Briana Santaniello
10/04/13
Short Incidents for Ethical Reasoning
A Clouded Promotion: The chairman is responsible for the promotion of the vice chairman who
has an outstanding performance record; however this same vice chairman lied on her application,
claiming to have an MBA from the University of Michigan, when she had never finished the
required coursework. This is in conflict with the personnel director’s request to perform resume
checks for current employees receiving promotions who had not been through such checks. The
organization ethic suggests loyalty to the organization (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Despite the vice
chairman’s impressive performance record, she lied on her application and quite possibly was
given her current position as a result of this lie. Once in this position, she proved to be competent
and successful; however the personnel director insists that these resume checks be performed.
Keeping in line with the organization ethic, the chairman could justify either retaining the vice
chairman but not promoting her or he could justify firing her. The ends-means ethic can
simultaneously be considered, which would allow her impressive performance record to justify
her decision to lie on her application, and would allow the chairman to combine both ethical
views, resulting in retaining her but not promoting her.
The Admiral and The Thieves: This case is similar to the example of E. H. Harriman who fired
the whole crew because one of the trains nearly derailed when a work crew had neglected to post
a flagman. This example was presented in the discussion of the practical imperative, which is to
“treat others as ends in themselves, not as means to other goals” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). The
group was punished as a whole to teach a lesson to everyone in the company. Admiral Thomas
Westfall fired both the petty officers and the civilian storeroom clerk for the petty officers’ theft.
These two examples are similar as all were punished to teach all a lesson which is in accordance
with the practical imperative.
If the civilian cashier was not aware that the Plexiglas was stolen, the Admiral’s decision to fire
all three individuals would not be in line with retributive justice, which “requires punishment to
be evenhanded and proportionate to the transgressions” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). However
Plexiglas is large and difficult to conceal, making it unlikely that the cashier was unaware, and
thus the Admiral’s decision to fire all three would be in line with both the practical imperative
and retributive justice in this instance.
Sam, Sally, and Hector: Compensatory justice “requires fair compensation to victims for
damages” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). In this example, only Sally received additional
compensation because she threatened to sue the company. Sam and Hector accepted the
severance package agreement without complaining and did not receive additional compensation.
All three were laid off from middle-management positions and therefore should all be
compensated the same when considering compensatory justice. However the might-equals-right
ethic states “justice is the interest of the stronger” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). In this instance
Sally exercised her power and received a better severance agreement. According to this ethical
viewpoint, Sam and Hector would have had to complain about the inadequate severance package
in order to receive this improved package as Sally did. When considering compensatory justice
and might-equals-right ethics, both seem to conflict in this instance. Therefore the disclosure
rule, which states that “a manager faced with an ethical dilemma asks how it would feel to
explain the decision to a wider audience, such as newspaper readers, television viewers, or your
family,” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012) could also be considered. Both the disclosure rule and
compensatory justice viewpoint overpower the might-equals-right ethic in this instance and
would place the organization in an awkward position if they had to explain to the public their
unequal severance packages given to the three employees.
A Personality Test: The rights ethic requires the protection of “people against abuses and entitle
them to important liberties” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). An employer requiring potential hires to
take a psychological profile test which may be used to weed out unusual personalities would be
violating the personal liberty of privacy. This invades an individual’s personal life by asking
questions not directly related to a person’s potential employment. In this instance, a person who
lies on the personality profile test in order to fit into a “normal” range and pattern of behavior
would be breaking the categorical imperative, which allows no exceptions to the rule (Steiner &
Steiner, 2012). Because the potential employer is breaking the rights ethic, the potential hire
going against the categorical imperative. Both parties are acting unethically in this instance, but
it is first unreasonable for a company to require future hires to take such a test. Despite the
potential hire from also acting unethically, he or she is doing so in response to an initial unethical
behavior by an employer, which justifies the behavior.
AL: If the statements “corporations are economic institutions run for profit” and “their greatest
responsibility is to create economic benefits” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012) are the basis of the
CEO’s decision, then the CEO did the right thing by not pressing the issue or taking any action
regarding Al’s behavior. However conventionalist ethic states “business is like a game with
permissive ethics and actions that do not violate the law are permitted” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012).
If rules are in place regarding socializing, bribing, and coercing loading dock workers, as well as
regarding permissible discounts and delaying payments, then Al broke these rules, which would
be going against the conventionalist ethic.
