in the file everything

in the files everything, and please look at the file and make sure everything is cover very well

SEVEN-POINT FRAMEWORK & FORMAT FOR ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS
During the Ethics section of this course you will be analyzing and writing commentaries on the
ethical decision-making process in “real world” ethics cases. Your analytical commentary must fully
articulate your positions – and what arguments, critical thinking and reasoning you have used
to arrive at them. The commentaries will also help you in understanding and applying the readings
and discussions.
Although you will consider your own personal ethics, remember that the norms and standards of
business ethics should be a primary consideration. Your commentary should not be a criticism,
but an analysis of all the ethical considerations that go into your decision- making process. It should
take into account ALL sides of an issue. Your case commentaries and discussions should address
the following:
1.
Relevant facts of the case: Identify and summarize the key relevant facts and issues of the
case. Sort out information that will be useful in determining the ethical situation and issues. Develop
a diagnosis (nature and scope) of the current situation. Summarize the primary concepts or topics
from the case that apply.
2.
Critical ethical issue(s) or dilemma(s): After you have analyzed the situation and the key
facts, summarize the critical ethical problem(s) or dilemma(s) in the case and explain your
interpretation of the situation. Have any laws been broken? Have any ethical guidelines or
professional codes of conduct been violated? Dig beneath the surface and identify issues at the
individual, organizational or societal levels.
3.
Relevant affected parties (stakeholders): Who are the key parties (stakeholders) affected
by the ethical issue? Identify the important rights from the perspective of the affected stakeholders in
the case. Who is most affected by this?
4.
Ethical Frameworks (Theories): Discuss all relevant ethical frameworks (theories) that
apply to the case and a thorough analysis of each: rights, duties, fairness or justice, common good,
virtue, utilitarian, etc. More than one may be applicable. Evaluate the pros and cons of each
applicable framework.
5.
Identify possible alternative courses of action or solutions: Brainstorm a list of all
possible solutions or actions that could be taken. Be creative and do not limit yourself to just ideas
presented in the case. Look at:
(a) Legal solutions
(b) Possible legal but unethical solutions
(c) Economic solutions
(d) Moral/ethical solutions.
6.
Evaluate pros and cons of alternative courses of action or solutions: Once you have
ascertained all the facts and possible courses of action, evaluate the pros and cons of each of these
alternative solutions. e.g.
(a) Who benefits, who is harmed? What are the benefits and harms of each of these actions for the
stakeholders (parties) most affected?
(b) What are the potential consequences?
(c) Which course of action best respects the moral rights of those affected?
(d) Which course of action advances the common good?
(e) Which course of action treats everyone fairly and justly?
(f) Potential consequences (long term and short term), consequences of not doing anything? Also
consider practical constraints, if any.
(g) Are there any conflicts resulting from cultural relativism?
7.
Recommend best solution or course of action: From the alternative solutions or courses
of action, recommend the best course of action to resolve the ethical dilemma in the case. You may
decide that a combination of solutions is the best course of action. Your recommendations must be
supported by well-reasoned arguments and counter arguments.
2/22/17
2. Ethical dilemmas
Reasoning & Decision-making
Prof. Ravi Dhingra
Sacred Heart University
© 2011
Ethical dilemma
• A situation that involves conflicting
principles of ethical behavior
• Where there is no clear answer – all the
alternatives have some negative implications
or side effects
Value
Value
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
1
2/22/17
What is an ethical dilemma?
Ethical dilemmas occur when your values or
responsibilities are in conflict:
• A conflict between two or more values or
responsibilities, or
• Your personal values conflict with those
of the organization or a particular situation
in the organization
• Deciding between “right and wrong”
© 2011
Ethical dilemma
• Ethics and morals can clash in the workplace
e.g. work pressures and deadlines (long
hours) conflicting with family obligations
to spouse and family e.g.
• Boss asks you to work long hours and
weekends on a project, but a spouse or
parent is critically ill
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
2
2/22/17
Ethical dilemma
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=U_6-6IlRIYU (7 mins)
© 2011
Ethics in the workplace
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=3aYwEWmELBw (5 mins)
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
3
2/22/17
Ethical dilemma
• Many ethical choices are clear-cut so that
we can decide between right and wrong e.g.
embezzling funds from the company –
because embezzling is stealing and is wrong
• But consider the following
© 2011
Dilemma
• You have just learned in confidence from
your boss that the company you work for
will be laying off 100 people in 2 weeks
• One of them is your very good friend Jane
• She asks you about the rumor going around
about the closing. “Am I going to lose my
job? We are buying a new house next week.”
