Ethical_Dilemmas

Ethical Dilemma and Decision Making: Abstract Increasingly, managers are faced with the challenge to maintain ethical leadership while striving to remain competitive. More often than not, a business culture in many countries may contribute to the decay of ethics in organizations. This paper analyzes a workplace ethical dilemma using Kelly’s model of attribution theory, Adams equity theory of motivation and notes that the dilemma is a result of dysfunctional conflict. An informed ethical decision making that incorporates ethical theories is most effective. Management must avoid participating in any activities that compromise the ability to maintain a culture of ethics. Management must lead by example in order to promote ethics in the organization. Ethical leadership and decision making Introduction: Ethical leadership that embraces moral standards is crucial for every organization’s success. Ethical leadership enables an organization to overcome a storm of ethical dilemmas with sound decisions (Toor & Ofori, 2009). Almost each and every organization has been faced with an ethical dilemma to a certain degree. It is therefore management’s duty to lessen the occurrence of ethical dilemmas in the workplace to the extent possible in order to promote employee morale and job performance (Bruhn, 2009). The aim of this paper is to analyze a familiar workplace situation that presented an ethical dilemma and identify possible solutions to the situation followed by recommendations. This paper advocates that management decisions should be advantageous to the organization, sustainable and yet ethical while promoting the right tone in the organization (Bruhn, 2009). Followed by a brief explanation of the situation, the concepts of motivation, perception, conflict and ethical decision making, along with the associated theories and ideas, will be utilized in analyzing the causes of the identified ethical dilemma at EEC. This paper will further analyze the implications of the identified workplace situation based on the research findings followed by a set of potential recommendations and a brief summary of the lessons learned. Context An electrical engineering company (EEC) which had residential properties as its main clientele, recruited a Director of Contracts (DOC) who had previously worked in a government agency that awarded contracts to contractors in this field. The new DOC contributed to EEC’s significant expansion with the government as the biggest client with major projects ranging from hospitals to schools. It was evident to everybody that the DOC’s work was paying off and management compensated him accordingly. However, rumors had it that his old connections in the government had something to do with the successful bids submitted by him on behalf of the company (note: bribery is customary in this culture). It was not long before the DOC realized how much influence he held in the company due to his undisputed contribution to EEC’s growth. He started demanding for perks more than those afforded his superiors. EEC management was faced with a dilemma to either decline the DOC’s demand in respect of his superiors or honor his demand for fear of losing him. Often organizations are faced with tempting situations that they cannot resist, eventually leading them into ethical dilemmas. While every organization’s goal is to be profitable, it is management’s responsibility to attain those profits with integrity by using the right channels (Fassin, 2005). Theoretical Framework In an effort to identify the underlying causes of the ethical dilemma at EEC, this section of the paper will analyze the concepts of perception, motivation, conflict and ethical decision making along with the associated theories. Perception-“is a cognitive process that enables us to understand our surroundings” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p86). This paper will utilize the Kelly’s model of causal attribution theory to better understand perception in the context of management behavior. The causal attribution theory states that people tend to assume things based on their observations (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). The Kelly’s model of attribution extends the theory with the notion that our personalities and environmental factors affect how we interpret things (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). There are two attributional biases that affect one’s ability in interpreting their observations; the fundamental attributional bias, which neglects environmental factors, and the self-serving bias, which is when people tend to give themselves praise for their accomplishments and justify their failure to environmental factors are (Goncalo & Dugid, 2008 ; Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p.95). Self-serving bias was most likely the cause of the ethical dilemma at EEC because the DOC attributed the company’s success as his personal achievement. Motivation-“Psychological processes that cause arousal, direction and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal directed” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p144). Amongst several well known theories of motivation, this paper will utilize the Adams’s equity theory of motivation in understanding its relevance to the ethical dilemma at EEC. The Adams’ theory of motivation is based on the perception of fair and unfairness so much that employees are usually motivated when they equate their work input and compensation to be fair, otherwise they are unmotivated under the perception of unfairness (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009; Harder, 1991). The Adams’ theory of motivation clearly portrays the causes of the ethical dilemma at EEC due to the DOC’s perception of inequity. This was mainly because the DOC felt that his major contribution entitled him to a higher compensation package. Conflict- “Is a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p276). There are two types of conflicts, “functional conflict,” one that is constructive for the organization and “dysfunctional conflict,” one that is destructive to the organization (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p.277). Amongst the three major forms of conflicts identified by Kinicki & Kreitner (2009), personality conflict, which is a result of one’s self-centeredness, contributed to the dysfunctional conflict at EEC (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). Kinicki & Kreitner (2009) identified the following five ways of handling conflict namely, “integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising” and there is no better way than the other to use in resolving conflict (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). Obviously the DOC’s demand for compensation surpassing his superiors was abuse of power or rather greed because of the influence he held in the organization. Ethical decision making- entails the recognition of an ethical dilemma and deciding on what is right and acting on the right thing (Badaracco, 2002). Ethical decision making can be challenging. In the study of ethics, there are several ethical philosophies that help in making a sound ethical decision and are most effective when used in combination (Premeaux, 2009). The three main ethical philosophies are utilitarian, rights, and justice; they emphasize societal rights, individual rights and fairness (Premeaux, 2009). In addition there are several ethical decision making models that incorporate these philosophies. Therefore, these three philosophies would have been beneficial in resolving the ethical dilemma at EEC as it involved the organization’s right, the DOC’s individual rights and the fairness to the other senior staff. Theoretical Implications An analysis on the theories of perception, motivation, conflict and ethical decision making process revealed some related managerial implications that are noteworthy to the ethical dilemma at EEC. An analysis of the Kelly causal attribution theory of perception cautions managers that the fundamental attributional and the self-serving biases could affect the managers’ ability to make right decisions which could eventually demoralize employees and also affect their job performance (Kinicki & Kreitner 2009 ; Goncalo & Duguid, 2008). Should EEC decide to compensate the DOC to his liking, management should also consider the impact of that decision on the other employees. The implication of unmotivated employees is that they tend to seek for more compensation to be motivated, decreased job performance or seek for other job opportunities (Harder, 1991). EEC management feared the implication of an unmotivated DOC noting that losing him meant loss of revenue, something EEC was not willing to entertain. The notable implication of dysfunctional conflict is that of destruction and affects organizational performance (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). Managers also need to be aware that to each of these five common ways of handling conflict, integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with each (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). It is evident that the conflict at EEC was dysfunctional; whether it meant honoring DOC demands or not, either decision would have presented unmotivated senior managers or unmotivated DOC there by affecting organizational performance. Despite the recommendation that ethical theories of utilitarian, right, and justice should be used collectively, the implications relating to these ethical theories are that in some situations they can be contradicting (Premeaux, 2009). Managers must use moral judgment in order to make ethical decisions. Failure to do that could result in unethical decisions (Fassin, 2005) Ethical leadership revolves around moral values of the leaders in an organization so much that an unethical decision making sends mixed signal to the organization about management integrity and moral standards (Toor & Ofori, 2009). Recommendations: This paper’s analysis on perception, motivation, conflict and ethical-decision-making in conjunction with the related theories helped in validating the existence of an ethical dilemma at EEC. It is probable to say that the DOC’s self-serving bias led to the perception of inequity in regards to his job input and compensation. The paragraphs to follow are some of the possible recommendation resulting from the research. Given that people perceive things differently, managers must communicate with their employees to ensure they address the perception of inequity and also to promote positive perception (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). Managers must make sure they rearrange attributional biases in order to promote motivation (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). Unmotivated employees are an undesired resource to the organization. As previously mentioned, unmotivated employees tend to seek other job opportunities in search of motivation (Harder, 1991). Therefore managers must ensure that employees remain motivated as much as possible. Recognition and praise are very important to ensure employees feel valuable to the organization. Managers must disclose the reasoning behind their decision making to foster transparency during employee reviews and corresponding compensation adjustments (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). Badaracco & Ellsworth (1991) reminds us that, no matter what form conflict takes, handling it can be difficult. Therefore, managers must be cognizant of the leading causes of conflicts in order to be successful in handling workplace conflicts (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). Badaracco & Ellsworth (1991) stresses to managers on the importance of handling conflict with integrity in order to promote fairness in the organization. This paper recommends the Badaracco framework of ethical decision making in resolving the ethical dilemma at EEC. The Badaracco framework is a combination of the identified ethical philosophies. The Badaracco’s framework is based on four questions about, consequences, rights, integrity and practicality that must be used together to fully understand a problem and are a great tool in making ethical decisions (Badaracco, 2002). Regardless of the model, it is important for managers to make decisions that set the right tone in the organization (Bruhn, 2009). Conclusions Bagley & Savage (2006) point out that high achieving managers are not only concerned about abiding by the law, they also manage businesses in consideration of other interested parties besides shareholders, such as, customers, vendors, employees and the community at large. Ethics go beyond laws. Despite that bribery in EEC was not condoned, the business culture still affected the organizational culture. The implications of managing an organization in this type of environment is that management may send mixed signals about the organization’s ethical leadership. EEC must avoid participating in any activity that may compromise their ability to maintain a culture of ethics. When a conflict arises in an organization as to what is morally right or ethical, employees tend to gravitate towards the lowest standard (Toor & Ofori, 2009). Organizations such as EEC must ensure that their standards are communicated to employees and management leads by example to achieve the desired results (Toori & Ofori, 2009).