Business Law, Ethics and Social Responsibility Unit 7 Written Assignment

1 Case Study: Unit 7 Business Law, Ethics and Social Responsibility T 2 Overview of Case Steven is currently the assistant department manager who has been at the company for a few years since his graduation from university. He has done well as a staff account in the accounts payable section of a major industrial firm and feels as if he has learned a lot about the ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ of surviving in the intensely bureaucratic organization. This led his to take on a relaxed and unconcerned stance about his circumstances at the company when welcoming a new supervisor to his own team. The new manager of accounts payable, Kristin, transferred to Steven’s division to ensure organization and efficiency of all operations and seems to be a sensible and straightforward leader. While asking each of her subordinates about any suggestions they may have for her, Steven mentioned concerns he had recently about people being promoted based on connections instead of work quality. Kristin tells Steven that she will do her best to figure out what is going on and that there is no place for this in a team she would lead. The next day, Kristin asks to see Steven and harshly asks who is not prioritizing the company’s interest. Steven has the choice to respond or risk being assumed to be one of them. Ethical Issues There are several ethical issues that we see with this case. The first issue is that there is a risk that trust will be lost with either Kristin or Steven’s workmates depending on his decision. If Steven decides to mention the names of his colleagues, he could lose the trust of his colleagues but, if he does not, he risks losing the trust of Kristin. Either one of these decisions ends up with a loss of credibility and reputation. All his hard work over the past few years will be for naught because it it is not enough to improve his professional image; he must also have a positive attitude and good reputation(Thomas, 2020). Another issue that could arise out of the 3 circumstances should Steven decide to release names is that the information he provides may not be 100% accurate. If he mentions names without evidence and Kristin chooses not to investigate further, the employees names could risk a damage to their own reputations and careers. Another ethical issue can be the tone in which Kristin asks that Steven provide the names. Her tone almost makes the request seem like a threat which is unethical and illegal(National Labor Relations Board, n.d.). Another issue to consider is that Steven may have mentioned this issue without much thought but with hopes that he would gain a personal advantage. Stakeholders There are several stakeholders in this case. They include Steven, with his credibility at stake, Kristin, who will make her decisions based off the information Steven will provide, the employees names, as they can lose their jobs based off the information provided, the department, the company, and other users of the company. All of these people will be affected one way or another depending on the decision that Steven chooses to take. The Alternatives and the Ethics of the Alternatives 1. Steven can provide the names of Kristin and ensure that he provides concrete evidence to her 2. He is unsure of his accusations and decides to apologize to Kristin for the mistake he made 3. Steven can ask Kristin for more time to think and gather evidence about his claims The utilitarian approach figures out the most ethical alternative that will benefit the majority(Velasquez et al., 2015). If Steven decides to go with this approach, Steven should report all of those who aren’t working in the best interests of the company as long as he has solid evidence against those people. This would benefit the firm and its employees as well as users of 4 the accountants. If Steven ends up not taking action despite there being people who are acting as Steven claimed, there could be a loss of productivity and profit for the company. The rights based approach would suggest that everyone’s rights should be protected(Velasquez et al., 2015). This means that Kristin should know the names of the employees involved in this issue so she can make the right decision. Practical Constraints Because Kristin put Steven on the spot, Steven may be pressured to answer instantly and not provide the right information or make the best decision. He could also be contained by the fact that some of the people he thought of for this case involves his own friends who he has a personal interest in protecting. He could also be affected by the thought that he has to continue working at the place where he called people out for their behavior which could lead to a loss of trust. He also might not be able to provide proper evidence because he has yet to investigate. Recommendations Considering the choices and the alternatives, I would suggest that Steven should ask for more time to compile evidence and details for the issue at hand. This is the best decision because it would ensure that Steven is certain that his claims hold some weight. This would also allow for Steven to apologize for his lack of evidence or weak evidence so Kristin can take proper actions. Asking for time would allow for Steven’s statements to be genuine and based off facts without conflicts of interest and support Kristin in her goals of creating an organized and efficient workplace environment. It is essential for a team to build a good team to succeed(Haas & Mortensen, 2016) and, as the Manager, it is Kristin’s responsibility to build a team that focuses on accountability and creativity(Doyle, 2021).