• What do you tell her? How do you handle it?
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
4
2/22/17
Dilemma
• This is an ethical dilemma, because several
of your values are in conflict
• Being truthful vs. your loyalty to the
company and your boss
• What would be the consequences (benefits
and harms) if you tell Jane?
• What would be the consequences if you do
not tell Jane?
© 2011
No black and white
• In the realm of ethical dilemmas there may
sometimes be no single right or wrong
answer
• But how you choose to deal with it says a
lot about your business and its ethical culture
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
5
2/22/17
Sales rep’s dilemma
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=0E94Ww1-CrU (3 min)
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=G9QrSahQF38 Resolution of dilemma
© 2011
Dilemma
• Have any of you experienced an ethical
dilemma?
• Have you witnessed an ethical misconduct?
• How did you handle it?
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
6
2/22/17
Sophie’s Choice
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=N4ZgQI3nrms (9 min)
© 2011
Ethics and reasoning
• Ethical reasoning: Process of sorting out the
facts, principles and consequences when
faced with an ethical dilemma – to help
decide “what is the right thing to do?”
• Rational thinking based on facts and wellreasoned arguments (pros and cons), when
you are faced with tough choices
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
7
2/22/17
Ethics and reasoning
• It is about thinking through the various
ethical choices from different perspectives
• A thoughtful decision-making process –
versus rationalization
– No one will ever know (I won’t get caught)
– Everybody else is doing it
– It really won’t hurt anybody
– I work so hard, I deserve it
© 2011
Ethical decision-making steps
1. What is the critical ethical issue(s)?
2. What are the relevant facts?
3. Who are the affected parties (stakeholders)?
4. Which of the ethical frameworks apply in
this situation?
5. What are the alternative courses of action?
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
8
2/22/17
Ethical decision-making steps
6. What are the pros and cons of the
alternative courses of action?
7. What is the best course of action? – make a
decision
8. Ask the “spotlight” question – check your
instinct, consider your integrity, prioritize
values
© 2011
Spotlight question
• Would my family and friends be proud of
my decision?
• How would I feel if my
actions were in the news or
on social media, or open to
public scrutiny?
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
9
2/22/17
Before you make a decision
• CARE Principle
• Consistency: Would I make the same
decision if a similar situation arose in the
future?
• Accountability: Have I behaved responsibly?
Will my family be proud of my decision?
© 2011
Before you make a decision
• Rationality: Is my decision impartial and
supported by logic?
• Equity: Would I want to be treated the same
way? Did I treat everyone fairly regardless
of who they are?
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
10
2/22/17
Justice Potter Stewart
• “There’s a difference between that which
you have a right to do and that which is right
to do. I don’t think they have a legal right to
do this. But even if they do, that doesn’t
make it right.” – Justice Potter Stewart
© 2011
J&J Tylenol crisis
• In late 1982 few bottles of Tylenol were
found to be tampered with and adulterated
with cyanide – causing 7 deaths in Chicago
• Within a week all Tylenol bottles were
removed from retail shelves nationally
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=wofmqc8Sqgc (3 min)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=zPccWPCF9Ak (3 min)
R.S. Dhingra
© 2011
11
2/22/17
J&J Credo
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Ryg5kkTCdVU
© 2011
Some principles in business ethics
• Transparency and honesty: Conduct
business in an open and truthful manner
• Fiduciary: Act in the best interest of the
company’s investors and customers
• Dignity: Treat all employees with dignity
and respect
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
12
2/22/17
Some principles in business ethics
• Trust and reliability: Keep promises,
agreements and other commitments
• Fairness: Deal fairly with all parties
(employees, customers, vendors)
• Privacy: Respect the privacy rights of all
employees and customers
© 2011
Weinstein on Ethics
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=pzbAE2bK3dA (4 min)
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
13
2/22/17
Unethical behavior
• Can be intentional or unintentional
• Not just bad people doing bad things
• Often good people doing bad things,
without being aware of it
© 2011
Intentional unethical behavior
• Resulting from bad character or bad
motivation
• These are the bad apples
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
14
2/22/17
Unintentional unethical behavior
• Can result from context or situations that
contribute to unethical behavior
• Context can sometimes be stronger than
reason and values (bad barrels)
• Which leads to ethical blindness
© 2011
Root causes of ethical blindness
• Fixation on goals
• Conflicting goals and pressure
• Rationalization
• Detachment / insensitivity
• Desire to conform to group (peers)
• Obedience to authority
• Arrogance (rules do not apply to me)
