USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Part B: Portfolio of Evidence Contents
The portfolio contents should provide evidence of your diligent engagement with the module activities including the directed learning opportunities. Your portfolio should be divided into clear sections, with the appendices clearly marked A, B, and C so that your examiner can easily find and mark your evidence. A summary of our expectations is provided below:
Appendix A: The Ethical Leadership Debate (in Seminar 5)
A reflective statement of 600 words which describes and critically evaluates the arguments presented in the debate on Ethical Leadership. Your argument must culminate in your opinion regarding the debate motion. We expect you to analyse the arguments (for and against) made by the teams on behalf of their characters in your seminar. We are not asking you to write an essay purely based upon the character biographies that we supplied for debate preparation.
This is the debate on Ethical Leadership in class:
Debate Title: “The business school believes that ethical leadership is impossible in a shareholder focused economy”
Mike
Agrees upon statement
Stakeholder view is more important, having good ethical leadership allows companies to be more ethical.
While shareholder view only focuses upon profit and real business don’t always evolve around profit.
Mike is in stage 4: Law & social science, as he has been lecturing ethics for years and a member of Greenpeace.
Also applied to Act Utilitarian, protesting towards wrong actions and seek for majority happiness.
Maxim 2 – human dignity, treats majority humanity and respect.
Corporate governance – believes in both (way of life and codes of conduct) “there must be rules to follow; cultivating people to become more ethical”
Jan Edwards
Agrees on the statement
Focused on the society (by building community, programs for disadvantages people and charities)
Virtuous – believes businesses and society cannot be separated
No egoism – claims to contribute not for show
Utilitarian – seek for greater happiness to greater amount of people Maxim 2 – treat majority equally (provides education in Gutemala and advices small businesses)
Corporate governance – way of life
Triple bottom line – “as long as you contribute/care for the society & people, profit will come later”
Level 3 Stage 5 – contribute to majority of people (society) (pluralistic view)
Level 2 Stage 3 – shows empathy and humanity
Deshi – Chen
Agrees on the statement
Conservative due to Chinese culture, doesn’t care about ethics
Egoism and Individualism – only cares for his family
Maxim 1 (Consistency) – he believes on his own perspective only (“I was born with no ethical concern”)
Virtuous person and only ethical towards parents dreams
Corporate governance – doesn’t care or don’t believe in corporate governance (Stage 6)
Mei – Hua
Disagree because businesses lack ethics today.
Mei Hua is an ethical leader who helps companies to reduce taxes. (Utilitarian)
Claims to be definitive stakeholders
Stage 3: follow the codes of conduct of government and company orders. Hence, gains good position due to his work.
Maxim 2: Human dignity (Building the community and having concerns for other people.
Views on corporate code of governance: Code, as profits always come first.
Debate
Mei – Hua to Mike
Mei: Mike claimed to be the dangerous stakeholder when he is actually a mosquito?
Mike answered, having experiences as a university lecturer on ethics makes him as dangerous stakeholder and the member of Greenpeace.
Mei included Mike just following the institute order and other people knowledge, so it doesn’t mean that he is the ethical leader?
Mei: if mike were to be ethical, he wouldn’t force his daughter into ethical perceptions for example: if Mike protests his daughters company this would eventually affect her job. Mei further suggests Mike is at stage 1 only. “Following principles only but doesn’t rely on his own thoughts”
Mike argues to be stage 4 because he obeys right behavior and respects authority.
Jan Edwards to Deshi
Jan: Deshi claims that western companies are ethical but when doing business in Asian countries they become unethical. Could this apply on Deshi’s belief as well?
Deshi ans: Not really, deshi claims to not hide, cover mistake and always remain transparent. Maintain his obvious manner and sustain his point of view which is “ethics is a waste of time”.
Deshi: Jan is an unethical leader, with high egoism and high human dignity?
Jans ans: Jan denies she’s not egoistic and she claims that all her doings are to contribute to the society.
Jan puts herself at stage 3 – good boy – good girl as she’s empathetic towards the majority. Deshi agrees with this statement.