A Trip to SeaWorld: In keeping with the organization ethic, the sales representative should be
loyal to the organization. This could mean that he a) gives in to the buyer’s subtle request for the
company to pay for him and his wife to take a trip to SeaWorld to seal the buying contract, or b)
that he denies this request. The company has already spent $4,200 for the buyer’s trip to Los
Angeles and the trip to San Diego would only be an additional $500 more. The buyer is certainly
taking advantage of the sales representative and the company, and he is the one acting
unethically by abusing the system. However permitting this additional trip would lock in the deal
with the buyer, allow a 9% gross profit on the sale, and allow the sales representative a 0.125%
commission over base salary. Utilitarian ethic suggests making the decision that results in “the
greatest good for the greatest number” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Because all parties would
benefit from this deal, the CEO should permit this request. If he does not, the company could
potentially lose out on a $40 million dollar deal, which would result in a huge loss for the
company and the sales representative.
Mary and Tom: Tom was not fair to Mary because they both worked on the same team and were
both assigned to a special, critical project. Both initially put in approximately equal efforts;
however Tom then decided to volunteer for a companywide task force and began attending
numerous meetings, leaving Mary to pick up the slack. Mary got the job done while Tom began
to decrease his efforts for the special project so that he could attend the task force meetings. Tom
received recognition for both projects and received the job for which both he and Mary applied.
One issue here is might equals right, which states “justice is the interest of the stronger” (Steiner
& Steiner, 2012). Tom got the job because he pushed harder in one area, slacked in another, and
Mary didn’t exercise her power. Per this viewpoint, the outcome is fair; however the theory of
justice states “each person should act fairly toward others in order to maintain the bonds of the
community” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Tom and Mary were on the same team working toward
the same goal, but Tom did not maintain the bonds of the community because he began to work
toward a personal goal, leaving Mary to pick up the slack. In this instance, Tom’s behavior was
not fair to Mary, nor was his promotion. However the company was not wrong to promote Tom
because they were unaware of Mary’s struggle to finish the project on her own due to Tom
slacking off.
The Honda Auction: Conant was placed in a difficult position, as he had essentially two choices:
act unethically and keep the dealership, or act ethically and lose the sales that would come with
following Joselyn’s orders. Deontological ethics is “the idea that actions are right and wrong in
themselves independently of any consequences” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Per this viewpoint,
neither followed deontological ethics and both performed actions which were wrong.
Consequentialism is “the idea that actions are right or wrong, in part or whole, based on their
consequences” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Conant’s decision to follow Joselyn’s orders resulted
in him keeping his business, which would indicate that his actions were acceptable because they
resulted in a positive outcome. However Conant’s decision to follow Joselyn’s orders also
resulted in the other companies losing out on these sales when they were not given a heads-up by
Joselyn. A third ethical viewpoint, conventionalist ethic, states “business is like a game with
permissive ethics and actions that do not violate the law are permitted” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012).
Joselyn told Conant to place a false bid so both parties could receive the commission on the deal.
None of the other companies were given this information, making this a violation of
conventionalist ethic. Conant should have suffered the consequences of breaking the rule and
reported Joselyn to keep the playing field even for all parties involved.
The Tokyo Bay Steamship Company: Tokyo Bay Steamship Company did not meet basic
standards of ethics. The company capitalized on the suicide volcano’s popularity by increasing
its fleet and adding more restaurants. The intuition ethic states that “what is good is simply
understood” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Capitalizing on people’s decisions to commit suicide is
simply understood to be unethical. The Japanese government’s decision to make purchase of a
one-way ticket to Oshima a crime helped to prevent some of the suicides but this could not
completely reverse the issues caused by the Tokyo Bay Steamship Company’s unethical
behavior.
Tiger Woods: Corporate sponsors should apply their ethics standards to celebrity endorsers if
their ethics mention celebrity endorsers. If the ethics standards leave out these individuals, they
are not required to apply these standards. The conventionalist ethic would be followed in this
instance because no laws are being violated. However the theory of justice sates “each person
should act fairly toward others in order to maintain the bonds of community” (Steiner & Steiner,
2012). If these companies truly consider themselves to be representative of a community, it
would only be fair to include celebrity endorsers in their ethical standards and hold them to the
same level of integrity as all other employees. The disclosure rule would then be broken as well,
if non-celebrity endorser employees would be fired for the same transgressions, while celebrity
endorsers would not be fired. In combining these three ethical principles, corporate sponsors
should then apply their ethics standards to celebrity endorsers regardless of their mention of such
individuals in their ethics.
Works Cited
1. Steiner, G., & Steiner, J. (2012). Business. government, and society: A managerial
perspective, text and cases. (13 ed., pp. 183-193). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.