The Importance of Ethical Decision Making
Holy Cross College
Clint Green
Organizational Behavior and Management
I pledge my honor that I have not violated the HCC Academic Honesty Policy during this
assignment.
ABSTRACT
Each day people around the world are constantly faced with the task of making ethical
decisions. In fact, not one person can escape it. Some decisions are “no brainers” while others
can be controversial at times. In a subject such as Organizational Behavior and Management
ethics are especially important to consider mainly because it covers such a large part of the
spectrum in the business world. In this research paper I will explain how ethical decision
making relates to different parts of the business world and what key factors should go into
making these decisions.
Green 2
As stated, one cannot avoid making decisions in life. Therefore, it is necessary that one
is not only capable of being able to make a decision, but also make one that is ethical. So what
are ethics in the first place? According to EthicalDecisionMaking.net experts say, “If a decision
is morally and legally accepted by the larger community, then that decision is ethical.”
(ethicaldecisionmaking.com) However true in most cases, ethics can be formally defined by
Webster’s Dictionary as the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of
human actions, or a particular group or culture. Ethics along with decision making are
imperative especially in a managerial position. This is true for a few reasons. Managers often
lead teams and must be able to ethically communicate in an appropriate manner with workers
so that positive and productive activity is achieved.
When one considers the subject of ethics, one must have a strong understanding of
what society bases its ethical standards on. In other words, what sets the bar for ethics and
how can we determine what is actually ethical and what is not? Over the years multiple
approaches have developed in an effort to answer this question. In class, one approach we
talked about was the utilitarian approach. Utilitarianism is mostly based on resulting outcomes
of the decisions that are made. In the the book Business Ethics, a book containing different
business articles arranged by John E. Richardson of Pepperdine University, a quote by John
Stuart Mill, in an article by Gregory D. Foster, sheds lights on the idea of utilitarianism. He says,
“The two essential ingredients in the sentiment of justice are the desire to punish a person who
has done harm, and the knowledge or belief that there is some definite individual or individuals
to whom harm has been done.” (Foster) If the good resulting effects of the decision outweigh
the bad then the decision is deemed ethical. In an article written by Manuel Velasquez and a
Green 3
group of professors at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, an
example of utilitarianism is given. The article states for example, “Ethical warfare balances the
good achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries,
and destruction.” (Manuel Velasquez) The article continues, “The utilitarian approach deals
with consequences; it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.”
(Manuel Velasquez) The warfare example shows that there is harm done to both sides.
Soldiers on both sides are killed and cities are destroyed. However, the resulting outcome is
the end of terrorism which outweighs the harm experienced.
Santa Clara University also gives examples of three more approaches to this question.
After the utilitarian approach comes what is known as the Rights Approach. According to the
article the Rights Approach is solely based on the right of human culture. It explains, “This
approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se
or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives.” (Manuel Velasquez) In other
words, it is up to the society of a culture to decide rather an action is ethical or not.
The next approach is known as the Common Good Approach. The article describes it as
being based on the good of the community and the works that result from that community’s
outreach. The article states that this approach suggests, “…that the interlocking relationships
of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others—
especially the vulnerable—are requirements of such reasoning.” (Manuel Velasquez) This
approach seems to define ethics as the amount of good one can do and is mostly based on
works.
Green 4
The final approach is the Virtue Approach, which is meant to benefit the entire human
race as a whole. The article further elaborates, “These virtues are dispositions and habits that
enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like
truth and beauty.” (Manuel Velasquez) Examples of this include virtues such as honesty,
courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, and fairness. With a combination of these
five approaches, one can have a better understanding of how certain subjects are to be
considered ethical and unethical.
Although ethical decision making often applies to managers and employers, it also plays
a serious role in the everyday routine of the workers themselves. Most often workers have to
make ethical decisions in groups for assignments such as team projects and tasks that require
intense problem solving. One of the main ethical problems that can arise in a group setting is
workload distribution. In the class text book Organizational Behavior by Stephen P. Robbins
and Timothy A. Judge the importance of roles among participants in a group are discussed. The
book defines the term roles as, “a set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone
occupying a given position in a social unit.” (Judge and Robbins) Roles are important because
they evenly distribute tasks among the participants within the group. Throughout my
education experience I have been involved in a countless number of groups whose job it was to
perform a number of different tasks. It is impossible for me to count the number of times I
either got stuck doing all of the work or relied on someone else to do it for me. This is where
ethical decision making comes into play. Is it ethical for one person to do the majority if not all
of the work for a given group? I do not believe so, even though I am guilty of this myself at
times. The question now is why it is not ethical? When one does not uphold his or her task in a
Green 5
group it is considered somewhat disrespectful to the other members who have preformed their
job as required. It is safe to say that no one likes to have someone else’s work piled on them
just because someone else was too lazy and incompetent to perform the task themselves. For
a group to practice ethically each member must realize how they are supposed to engage each
other in the group.