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
15
2/22/17
Fixation on goals
• Intensity of goals (fixation) and
competitiveness or an unbalanced pursuit of
purpose can sometimes distort our judgments
at critical moments, unless disciplined by
clear values
© 2011
Conflicting goals
• Conflicting goals and pressure – satisfying
different stakeholder needs, pressures from
superiors
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
16
2/22/17
Rationalization
• Denial and justification to explain
unethical behavior
– Examples …
© 2011
Rationalizing unethical behavior
1. “Everyone else does it; it is standard practice”
2. “This is not my area of responsibility”
3. “I am just following orders here”
4. “It is not material; it does not hurt anyone”
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
17
2/22/17
Rationalizing unethical behavior
5. “What I’m doing is not really illegal”
6. “I don’t want to hurt my team or boss”
7. “Nobody will ever know about it”
8. “The customer will never know”
© 2011
Reasons and rationalization
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=i9KMJuGg52Q#t=55 (9 min)
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
18
2/22/17
Detachment / Insensitivity
• Fixation and rationalization eventually
leads to detachment – separation of head
from heart
• Competitiveness and goal-seeking can drive
out compassion and fairness
© 2011
Conformity
• Peer pressure can be positive or negative
• Sometimes people are afraid of speaking up
against wrongdoing, because they might get
yelled at by the boss or feel pressured to
conform by their peers
• How do you think peer pressure might
impact your decisions?
R.S. Dhingra
© 2011
19
2/22/17
Dangerous Conformity
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=vjP22DpYYh8 (8 Mins)
© 2011
Asch conformity experiment
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=NyDDyT1lDhA (6 mins)
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
20
2/22/17
Obedience to authority
• Obedience: The willingness of adults to go
to any length to obey the authority
• Milgram experiment: Ad for volunteers in
New Haven paper
© 2011
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
21
2/22/17
Milgram Experiment
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw-Lljrzbo (8 min)
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=xOYLCy5PVgM (5 mins)
© 2011
Milgram Experiment
• 65% of subjects inflicted the maximum
• Milgram experiments have been repeated
over the years with no significant variation
in results
• Why do you think so many subjects obeyed
the experimenter’s commands?
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
22
2/22/17
Obedience to authority
• What would you do if you were the one in
the teacher role and somebody told you to
continue to administer the electrical shocks,
despite the pain caused to the other person?
• What would you do? Would you succumb to
pressure from authority like most people?
© 2011
The Milgram experiment
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=HwqNP9HRy7Y (5 min)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmFCoocU3Y (3 min)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=y6GxIuljT3w (10 min)
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
23
2/22/17
Obedience to authority
• We have a long-standing habit of obeying
authority that comes from our early years
• He established credibility and authority with
his lab coat
• When an authority figure tells us to do
something we pass on the responsibility for
the action to that person
• We distance ourselves from the action – by
rationalizing it
© 2011
Obedience to authority
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=sbIZu68psFM (5 mins) Marry a Stranger
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
24
2/22/17
Obedience and Conformity
• “One of the needs filled by the strong
excellent company cultures is the need most
of us have for security… Unfortunately, in
seeking security, most people seem all too
willing to yield to authority… The Milgram
experiments warn us of the danger that lurks
in the darker side of our nature. ”
– In Search of Excellence by Peters and Waterman
© 2011
Obedience to authority
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=n78z5d4jfc8 (2 mins)
French Torture Game Show
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=ZCamiWs-KMs (2 mins)
French Torture Game Show
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
25
2/22/17
Obedience and Conformity
• Mei-Lai massacre during the Vietnam war –
how Lt Calley who influenced his men to kill
innocent civilians and children.
• Hugh Thompson a helicopter pilot seeing
this atrocity ordered his men to draw their
guns at the other US soldiers “if you fire, we
fire.” He helped stop the Mei-Lai massacre.
• He was not an extraordinary man, but knew
the difference between right and wrong.
© 2011
Obedience and Conformity
• What can you do to increase your chances of
resisting a corrupting or unethical authority
figure?
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
26
2/22/17
Ethics on trial
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=g7QdqCVRJc&list=PLvL5N24mcAFhCj1p2Cz7IMk
INEVPVw1HX (4 min) Ethics on trial
• The drama was based on the film “Most” a 21st-century
parable about a loving father, his young son, and the fateful
day when a father is forced to choose between the life of his
son and saving the lives of a thousand strangers.
