
would be right if the argument was based on the final outcome. Despite the fact that the
final outcome resulted in the maximization of the majority, it brought out the self-
centeredness nature of the organisation which as stated in the egoism theory only seeks
to maximize the good of the self (Fry, & Kriger, 2009). In this case the organisation as
person would only consider an action to be ethical if benefited from it.

Appendix C. Interpersonal and team working Skills.

Throughout the exercise, I was purely guided by the Utilitarianism theory. I wanted
something that could result in the greatest benefit for all the people in my group. I,
therefore, made sure that I adhered to all the group discussions and group meeting. I tried
to challenge certain decisions but always went with the decision of the majority where I
knew that the decision made was for the benefit of the entire group. At certain times I was
guided by deontological theory. I believed that I was morally obliged to do what is right
and therefore went out of my way to do all that was necessary to ensure that I had fulfilled
all the tasks that had been assigned to me just as Bello, (2012) proposes. At some point,
I always went out of my way to remind my group members of their obligations to prepare
their arguments in time to ensure that we did not remain behind.

Like in other groups, the conflict was a common thing in our group. Group members
always argued over the different points of view that would be presented by different
people within the group. In certain instances, there were certain members who were
egocentric and believed in maximizing their own self-interests as Ruiz, Ruiz, and
Martnez, (2011) state. Certain group members would not meet deadlines for the
submission of the tasks assigned and would always skip certain meetings. I made use
of my charisma and charm to approach the stubborn people in the team and to explain to
them the importance of working together with the team and meeting all the set deadlines.
I cleverly took them back to the ethical guidelines that had been set by all the team
members which were to guide all the team members in the group and reminded them of
the importance of adhering to the rules for the sake of team unity. In the end, they saw
the benefit of teamwork which facilitated our success.
Reference

Akker, L. V., Heres, L., Lasthuizen, K., & Six, F. E. (2009). Ethical leadership and trust:
It's all about meeting expectations.

Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). When leadership goes unnoticed:
The moderating role of follower self-esteem on the relationship between ethical
leadership and follower behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 573-582.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual review of psychology, 60, 421-449.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual review of psychology, 60, 421-449.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications. Simon and Schuster.

Bello, S. M. (2012). Impact of ethical leadership on employee job

performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(11).

Brown, M. E., & Trevio, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future
directions. The leadership quarterly, 17(6), 595-616.

Ciulla, J. B. (Ed.). (2014). Ethics, the heart of leadership. ABC-CLIO.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014).
Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends
and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62.

Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplinary, integrative

approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 791-808.

Fry, L., & Kriger, M. (2009). Towards a theory of being-centered leadership: Multiple
levels of being as context for effective leadership. Human Relations, 62(11), 1667-
1696.

Kalshoven, K., & Boon, C. T. (2012). Ethical leadership, employee well-being, and
helping. Journal of Personnel Psychology.
Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. (2010). Leader empathy, ethical leadership, and
relations-oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader-member exchange
quality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(6), 561-577.

Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical
leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and
consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1),
151-171.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2010). Examining the link between ethical
leadership and employee misconduct: The mediating role of ethical
climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 7-16.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. (2009). How low
does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1-13.

Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. (2009). The
virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal
of Business Ethics, 90(2), 157-170.

Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D. N. D., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship
between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31(23), 259-278.

Resick, C. J., Martin, G. S., Keating, M. A., Dickson, M. W., Kwan, H. K., & Peng, C.
(2011). What ethical leadership means to me: Asian, American, and European
perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 435-457.

Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue-based measurement
of ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 235.

Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Martnez, R. (2011). Improving the leaderfollower relationship:
Top manager or supervisor? The ethical leadership trickle-down effect on follower
job response. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 587-608.
Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W., Lord, R. G., Trevio,
L. K., ... & Peng, A. C. (2012). Embedding ethical leadership within and across
organization levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1053-1078.

Shin, Y. (2012). CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate strength, and collective
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 299-312.

Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). An improved measure of
ethical leadership. Journal of leadership & organizational studies, 20(1), 38-48.