Mei Hua to Deshi
Mei: states Deshi to be at stage one as he only looks after his selfish needs. For instance, using his parents as an excuse for getting a decent fiancé.
Deshi: claims to be in stage 3 rather than stage 1 as he cares and is empathetic towards his family (follows parent’s instructions).
Mei Hua to Jan Edwards
Mei: Mei argues Jan for using charity to lure shareholders and promoting her company and herself. Also Mei claims Jan to be in stage 4 as she is legally contracted with stakeholders and egoistic.
Jan: Jan states her family should know that she’s doing. Jan claims to be in stage 5 &3 as she uses encouragement to gain profit.
Other student’s perspectives
MEI HUA:
Cannot see problem between legally saving company money within the rules and her codes of conduct.
Is in stage 3&4, problem: victim prosecution which is being complex where she claims to be ethical.
Jan Edwards
Shown as highly reflective person
Proud ( wants to be acknowledged and takes all lime light)
Encourages everyone to like her
Level 3 stage 6
Mike
Found to be most dishonest person
Protes tied to his daughters issues
Tries to satisfy own selfish needs/wishes
No ethical principle showing
Level 3, stage 5
Deshi
Most honest character
Objective is to earn a degree and help his family out
Family oriented and keen on future plans
Has been blunt about his dislike towards ethics
Level 1 stage 2.
Appendix B: The Seminar Case (in Seminar 1)
A reflective statement of 600 words concerning the seminar ethical dilemma case which was discussed in the Seminars One. Briefly identify the ethical dilemmas in the case, and then select one for analysis using the normative ethical theories and descriptive frameworks taught on this module.
This is the debate on Ethical Leadership in class:
Team Swee Lan did not agree with Stage 5 because Borris did not consult Marcus and friends and believes Borris is actually in stage 2 – egoistic.
Marcus’s decisions/opinions should not affect Borris’ decision because they might want to take advantage of Borris to improve their own status in the company.
Team Marcus questions why are there only 3 theories applied instead of 6?
In Germany individualist is high which means they put work first before thinking of relationship with others
Probability of effect – any decision that borris makes will affect people
Temporal – in the company, employees have close relationships. The managers, marcus and friends’ relationship with borris will be affected.
Can you prove act utilitarian approach?
Greater people affected will be the company, manager and colleagues
Emphasize the importance of the client and high regards they had for borris’ work (borris clients have high expectation, if he lets them down the company will be affected as a whole)
Employee tend to be either dismissed quickly after their unsuitability or leaves voluntarily after only 2/3 years. (borris worked for for years now which means the company likes him and he also likes his work)
If this launch was a success, then they would likely generate further contract
Stage 2 Borris is selfish
· If he goes on holiday – the project will be delayed, he will have no control of the project, clients might lose trust and no further contracts in the future. Colleagues may be affected as they would also be receiving less contracts in the future.
· Manager emphasizes the importance of client as the company operates in a highly competitive market
He needs to balance his priorities (needs to prioritize his future)
Swee Lan can be more supportive of the decision
Legal social contract
Did not taken account of minority group
Disregard the relationship between colleagues
Good boy – good girl orientation (stage 3)
Majority does not believe exist
Observers disagrees with egoism( team Swee Lan) because if he is showing egoism, he would not have relationship with other people – they think he follows the rule utilitarian approach (rules of the company) (stage 1)
Team Swee lan disagrees because Borris did not discuss with marcus and friends and the company has no right to take someone out of their holiday.
Team Swee lan thinks that Borris is ethical only when there is a contractual relationship and that he seems to be unethical when there is no contract involved.
Company (contractual relationship)
Swee Lan (no contract)
Did not consult Marcus and friends (no contract)
Goes against maxim 1
Appendix C: Interpersonal and Team-working skills
A reflective statement of 300 words showing how your interpersonal and team-working skills were used in this module.
