Paper for Business Ethics class - Essay Example

Business Ethics

In this case, the facts reflect the moral uprightness, which depicts the importance of business ethics. This reflection has been made through two characters in the organization. Firstly, the first employee expressed a lack of business ethics by tapping into the company’s computer system, reading other people’s emails, and tracking the websites they visit. This is a serious level of ethical abuse in any organization, as privacy amongst the employees and the organization at large is highly valued. An extension of this vice could as well lead to other delinquencies such as cybercrime, which subjects the entire organization’s welfare at stake. The fact that this crime helped to realize another case concerning ethical perversion does not justify it. Secondly, Lindley, who is another employee in the same organization, was found to be misusing the company’s resources. Lindley spent working hours visiting pornography websites using the company’s computer in his office instead of performing the relevant duties issued to him. This, again, is another serious aspect of ethical perversion. In the two cases, there is a reflection of perversion in individual, organizational, and societal ethics. Thirdly, Al, who is the founding president of the organization, depicts ethical perversion by failing to fire the second employee like he did to the first one. This is because the second employee is his friend. It is, therefore, a revelation of discrimination as an ethical issue in business. Hence, the issue is transmitted from the individual to the organization, and finally to the entire society. The fact that the organization had two cases of business ethics perversion suggests that there is a problem on how employees interpret business ethics within that particular organization. The recruitment officers should, therefore, update their recruiting methods to ensure that all members recruited in the organization are aware of the business ethics.

On an individual level, the two characters have contributed in raising ethical issues in the organization. This has been mainly drawn by the moral standards of each individual. As for the first employee, the fact that he decided to hack into the IT system in the organization and keep track of the communication and web opening activities without having been authorized is clear evidence that his moral standards are low. The case was caused by the decision-making issue right from the root of his actions. With all the knowledge on how to tamper, the individual is capable of choosing not to take the action, if only they were keen on the relevant ethics. Hence, the issue of decision-making appears to be a personal problem. Secondly, the other culprit by the name Craig Lindley seems to have the same problem particularly as far as moral standards are concerned. Watching pornography in the first place depicts immorality of the highest order. Secondly, misusing the resources of the organization reflects an ethical issue. This issue falls under the fundamental issues. The primary cause of such a significant issue is the lack of integrity and honesty. Lack of these two values falls under personal levels, thus, creates an ethical issue on an individual level. However, on an organizational level, the business faces two different ethical issues from two of its employees. The founding president also contributes to an ethical issue in the organization by terminating the employment of one employee and not terminating that of the second employee who happens to be his friend. The discrimination issue is reviled when the president, Mr. Al, fails to terminate his friend’s employment like he did with the first employee. On a societal level, everything concerning immorality has its roots as the social background of the victim and also affects the society. An individual’s moral standards are, in most times, determined by the social environment they have grown in. Mr. Lindley’s acts of immorality show the level of moral degradation in the society he belongs to. Transmission of such level of immorality may also rapidly affect the conduct of other members of his society. This brings down the etiquette standards in that particular society.

The character in the case had several alternatives as far as decision-making is concerned. Some of the alternatives they had would have led them to the right direction while others to the wrong direction. The first character, who is the first employee, had two alternatives. Firstly, even being an expert at hacking the information technology machines of the organization, whether to tamper with the communication system and watch through the sites that his colleagues visit was a personal decision. His choices were either to utilize his knowledge and commit the crime as he did or not. He chose to use the knowledge in tampering with the circulation of information. Hence, there was the alternative of firing him or giving him a second chance bearing in mind that he helped to realize the crime of the colleague, which would have taken a long time without being perceived. Secondly, Mr. Lindley, the second culprit had a choice to use the organization’s computer and sneak through the pornography site or simply say no to immorality and utilize the computer in his office by attending to the official duties. He chose to use the computer for evil purposes. Hence, the President had two choices to make regarding his case. He could fire his friend too or offer a warning.

