Mgt 567 - Ethical Decision Making

Ethical Decision Making

Angelica Fleming, Tristan Jones, Christopher Randazzo, Cheryl Trippe, Delman Woodrum

MGT/567

October 20, 2014

What are Ethics? Ethics according to Webster are defined as 1.  moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior, or 2.  the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles. In this paper we are given an example where we have to put ourselves in a situation to make an ethical decision. This is a decision that must be made with all consideration for all involved parties, but even more for the company. There are certain aspects, rules, policies and procedures that must be followed to ensure that all parties involved get the expected results in all fairness.

First step to finding solutions is to discuss the impasse with the administrator to receive benefit of their knowledge. Front-line workers can come up against a variety of ethical impasses in their professions, like making a decision whether to disperse a reimbursement that does not particularly follow company regulations or whether to tell about notions of internal stealing that are unable to be proven. Taking the ethical concerns to administrators can continue to deter employees away from trouble while resolving differences.

It may also be a good idea to converse with collaborators from other companies if this can be completed while not giving away company secrets. The company management needs to find someone that is trustful and part of a business networking group, a prior company or from college to boost insight. Consider communication with business associates from various cultural backgrounds to expand a wider assortment of insights.

Reading more precedent news editorials about additional companies faced with the company's precise quandary. Conclude how additional companies have handled the company's current hurdle before and pay attention to the conclusion of their resolutions. News outlets will report specific large company choices, like letting go of employees, backing political applicants and stretching accounting procedures, that would put ethical impacts in the general public. Reading the outcomes of others once they made their decisions gives the company a heads up of what to anticipate if they were going to make a parallel verdict.

What are the key facts that you should consider before making a decision, as either the person who discovered the iPod, the friend, or the judicial board member?

        The key facts that will be considered before making a decision is there will be perceptual differences among the person who discovered the iPod, the friend, and the judicial board members. According to Hartman and DesJardins (2011), perceptual differences surrounding how individuals experience and understand situations can explain many ethical disagreements. Knowing the facts and carefully reviewing the circumstances can go a long way towards resolving disagreements at an early stage (p.47).

        The person that found the iPod may not think it is such a big deal to keep the iPod considering class has started and it doesn’t look like anyone has been looking for it. The friend is stuck in the middle of the situation on whether or not to go along with his friend and not say or report the iPods finding, or to tell the friend to turn it in. Together the two face moral, ethical, character, and integrity issues.  For the judicial board member, it is pretty cut and dry, when the person that found the iPod decided to keep the iPod, regardless of whether they knew it or not, it must have had an effect on the well-being of the person that lost it. Thus, his decision had ethical implications.

Is this an ethical issue? What exactly are the ethical aspects involved in your decision?

        The discovery of the iPod is an ethical issue. It belongs to someone, someone lost it, it is not the friends, and it has value to someone. According to Hartman and DesJardins (2011), if you acknowledge that you would not accept the legitimacy of keeping the iPod if you were the person who lost it rather than the person who found it, then that is a strong indication that the decision to keep it is not a fair or ethical one (p.52).