References list (at least 10 journal articles for every appendix)
Mike Gustavsson
Mike is a retired lecturer from Malmo, Sweden. Mike taught Business Ethics at a well-regarded University for many years, and has been an active member of Greenpeace since 1992. Mike had believed that ethical behaviour of corporations is set by the behaviour at the top of the organisation, if you have good people at the top of the company, making good decisions, and using good rules, then the company itself will be ethical. Alongside this, Mike had argued that a virtuous set of rules for directors, and effective oversight of these rules, were key to producing good behaviour.
In recent years Mike has become a little disillusioned with this viewpoint. Mike’s daughter Anna graduated from the Stockholm School of Economics in 2005 and has since quickly risen to the role of a hedge fund manager at Alfaraft AB (an international profitable hedge fund). Mike has found himself in fierce arguments with his daughter who, since taking on the job, has changed greatly in his eyes. To him, she has changed from someone who used to care about the environment and social problems, to someone who works tremendously long hours and now seems utterly focused on her next bonus payment. Worse (to Mike), now that Anna is a part of management, Anna seems to be strongly espousing (advocating) is “get-rich-quick” bonus making message to her subordinates.
Mike is aware that Alfaraft AB has a well-written corporate ethics and governance code, and even donates to several local Swedish charities, but now wonders at what kind of company they are. Mike was at first extremely happy that his daughter had a good job, but now he’s worried at the type of business environment which is generated at companies which takes idealistic young graduates fresh out of Business Schools and turns them into bonus seeking executives. Where are these good governance guidelines acted upon, how is the company actually led? Why do young executives seem to “mouth” the words of corporate codes, but not act the actions?
Mike participated in his first Occupy protest on 16th October 2011. The protesters occupied the ground floor of the Alfaraft AB building in Goteborg, Sweden, in protest of their heavy financial investment into major companies who were supplying dubious third world regimes.
Jan Edwards
Jan is the CEO (Chief Operating Officer) and founder of Clean Solutions Inc., an industrial building maintenance company based in Kansas, Missouri with substantial operations across seven states in the Midwest of the USA. Jan employs a total of 927 people in a business she founded after finishing her Social History degree in 1997 at University of Kentucky. Clean Solutions Inc. has fifty shareholders, mainly local small Kansas investors, and Jan is very proud that these investors have been well rewarded for their initial trust in her.
Jan is an active member of the True Vine Baptist Church, and through this, she has become involved in a programme to provide educational facilities in Guatemala. Given Jan’s success as an entrepreneur and small businesswoman, she often finds herself donating her time to advising Guatemalan small businesses on how best to manage their businesses to encourage job creation in the local Guatemalan region. With her husband Ken and their four daughters Jan has made five trips to the villages around Petapa in recent years. Jan feels passionately that people gain self-respect, self-reliance and self-motivation through gainful employment, and she sees the act of entrepreneurship, and the creation of new job opportunities, as a powerful step towards helping the Guatemalan people. For many years, Jan has run a programme to encourage workers at Clean Solutions Inc. to donate their time to helping people more disadvantaged than themselves, and she is proud that last year her company donated a total of 1020 working days of time to charitable works, more than one day per employee (the company doesn’t market or advertise this fact).
Jan has become increasingly concerned in recent years at the nature of graduates she is employing out of business schools onto her in-house graduate development programme (the internal management scheme). Many of the graduates seem extremely focused on profitability and working their way up the company ladder rather than on good people management skills, being well-rounded citizens and good, genuine people. Jan feels let down by the educational system, and business schools in particular, who seem to be geared to producing graduates who are merely “meat-for-the-grinder” for larger international companies who are utterly focused on shareholder wealth development. Jan has commented to her Vice-President of HR on a number of occasions that these graduates seem “institutionalised” before they even get to her. Schooled in thinking of the functional areas of a business, on profit, wealth and budgetary systems, and they seem ignore the importance of the first word “good”, in the words “good businessperson”.
Jan’s Vice-President of HR has made it clear to Jan that these new graduate managers are amongst the lowest contributors to the company’s charitable time donation scheme, donating only a quarter of the time, as a grouping, when compared to the whole workforce. Jan sees it as her duty as CEO to change this trend.
