THE INDIVIDUAL ROLE IN BUSINESS ETHICS

PAYCANA, Harrel M.                                                        DR. ORLANDO B. MOLINA

Master in Public Administration (MPA)                                            Subject Professor

2009-000014-3

CHAPTER 5 : THE INDIVIDUAL ROLE IN BUSINESS ETHICS

Based on the conversation of Michael Lerner and Carl Iverson 

There is a dichotomy between corporate ethical decisions and those of individual within the corporation to emphasize that the balancing of rights and obligations in strategic and policy decisions is usually for more complex that what we ordinarily think of as individual decisions involving choices between right and wrong. But it doesn’t mean though that dealing with individual problem is necessarily easier, sometimes it can be more difficult.

Corporate policy and strategic dilemmas may be very complex, but often probably most of the time –it’s a group effort.

There is an element of the comfort that comes from a form of anonymity everyone participates, so the matter of individual responsibility is less.

A MATTER OF HONESTY

We have addressed dilemmas from the point of view of company decisions- a consideration of rights and obligations, benefits and cost in conducting the business of the company. People have wonderful powers of rationalization where their own interests are involved. The matters small, they’ll claim it- makes no difference

BASIC RULE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR

1. One should not knowingly do harm

2. A person should not lie or cheat

3. He or she should keep promise, both those made specifically and those implicit in ones behavior or position.

4. A person should not steal.

Violation of these precepts harms someone.

BLUFFING AGAIN

The whole matter of bluffing or lying is one of the most elusive issues to get a hold of. The various forms that lying can take cover a broad spectrum. A lie can be an overt misstatement of fact. It can consist of a presentation of facts, individually true, in manner designed to mislead the listener or reader. Or it can be the knowing omission of something relevant. A lie can involve facts, or it can be concerned with opinions.

One kind of lying is what we called “sugar coat” or calling them stories or white lies. We ordinarily sanction use this. We often do white lies to avoid hurting people’s feelings.

EXAMPLE: Telling your friend you like her dressed even if you don’t.

She tough bluffing, or lying, questions fall in between what constitutes acceptable full disclosure. Pragmatically don’t get involved in anything you might want to call bluffing it would embarrass you, or not be considered reasonable by others whom you respect if it were to come to light. These basic matters of honesty integrity do not ordinarily require any identification of stakeholders.

THE MATTER OF CARELESS MISTAKE

The stakeholders that come immediately to mind are his employer and the customer, and they do not competing rights in his decision- and that’s what makes an ethical dilemma. His obligation is clear and unequivocal: to tell his superior. A person has no right to weigh the impact on her or himself when confronted with the obligation to be honest.

A TROUBLE REQUEST FROM A SUPERVISOR

The situation when someone is asked by supervisor to do something he or she considers morally wrong- not just obvious situations like being asked to steal proprietary secrets from a competitor. The source of many ethics problems in today’s business is the excuse offered that one is only following orders or closing ones eyes to something wrong because it is claimed to be outside his or her responsibility.

There is a risk here, a possibility for a copout- copout is the opportunity to say that one is not responsible for the morality of an action. That one is only following orders. A person must be sensitive to the ethical ramification of what he or she is doing. There has to a limit a point which individual responsibility must take over.

EXAMPLE:  From the book of essay.

(When you are fighting your own little battles, you know exactly what you are fighting for, exactly how right or wrong you are.)

We have to show respect for others a little tolerance- and observe a reasonable perspective and sense of what is important. people should do what they believe is right on matters of consequence –and be willing to take whatever the consequences may be.

KNOWING THAT SOMETHING WRONG IS GOING ON

An individual’s responsibility to stand up for what is right of he or she is asked to do something clearly-out bound.

A strong suspicion must be:

> One should not try to play detective without strong evidence unless something very important is involved.

1. Don’t try to seek out ethical lapses if you have nothing more than a vague suspicion that something is wrong.
2. Don’t act on idle gossip.
3. Don’t let what have just said be an invitation to avoid seeing or hearing thins that are going on.
4. Don’t be suspicious, but keep your eyes upon and maintain healthy skepticism is a pretty good policy.
5. Don’t close your eyes to avoid seeing what you know, or are almost sure, is there . Remaining silent when one knows that something wrong is going on is almost as bad as participation.

THE SHIPPING DEPARTMENT SUPERVISORS PROBLEM

Policy is all important. A supervisor should have to undergo the stress or waste the time to start from scratch on each of these problems. And the company should not run the risk having comparable situations handled in consistently. Also the further you go down the chain of command in these situations. It is relatively easy to objective about on situation. It is relatively easy to objective about a situation. When those involved are nameless and faceless, it is much difficult when someone you see everyday, someone whom you have perhaps worked with for years is involved. That is why having policy is important.

Policy should be well crafted-should carefully balance the strictly business and the ethical concerns. The likelihood of a sound, moral answer is far greater with a good policy. Thought through in advance, than it is with has decisions made by individual supervisors. Heartless as it may seem to manage from written rules, decisions flowing out of a good. Clearly stated policies are likely to be better, more ethical, than ones decided by individuals. No policy, would again stress, can foresee all circumstances. It must be flexible and allow for modification through appropriate up- the line discussions. The supervisor has a personal responsibility to be alert, to question wither the results appear ethical in applying policies.

THE DILEMMA OF THE SHOPPING CENTER MANAGER

This is a situation where a manager in a responsible sensitive position has to handle problems similar in nature to ones addressed by the board or top management.

The situation Karen a company’s operation supervisor in the northwest quarter of one state, she has overall responsibility. One of the older centers in her area has several vacancies, and some of the tenants have said that they will probably move when their teases expire unless the owner does something to upgrade the center.

After Karen renewed the lease of longtime tenant, a major company in a closely related line of business, which had expressed a tentative interest earlier, told her that they were seriously interested in teasing vacant space a few doors away. This would offer serous, possibly devastating competition to the tenant that has just renewed its lease.

This situation confronted her with both business and ethical problems-and see how often these are mixed together.

Karen begging uncertainly was wither her company had any obligation to the present tenant other than what was spelled out in the lease. A point that Karen, to her credit, was that she must not confuse sentiment with ethics. Part of what was worrying her was that she had known and liked the present tenant for a number of years.; she dreaded taking an action that would destroy that relationship. At the same time, she knew that she could not let her personal feelings muddy up a decision of what was economically and morally justifiable. Also her guidelines is making decisions is their company philosophy in this area.

THE PURCHASING AGENT’S DIFFICULT DECISION

The company had experienced a slowdown, the result of an extended recession, with no end in sight. Inventory, both raw materials and finished products, was too high, and strict orders had gone out to curtail purchases and production. For one key part, The Company had five supplies, with 20 percent o9f the orders going to a small local fabricator. The company had used these suppliers for a number of years for several reasons-demonstrated reliability, ready assistance over the years when energies arose, fair prices and desire to support local business. Besides, the purchasing agent had developed a good, if not close, relationship, with the owner. The agent had to reduce purchases by about ¼ and had proposed cutting back all suppliers proportionately. The local supplier had immediately pleaded for special consideration, pointing out that his business was heavily tied to the company’s and that he could not make out on such a reduction for any length of time. On the business side times were tough, and the company could save a bundle by taking the big supplier up on its offer, and how dependable can it be stay with a small vendor that is so vulnerable that the company’s proposed 25% curtailment would jeopardize its viability.