© 2011
R.S. Dhingra
27
Giving Voice to Values: How to Counter Rationalizations Rationally | Darden Ideas to Action
12/3/17, 1:52 PM
Giving Voice to Values: How to
Counter Rationalizations
Rationally
10 Oct 2017
Reasons and Rationalizations
When we encounter values conflicts in the workplace, we often face barriers
that appear in the form of “reasons and rationalizations” for pursuing a
particular course of action. These obstacles can confound our best attempts to
fulfill our own sense of organizational and personal purpose. These are the
objections you hear from your colleagues when you try to point out an ethical
problem in the way things are being done. Sometimes you don’t even hear
them because they are the unspoken assumptions — seeming truisms — of
the organization.
https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/2017/10/giving-voice-to-values-h…20title&utm_campaign=ITA%20e-news%20Nov-Dec%20Strategy%20Opt%20In
Page 1 of 6
Giving Voice to Values: How to Counter Rationalizations Rationally | Darden Ideas to Action
12/3/17, 1:52 PM
It is extremely difficult to make a strong argument against the “prevailing
winds” if you feel you are in the minority, or if you don’t feel you have the
time to come up with a workable alternative or if you don’t want to take the
chance to present a half-baked response. So the Giving Voice to Values
curriculum is about creating a time and space to be in the majority, with
sufficient time to come up with a fully baked and pre-tested response to some
of the most common challenges you are likely to face in your workplace.
In order to develop this ability, we want to consider the challenging situation
carefully and answer the following questions:
What are the main arguments you are trying to counter? What are the
reasons and rationalizations you need to address?
What’s at stake for the key parties, including those who disagree with
you? What’s at stake for you?
What levers can you use to influence those who disagree with you?
What is your most powerful and persuasive response to the reasons and
rationalizations you need to address? To whom should the argument be
made? When and in what context?
Categories of Conflict
Interestingly, these questions are not asking us to apply ethical analysis.
Rather, they are all about understanding the reasons and motivations — both
rational and emotional, organizational and personal, ethical and perhaps
unethical — that guide the behavior and choices of those with whom we want
to communicate.
What can make this approach particularly useful for tackling values-based
conflicts is that, after a while, we will begin to recognize familiar categories of
argument or reasons that we typically hear from someone defending an
ethically questionable behavior. And, similarly, there are some useful
https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/2017/10/giving-voice-to-values-h…20title&utm_campaign=ITA%20e-news%20Nov-Dec%20Strategy%20Opt%20In
Page 2 of 6
Giving Voice to Values: How to Counter Rationalizations Rationally | Darden Ideas to Action
12/3/17, 1:52 PM
questions, persuasive arguments and ways of framing our own role/purpose,
and that of our organization, which can help us respond persuasively to these
frequent arguments.
Finally, the very act of recognizing and naming the argument can reduce its
power because it is no longer unconscious or assumed; we have made it
discussable and even put it into play with equally, or hopefully stronger,
counterarguments. Choice becomes possible, and that is what this note is all
about.
Let’s take a moment to identify a few of the familiar categories of values
conflict and categories of rationalization or argument, as well as some
possible types of response — by way of illustration.
Rushworth Kidder suggests that most ethical dilemmas fall into four
categories or patterns:
“Truth versus loyalty”
“Individual versus community”
“Short term versus long term”
“Justice versus mercy”[i]
You will note that Kidder is talking here about conflicting values, not values
versus a lack of values. Many times, we do face situations where our own
values are conflicted or torn. But sometimes, the conflict exists more in the
way the dilemma is described or framed. Thus, being prepared to recognize
the ways that the framing of a choice may call different values into play can be
useful.
For example, a colleague in our company sales team may use an appeal to
personal loyalty as a way to persuade us to violate our commitment to
integrity, when he or she asks us to keep silent about their deceptive sales
https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/2017/10/giving-voice-to-values-h…20title&utm_campaign=ITA%20e-news%20Nov-Dec%20Strategy%20Opt%20In
Page 3 of 6
Giving Voice to Values: How to Counter Rationalizations Rationally | Darden Ideas to Action
12/3/17, 1:52 PM
tactics. But recognizing the pattern in this values conflict — that is, “truth
versus loyalty” — may enable us to feel more prepared and certain of our
response. The conflict moves from the particular and the immediate moment
into a broader, more general context, and we begin to see it more clearly at
this distance. Once the pattern is clear, we might recognize that our colleague
is not showing the same loyalty to us (by respecting our personal integrity)
that he or she is asking from us.