Mei-Hua Felung
Mei-Hua is a successful Senior Manager at International Pharmaceuticals Company WCP, one of the largest firms in the world (Headquarters Luxemburg for tax reasons). A successful Accountancy graduate of a leading UK business school she was delighted to accept an invitation to come to an Alumni event recently where she was asked to participate in a debate on whether her business school should continue the teaching of ethics and ethical leadership to students.
Mei-Hua feels strongly on this issue. She feels that professionals have had in recent years a very poor and negative image from the press as to their ethical conduct. While she won’t argue that accountancy in particular has deserved some of the bad press it has received, she feels this has gone too far in many cases. Accountancy as a profession has strict codes of conduct and strict rules, and Mei-Hua has always adhered (worked within) these rules, and she believes both she, and her fellow professionals are very ethical and moral people who are being treated unfairly. In her company, for example they have a strict corporate code of conduct, especially on financial issues such as fraud, and she has always been impressed at the way that this code of conduct is reinforced in corporate induction and in the company literature.
Mei-Hua believes that many people are actually unaware of how ethical some companies actually are, or at least, they are highly cynical. The Directors of WCP have an engagement strategy with charities in a number of third world countries, and while they do use this extensively in their marketing literature, Mei-Hua sees no harm in this; after all, it is the shareholders money. Mei-Hua believes that strong ethical codes of conduct and strong codes of professional behaviour lead to a more moral and ethical business, and that profit and wealth generation, as well as those ethics, can work alongside each other.
Mei-Hua is sure at the debate that a recent tax case which was in the news regarding WCP will be mentioned. WCP recently had to come to a large settlement with the US Government’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding a certain scheme, and paid a $7bn out-of-court settlement to prevent the case going to prosecution. As a Senior Manager and Accountant at WCP Mei-Hua has been involved in developing a number of entirely legal (never prosecuted successfully) tax avoidance schemes which have saved the company literally millions in potential tax payments, routing transactions though tax havens such as Hong Kong, Dublin and Singapore. Mei-Hua believes there is nothing wrong with this. It is governments which create the tax rules, not her. She and the other accountants are merely “playing within the rules”; not breaking them.
Deshi Chen
Deshi was born in the Lincang, in Yunan Province of China near the border with Laos. The city has a population of nearly 2.3 million and its economy grew last year by 15%. Deshi’s parents’ dream of him working one day for one of the major international companies which have been setting up joint ventures in the city, and Deshi himself desperately wants to gain an education to get a good job. Deshi, who is 20, is concerned that without a good office job he will never be able to provide a stable home environment to start a family, and that he’ll not be attractive to prospective fiancées. Deshi’s parents are the first of their family to have reached a comfortable “middle class” lifestyle, and Deshi’s Dad has worked hard all his life as a factory foreman (frontline supervisor) to provide for his son. Deshi’s grandparents are both uneducated farm workers, and while he and his family provide as much care and support for them as they can, they also serve as a constant reminder to Deshi and his family of their humble beginnings. Deshi has worked hard all his life in his education, and has tried hard to build himself some good business experience doing office gopher work (go-for) in the city during his summer. Deshi’s parents have saved a long time to send him to a western UK-based university Business School to finalise his education, and they hope that Deshi can gain both the language and business knowledge there to get him that all important job in the city.
Deshi has become a little disillusioned with one of his courses while at this UK university however; Business Ethics. Simply put, he doesn’t see the point of it, and he doesn’t see why it should be on the curriculum of a business school. In his summer job in the city Deshi often saw the “cut-and-thrust” of modern business, and he can’t remember anyone pondering long philosophical words while there. Deshi can’t see the point in wondering about “ethical leadership”. To Deshi, leadership is about getting things done and creating a profitable, successful business. Deshi can’t see the point of these various “codes of corporate governance” as they seem constraints that get in the way of good business. To him some of these even seem ridiculous why would someone intentionally sign up to codes which will stop you making money? Anyway, to Deshi, the bottom line is that “everyone knows” that western companies are hypocrites who say one thing and mean another when they operate in China. Profit and market share are what are important, and being a profit making manager is what will take Deshi from being a new graduate starter in an office job at a big company to being a well-paid middle exec.