In the evaluation of each alternative, the first culprit would either have been fired as it happened or be forgiven and given a second chance based on the fact that he helped to make a realization of immorality that was going on. Choosing to fire him would have several effects. First, in case he was one of the best employees in the organization, the company would have lost his skills and may spend a lot of time in trying to acquire a replacement for his skills. On the other hand, failing to fire him and offering another chance subjects the organization to the risk of crime repetition. It makes it possible for the incidence to occur again as he may choose not to quit the vice but become smarter in a way that he will not be caught. As for the second culprit, Mr. Lindley, there was the alternative of firing him for misusing the company’s resources and that of giving him a second chance. Based on the outcomes of his acts, this was not a major offense, as he did not cause as much damage as the first culprit. Firing him would as well cause loss of skills to the organization and wastage of time in finding a replacement. Failure of firing him would also subject the organization to the risk of continuous misuse of resources in case he decides not to change. The advisable alternative would depend on the weight of impacts brought about by each of the alternatives.

Each significant group would perceive each alternative differently. The society to begin with would view the choice of firing the members with the weight of unemployment problem. Whenever a member of the society is unemployed, it brings along several negative consequences to their distinct society. Firstly, unemployed members contribute to the rate of crimes in the society. In addition, having a big figure of unemployed members in the society brings down the growth rate of that society. The society, therefore, would view the second chance option as the better option based on the development of the same society. In addition, it is believed that shaping up the morals of an individual is better as compared to sending them away to the external world. The company views the act of sending away the culprit, as the most effective way of dealing with an individual vice. Apart from having dealt with the roots of the vice, firing the offender helps to scare away any upcoming criminals in the same company. Hence, according to the view of the company, offering a second chance is risky and may act as a major threat to the security and welfare of the company. However, to the specific individuals, they both would opt to have the alternative of enjoying a second chance. Other special groups of interest would prefer different alternatives depending on the party they are interested in. Those that are for the welfare of the organization would prefer the firing option while those that are for the welfare of the society and the culprits would prefer the alternative.

In the organization, constraints that would make any of the alternatives unfeasible would only be brought about by the employment contract that binds the employer and the employee. In most of the contracts, termination of employment would only be caused by the failure of following all rules submitted right from the beginning of the contract. Respecting and observing business ethics is expected to be among the most important rules that every employee should observe. Hence, there is legally nothing that could render the employment termination alternative an unfeasible alternative. Whether or not to fire any of the culprits is within the powers of the president of an organization. Hence, as long as the firing option is feasible, the president could as well choose to offer the culprits an alternative. Hence, the alternative is also feasible and there is nothing that could render it unfeasible. It is hence possible to choose any of the two alternatives.

Personally, I would recommend the option of firing each of the employees. Firstly, there is no doubt that the two employees are culprits, as they admitted that they had committed the offenses. Bearing in mind that they are certified criminals, I find it more than just risky to turn the organization into a hub of criminals. Two are too many to forgive. The offense of the first culprit is clearly hazardous in the organization and would lead to as worse situations as cybercrime. It also threatens the privacy of everyone’s privacy including the president as it was clear that the culprit had gone as far as capturing the vice president of the human resource sector. As for the second culprit, having a criminal in the head offices makes it even riskier than having one in any other office. This means, for the safety of the entire organization, it is advisable to fire the culprits. In addition, it is presumed that in every organization, each employee has to sign and agree to terms and conditions of the employment contract, which entails warnings against ethical perversions in business. Since they did not follow the guidelines that they agreed to follow, it is evident they violated the terms of their contract with the organization and thus firing them is justifiable.

The organization and society might perceive my decision differently. Firstly, as stated earlier on, companies believe that firing is the most effective way of dealing with a situation. This is because firing a culprit means completely ending the vice. Hence, I am sure the organization in this case would agree with my decision as it would help them scare away the upcoming culprits too. On the other hand, the society will view this as degradation. This is because it will render the members of the society unemployed. Hence, it may bring along negative factors such as crime increase and more. However, if at all the same society acted as a hub of people with moral uprightness, such an issue would not occur, meaning unemployment would not be experienced amongst the members of the society. It is, hence, their responsibility to avoid such situations from occurring.

The only possible negative feedback is likely to be from the society as it is the only group likely to be against my opinion. Hence, the strategy of overcoming the negative feedback is as simple as stated earlier on. It will not be fair to the company if the culprits are retained in the organization just for the sake of the society’s welfare. To deal with this negative impact towards the society, morality should be prioritized. This will make it easier and fair to both the organization and the society. Otherwise, as long as the society continues creating such culprits, there should always be expectations of such issues in return.