Common Arguments
We can also consider the kinds of argument or rationalization that we often
encounter in values conflicts. Some of the most common arguments include:
Expected or Standard Practice: “Everyone does this, so it’s really
standard practice. It’s even expected.”
Materiality: “The impact of this action is not material. It doesn’t really
hurt anyone.”
Locus of Responsibility: “This is not my responsibility; I’m just following
orders here.”
Locus of Loyalty: “I know this isn’t quite fair to the customer but I don’t
want to hurt my reports/team/boss/company.”
As we begin to recognize these categories of argument, we will become more
adept at drawing upon responses to each of them. For example, the appeal to
“expected or standard practice” is often an exaggeration. If everyone actually
were doing “it” (whatever “it” is), what would be the consequences for
business practice and customer trust? If the practice is really accepted, why
are there so often laws, rules and/or policies against it? Would you be
comfortable if everyone knew you were doing this? Who wouldn’t you want to
know? And so on.
With regard to the “materiality” argument, it becomes important to recognize
https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/2017/10/giving-voice-to-values-h…20title&utm_campaign=ITA%20e-news%20Nov-Dec%20Strategy%20Opt%20In
Page 4 of 6
Giving Voice to Values: How to Counter Rationalizations Rationally | Darden Ideas to Action
12/3/17, 1:52 PM
that determinations of materiality are often ambiguous. Rather than being
objective, they can depend on the method of measurement being employed.
[ii] Additionally, some practices are considered fraudulent, regardless of their
relative size; that is, some things can’t be just a little wrong.[iii]
The question of “responsibility” is another well-considered topic in ethics
literature, and numerous guidelines have been developed for assessing
whether or not we are required to act.[iv] The point here, though, is that this
argument is often used when we know we are uncomfortable with a decision
or action but are afraid of the consequences of voicing and acting upon that
judgment. Therefore, the individual using this argument has already
acknowledged that they don’t like the situation, and this provides an opening
for further discussion.
Finally, as noted earlier, the question and definition of loyalty can be framed
in multiple ways. For example, are we “loyal” when we protect the financial
bonus of our team this quarter or when we protect their long-term reputation
and productivity?
For an overview of Giving Voice to Values, please see this post’s companion
piece, “Giving Voice to Values: An Overview,” which prepares participants
to act effectively and with integrity under pressure.
Mary Gentile, through the University of Virginia Darden School of Business,
is launching a new MOOC, “Ethical Leadership Through Giving Voice to
Values,” an introduction to using the values-driven, action-oriented GVV
approach in the workplace, business education and life. Available through
Coursera, the four-week online course is free of charge ($79 for a course
certificate).
The preceding is excerpted from Mary Gentile’s case Giving Voice to Values:
Brief Introduction, which is available through Darden Business Publishing.
https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/2017/10/giving-voice-to-values-h…20title&utm_campaign=ITA%20e-news%20Nov-Dec%20Strategy%20Opt%20In
Page 5 of 6
Giving Voice to Values: How to Counter Rationalizations Rationally | Darden Ideas to Action
12/3/17, 1:52 PM
The material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum. The Yale
School of Management was the founding partner, along with the Aspen
Institute, which also served as the incubator for GVV. From 2009 to 2015,
GVV was hosted and supported by Babson College. Darden Business
Publishing is pleased to present it material in its original form.
[i] Rushworth M. Kidder, Moral Courage: Taking Action When Your Values
Are Put to the Test (New York: William Morrow, HarperCollins Publishers
Ind., 2005), Page 89.
[ii] Mary C. Gentile, “Discussions About Ethics in the Accounting Classroom:
Student Assumptions and Faculty Paradigms,” Giving Voice to Values
curriculum, www.GIvingVoicetoValues.org.
[iii] One Off Decisions case, Giving Voice to Values curriculum,
www.GIvingVoicetoValues.org.
[iv] “Reporting” module, Page 11, Giving Voice to Values curriculum,
www.GIvingVoicetoValues.org.
About the Faculty
Mary C. Gentile
Recently shortlisted for the Thinkers50 Ideas Into
Practice Distinguished Achievement Award and
dubbed “the Practical Ethicist” in Compliance Week’s
2017 Top Minds Awards, Gentile is an authority in
values-driven leadership. Author of the awardwinning book Giving Voice to Values, her curriculum of the same name has
been piloted in more… Learn More
https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/2017/10/giving-voice-to-values-h…20title&utm_campaign=ITA%20e-news%20Nov-Dec%20Strategy%20Opt%20In
Page 6 of 6
Scanned by CamScanner