In short, Deshi is unhappy at the teaching of ethics, and ethical leadership, on his degree course, and would like to express that unhappiness in an upcoming debate he’s been asked to participate in. He’s in danger of failing this Business Ethics course, which, to him, seems to have very little to do with “real business”. If he fails this course, he knows he’ll be endangering his degree as well, which means not only the end of that dream of that that nice safe office job, but especially the dream of being attractive to a prospective fiancée because of that job. Deshi doesn’t see why those dreams should suffer because of this “pointless” ethics course, and would like to see it removed from his programme of study.
The Case of the Holiday (based on actual events)
This case concerns a young medium sized advertising agency in Germany. It had had grown rapidly in the four years since it was founded and had just opened a new office in the US. The company operates in a highly competitive market in which failure to meet customers’ deadlines incurs substantial penalties. Work is almost exclusively project-based, in a high pressure but largely informal environment where teams predominate and hierarchy is little in evidence. The company pays well, and its employees are highly skilled, overwhelmingly graduates and equally overwhelmingly young with over 35 year-olds a rarity.
Employees work an average of 50 hours a week and when deadlines are tight some arrive as early as 5 a.m. and leave as late as 1 a.m. If there is a personnel ‘problem’ it is that turnover is high. Employees tend either to be dismissed quickly after their unsuitability emerges or leave voluntarily after only two or three years. While there however, involvement and ‘ownership’ of tasks is evident and employees enjoy a culture which emphasizes working hard and playing hard. Much of the employees’ social time is spent, unsurprisingly, with other employees and strong bonds of friendship have developed between staff.
The company is privately owned by its two founders who work from their German Head Office. Employees are not represented by a trade union. Unlike publicly limited and/or government organizations where a variety of stakeholder organizations can be identified and corporate governance may be contested (by shareholders, government, regulatory authorities, consumer associations, trade unions, pressure groups and so on), internal relations here are far clearer and the voices that count are those of management and customers.
The incident that forms the focus for this case concerns an Account Executive, Borries, who was due to go on holiday in a month’s time for two weeks at his girlfriend’s home in Hong Kong. This was an important holiday, especially because Borries only took one week’s holiday throughout the previous year and because his girlfriend Swee Lan would be returning to Germany immediately after the holiday to continue her studies. This was therefore an opportunity for Borries to meet Swee Lan’s parents and to experience her environment for the first time.
About a month before the holiday Borries’s manager called him in for a meeting and told him the news that one of Borries’s clients had to bring forward their product launch as they had heard that a rival was launching in the week that was originally scheduled. The new product launch would be in the middle of Borries’s holiday period. Work would need to be brought forward on the design of advertisements, campaign roll out, viral marketing, web support and so on.
The manager at no point suggested that Borries would face sanctions for taking his holiday, nor was his right to it contested but the manager did say emphasize the importance of the client and the high regard they had for Borries’s work. If this launch was a success then they would likely generate further contracts. After a difficult conversation with Swee Lan, who told Borries that her parents would be very upset not to meet him for at least another year, Borries cancelled his holiday. The company reimbursed his costs in full.
It was only then that Borries’s friends from the company found out what had happened. Borries could not believe their reaction. They argued that he was wrong to give up his holiday. His friend Marcus said: “Borries, you are a coward. They had no right to ask you to do this and you were too weak to say no. You have jeopardized your relationship with Swee Lan and let us down. How are any of us going to be able to say no if we are asked to give up our holidays now? You are supposed to be a friend. You have given so much to this company, the least they could do is to get someone else to cover your work.”
Borries replied: ‘I was just trying to do my best. I have been working on that account for a long time so how can I leave it at the end of the project? Don’t you understand I have to balance what is right for the company and the client against what is right for everyone else and in this case giving up my holiday is better than letting down the client. So get off my back.”