Another ethical dilemma that can arise in groups is the process of decision making. In
some cases a group may have two options. The first option, being the ethical option, would
possibly require more effort and hard work and could also be more time consuming. The
second option, considered by the group to be unethical, would accomplish the task just as well
as the first option and would require little to no work. Would it be better to choose the second
option over the first because it is easier and less time consuming or vice versa? Another more
practical example of this may be when a professor assigns a take home test. The professor
instructs each student to complete the test by themselves or suffer the consequences. Ignoring
this warning, a number of students form a “study group” and complete the test together. In
the end the professor does not find out about the group and each student gets an A on the
assignment. Overall, every person in the group benefited with a passing grade even though the
grade was earned unethically. Although each student passed the assignment, are they really
helping themselves in the long run? It can be argued that when a person in a group
continuously coasts on the works of others, they can become not only dishonest but also
incompetent.
Closely related, the book mentions that cheating can be reduced when the rules are
clearly stated to the individuals within a group. In other words, when people in general see the
Green 6
ethical standards placed in front of them they will most likely not cheat. In chapter nine of the
class text book this idea is confirmed through an experiment in which the Ten Commandments
were shown to a group who afterwards were put into a position to cheat. There was a second
group that was only given the opportunity to cheat without seeing the Ten Commandments.
The results were announced showing that, “Participants in the first group didn’t cheat at all,
where as those in the second group cheated a lot.” (Judge and Robbins) An example of this
type of technique can be seen above the abstract in the beginning of this paper. We were
required to write “I pledge my honor that I have not violated the HCC Academic Honesty Policy
during this assignment” in order to reduce the risk of plagiarism. I see the rules and therefore
do not wish to cheat.
Although it is a key factor to consider when working in groups, ethical decision making is
involved in more than just teams. When it comes to individual decisions, ethical decision
making can be the deciding factor of rather one keeps their job, or has to find a new one. One
such example is the dilemma of self reporting work hours. According to the class text, many
people over report their work hours. This can be a problem because it mainly affects pay and
certain employee benefits. The text gives an example of an anonymous employee who over
estimated the hours he worked in a week. The text states, “In 1985, time diary studies revealed
that the average worker claimed to work 40 to 44 hours per week and actually worked 36.2.”
(Judge and Robbins) The main question that comes to mind is for what reason would someone
deliberately overstate their work hours? In class we have briefly mentioned some of these
reasons. The first reason has to do with workers who are under the impression that they put in
more effort than any other coworker. As a result, the worker feels that he or she is entitled to
Green 7
more than what he or she makes at the present time. A second reason results mainly from the
strenuous requirements of one’s job. For example, if a person has a job that requires them to
put in a high amount of work hours, they might get the sense that they are working longer than
they actually are. With this being said, which reasons can we say are ethical and which ones are
not? When it comes to the first reason it only makes since to say that it is an unethical decision
mainly because the person is knowingly and deliberately reporting hours they have not worked
just to gain what they think they deserve. In other words they are lying for personal gain. If the
first reason is considered unethical does that mean the second reason should be considered
unethical as well? Although both reasons are similar actions, there is one distinguishing
difference between the two. In the second reason the person is reporting information based
on what they believe to be true without trying to gain more hours deliberately. They may
report more hours than they have actually worked, however, they are reporting it honestly.
Therefore it can be argued that the second reason can be considered an ethical decision.
Ethical decision making can definitely come in handy when it comes to work place
romances. Is it ethical to date a coworker? This subject is strongly debated among people in
the work place. According to a chart found in the class text book men and women both have
different opinions on the matter. When asked if you would date a coworker, 43% of men and
28% of women said yes. What seems to be harmless at the time can turn into a nightmare
down the line. Many problems can arise when you have a relationship with another person at
work. According to an article written by the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, these problems can cause trouble in the work place. The article states how
problems such as distractions and disputes are more likely to rise between two workers who
Green 8
are dating. Charles A. Pierce, an associate professor of management at Fogelman Collage of
Business, elaborates on this issue. He talks about, “…extramarital affairs and romance between
a boss and subordinate. They can disrupt the office, harm teamwork and lower morale. To
many co-workers, an affair violates their ethical values and they may feel morally compromised
if asked to cover for adulterous colleagues.” (Pierce) Issues such as these can diminish work
place productivity and can cause others around the office to feel uncomfortable in some
situations. This type of behavior can also have compromising effects at the management and
leadership levels of a company. If a person in a leadership position is in a relationship with a
lower level employee it may cause favoritism to develop. If other employees sense that the
person in charge is unfairly favoring an employ due to a relationship, then problems start to boil
among other employees towards management. Professor Pierce goes on to say, “Romance can
be ever present within the workplace and may be no further away than the next desk. A 2006
study by the Society for Human Resource Management found that as many as 40 percent of
workers had had an office romance. (Pierce) Office romances may seem harmless as first but
have the potential to cause serious problems in the work place.
In retrospect, ethical decision making is extremely important in many different aspects
of the working environment. Each person must be able to not only understand how to make an
ethical decision, but also understand why it is important to act ethically in the work place.
People are faced with ethical decisions every day rather they be pertaining to working in
groups, communicating with others, or on an individual basis. Making these decisions
appropriately will carry a person far in the working world.
Green 9
REFERENCES
Foster, Gregory D. "Ethics: time to revisit the basics." Richardson, John E. Business Ethics.
Dubuque, Iowa: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 14.
Judge, Timothy A. and Stephen P. Robbins. Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson, 2011.
Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J. Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean. A
Framework for Thinking Ethically. May 2009. 5 March 2013
<http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practiving/decision/framework.html>.
Pierce, Charles A. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2013. 5 March 2013
<http://www.siop.org/Media/News/office_romance.aspx>.