Appendix A: The Ethical Leadership Debate
Motion – “Ethical leadership (EL) is impossible in a shareholder focused economy, and
should business schools be bothered on ethical leadership”
(653 words)
Mike Gustavsson’s representation was against the motion – they regarded top managements’
behaviour key in creating and sustaining EL within an organisation, hence supporting EL
education. As a retired lecturer and Greenpeace activist, he seemingly possessed high moral
principles (Virtue ethics with Rights and Justice) and replaces rules with internal principles. He is a
discretionary stakeholder demonstrating Maxim 3 of Universality (Kant, 1785) and characterised at
stage 6 of Kohlberg’s (1971) moral stages of development (universal ethical-principle orientation)
for regarding humanity and preserving its value and dignity. However, concurring with the floor, the
author regards him in stage 5 (social-contract legalistic orientation) because he failed to respect
the equality and rights of his daughter as an individual deviating from his stakeholders’ beliefs and
siding shareholder views while protesting against the Alfaraft AB’s management.
Jan Edwards’s team stance stood against the motion. They championed EL alongside profitability
as demonstrated by Clean Solution Inc.’s success with considerable charitable involvements. They
emphasised EL education in inculcating graduate’s all-roundedness (interpersonal skills, social
responsibility etc.) besides shareholder principles. As Chief Executive she wielded power,
legitimacy and therefore, dominant stakeholder (Agle et al., 1999); she instilled triple bottom line
elements (Spreckley, 2013) through egoism (Longenecker et al., 1989) and feminist ethics
(Jaggar, 1992) – imposing her altruistic beliefs organisational wide; justifying moral development
at stages 3 (interpersonal concordance orientation) and 5. Opposition viewed her at stage 2
(instrumental-relativist orientation) seeking esteem and self-actualisation (Maslow, 1943) with act
utilitarian overtones; questioning her basis of EL’s mutual respect, showing justice and building
community (Brown et al., 2005). The author augments her to stage 6 by wanting to “change this
trend” through self-chosen ethical principles besides social rules and customs – even if it conflicts
with laws/rules (potential workplace discrimination lawsuits etc.).
Mei-Hua Felung’s group opposed the motion. Despite similar undertones with Jan, they stressed
EL in shareholder economies and education due to external influences (legal obligations, public
perceptions etc.) and deontology (Waller, 2008) as opposed to intrinsic purposes. With Maxim 1 of
consistency (Kant, 1785) and rule utilitarian aspects (Garner & Rosen, 1967) conceivably from
training and profession in accountancy (codes, rules etc.), she was at stages 3 and 5 of moral
development substantiated by negative public sentiments. The floor differed in views, notably at
stage 4 (law-and-order orientation) in establishing her need to maintain legitimacy as an
accountant. Upon deeper evaluations, the author disagrees and categorises her at stage 1
(punishment and obedience orientation). “…playing within the rules; not breaking them” infers the
ab initio intent in avoiding law infringements (punishment) through adherence (obedience) and
when achieved, exploiting sequential actions at sole discretion and henceforth, “nothing wrong” in
facilitating tax evasion, contradicting her prima facie view of upholding accountants’ image through
EL with related codes/ethics while balancing social and commercial aims, debunking her
standpoint.
Deshi Chen’s representation supported the motion through irrelevance in today’s commercial
context and argued that EL education hindrances practicality. He furthered his shareholder views
that practicing EL (or lack thereof) was neither rewarded nor recognised, both in his home country
and western companies (allegedly claiming absent and piecemeal at best) compared to profit
generation. He illustrated egoism by deeming himself morally upright and merely pursuing
personal interests (Longenecker et al., 1989) through a degree, portraying stage 2 (instrumentalrelativist
orientation) while failing to align ethics with his agenda. Opposing views contested stage
3 on social expectation conformities (family and of himself). The author concurs with stages 2 and
facets of 3 (through peer approval) – differing on contradictory grounds of seeking peer approval
only from his family and himself – yet not others pertaining ethics.
Corporate codes of governance and EL education strongly resonated with all parties except Deshi.
Jan firmly views it being a way of life. The author concludes Deshi as the most trustworthy due to
transparency; while Mei-Hua is most unethical from speech-act contradictions and persecution
delusions (Freeman & Garety, 2004) while relying on legal technicalities in defending viewpoints.
Appendix B: The Seminar Case
(643 words)
Having reviewed and debated on ‘The Case of the Holiday‘, the author identified residing
dilemmas from every character and deliberating Boris’s perspective in greater details.
Team 1 recognised Boris’s ethical dilemma by the planned holiday’s status quo or forgoing in the
interest of the client, company, manager and himself to some extent. His options were: to not
facilitate the earlier product launch and dilute prospects of repeat businesses; or acceding in
exchange for greater professional regard from the client and manager alongside increased
business possibilities while attaining a personal sense of achievement – at the relationship’s
expense and Swee Lan.
Swee Lan’s ethical dilemma illustrated by Team 2 pertained to the post-discussion response upon
Boris’s dilemma. Implicitly, Swee Lan had certain influences over Boris’s decision in supporting his
intrinsic professional desires or asserting on relationship commitments, both of which she valued.
The former ensued subsequent dilemma from her parents’ reactions, while the latter posed
concerns on relationship fundamentals.
Team 3 depicted the manager’s ethical dilemma by evaluating the client’s request versus the
company’s gain, faltering the appropriateness of Boris’s planned holiday albeit its legitimacy. The
manager had a duty to uphold the company’s interest by conforming, or be cognizant of the
holiday’s significance, declining and jeopardising a lucrative account in the process.
Representing Marcus and friends was Team 4, portraying their dilemma by the reaction towards
Boris upon knowledge that he had sacrificed his holiday for the company. Marcus and friends
could respond empathetically to him due to the excessive duress in making a difficult decision
between the manager and Swee Lan; or per the context – to perceive as a form of betrayal,
expressing disappointment through initiating “better employee standards” to be adhered in future.
The author would further analyse Boris’s ethical dilemma as it is the crux of the issue.
Due to competitive conditions the company operated in, they held a shareholder view (Dufrene &
Wong, 1996) where dismissals were based on ‘misalignments’ with organisational performance to
sustain competitiveness. Ab initio, Boris was in Kohlberg’s (1971) stage 1 of moral development
(punishment and obedience orientation) when the launch was brought forward. This is explained
by the negligible room for manoeuvre – if he declines the request; he would be considered as
‘unsuitable’ by the company and the manager (authority), leading to redundancy (punishment) as
per context. It obviously affects his well-being and hence, simply obeyed by cancelling the holiday
to avoid punishment. This can be furthered by his display of rule utilitarianism where Boris
acceded to the request (rule) which brought the about greatest good for his career, manager and
client (Garner & Rosen, 1967).
Both the context and Bruck & Allen (2003) corroborates with Boris’s Type ‘A’ traits (ambitious,
competitive, aggressive etc.). Along managing the account for an extended period with the “work
hard, play hard” culture, it heightened his sense of ownership and self-interest, displaying egoist
principles with a high internal locus of control, disregarding affiliated opportunity costs (Krause &
Stryker, 1984) by emphasising solely on the task completion (Kurman, 2001). Meanwhile, Boris
advanced to stage 2 (instrumental-relativist orientation), assuming the result of being rewarded by
the client’s future businesses and manager’s acknowledgement as a quality employee, justifying
the holiday cancellation as means to its ends.
Boris’s moral intensity (Jones, 1991) is characterised by magnitude of consequences, social
consensus and proximity. The consequences ranged from jeopardising his career or Swee Lan
and/or Marcus and friends from relationship spectrums. For social consensus, it was evident that
both Swee Lan and Marcus and friends voiced displeasure regarding Boris’s decision in cancelling
the holiday, thereby increasing moral intensity. On relationship positions, he had a near proximity
with the scenario’s stakeholders (client, manager, Swee Lan and Marcus and friends), leading to
increased moral intensities.
In conclusion, Boris sought a utilitarian framework by weighing cost and benefits throughout the
case, generally satisfying all parties whilst containing repercussions.
Appendix C: Interpersonal and Team-working skills
(301 words)
In a team of professionals with different backgrounds, conflicts are bound to occur. Therefore, my
reflection focuses on teamwork commitment and interpersonal communication from differing
views. I identify individual factors with stages 2, 3 and 5 of moral development (Kohlberg, 1973)
and national culture (Geert & Jan, 1991) while reward systems (Kerr, 1975) and social consensus
(Jones, 1991) accounted for situational factors.
Stage 2 (instrumental-relativist orientation) is best illustrated by ‘quid pro quo’. Despite absence of
social connectedness beyond academia and lacking interpersonal gratitude and loyalty, we shared
a common goal to excel with relative ease, motivating us to work cooperatively and reciprocally in
debates and assignments. It was deemed pragmatic to divide workloads towards fulfilling module
requirements for it eased one’s effort while serving everyone’s best interests and needs –
solidifying commitment in performing the activities related to the reward system by attaining high
and beneficial module marks. Garrett et al. (2006) supported strong collectivism within
Singaporeans – representing a preference to help each other in exchange for group loyalty,
concurring and progressing towards stage 3 (interpersonal concordance orientation), which is
socially considered as “good behaviour” to work collectively while attaining peer approval and
social consensus by majority.
Unavoidably, disagreements surfaced repeatedly throughout discussions. As team leader, I
practised ethical leadership by respecting all team members’ views (Brown, Treviño & Harrison,
2005), even when it differed from mine and/or the majority. With authority demonstration (Milgram,
1965) of fair and transparent dialogues, it enhanced team community and commitment (Levy,
1994), progressing to stage 5 (social-contract legalistic orientation) collectively; where members
displayed tolerance and willingness to analyse other’s perspectives while formulating a
consensus.
To conclude, this module allowed me to witness the relevance of Kant’s (1785) Formula of
Humanity – as when we treat others with respect; it harmoniously brings out the best in everyone.
Level 1: Preconventional Morality 0-9 years
Stage 1 – Obedience and Punishment
Especially common in young children, but adults are capable of expressing this type of reasoning. At this stage, children see rules as fixed and absolute.
Obeys rules in order to avoid punishment
Determines a sense of right and wrong by what is punished and what is not punished
Obeys superior authority and allows that authority to make the rules, especially if that authority has the power to inflict pain
Is responsive to rules that will affect his/her physical well-being
Stage 2 – Naively egotistical
At this stage of moral development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. Reciprocity is possible, but only if it serves one’s own interests.
Is motivated by vengeance or “an eye for an eye” philosophy
Is self-absorbed while assuming that he/she is generous
Believes in equal sharing in that everyone gets the same, regardless of need
Believes that the end justifies the means
Will do a favor only to get a favor
Expects to be rewarded for every non-selfish deed he/she does
Level 2: Conventional Morality 10-15 years
Stage 3 – “good boy-good girl” orientation,
This stage of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an emphasis on conformity, being “nice,” and consideration of how choices influence relationships.
Finds peer approval very important
Feels that intensions are as important as deeds and expects others to accept intentions or promises in place of deeds
Begins to put himself/herself in another’s shoes and think from another perspective
Stage 4 – Law and Social Order
At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.
Is a duty doer who believes in rigid rules that should not be changed
Respects authority and obeys it without question
Supports the rights of the majority without concern for those in the minority
Is part of about 80% of the population that does not progress past stage 4
Level 3: Postconventional Morality – 16+
Stage 5 – Legalistic Social Contract
At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.
Is motivated by the belief in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people
Believes in consensus (everyone agrees), rather than in majority rule
Respects the rights of the minority especially the rights of the individual
Believes that change in the law is possible but only through the system
Stage 6 – Universal ethical Principles
Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.
Believes that there are high moral principles than those represented by social rules and customs
Is willing to accept the consequences for disobedience of the social rule he/she has rejected
Believes that the dignity of humanity is sacred and that all humans have value
