Introduction and Situational Analysis
The act of “closing a deal” in business sales is one that is marked with ethical implications. When considering the job of a salesperson, there are several questions that can arise and this can cause a subsequent sense of guilt after the deal is closed. The degree of anxiety and guilt may be higher if the person has a quota to fulfil or his or her livelihood is directly dependent on the act exclusively, that is through commissions on the total sales made. Ethics describes the attributes that pertain to the character of the individual and the moral framework that governs them to make decisions ( Shaw, 2013) . This concept makes us make a choice between the right and wrong. The case reviewed involves an ethical dilemma that faces Jean McGuire on whether to use manipulative tactics to make the clients close the deal. The salesperson was taught a technique that involves creating an impulse to the client on the property that she was showcasing to compel them to make a purchase. Jean developed a feeling that using the techniques she was shown was wrong as she was misleading her clients.
Stakeholders
This case scenario has a number of stakeholders who would be affected either positively or negatively with Jean’s decision. First, there is the customer, who bears the direct consequences of closing the deal. They are at a risk of ending up with a property that they would not be able to pay for but would be bound by the deal to do so. The deal can have both positive and negative effects on the buyer. They can get a land that is worth what they sign for. This can be true if they only wanted to own any property. Otherwise, the client will have to bear the brunt of unscrupulous real estate practice that would make them end up with a land that is not what they thought it would be. This would lead to frustrations and blame themselves on not making the right decision on the deal that was fishy. On the positive side, when Jean does not make the deal, the customer will be saved all the hassle of regrets and loss afterwards.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The other stakeholder is the realtor herself. Her livelihood depends on this decision. She either decides to use the method taught and make a sale or stick to hers and make zero deals. This leaves her in a dilemma because she has a family that depends on her. Closing the deal would mean that she gets the money and lose her dignity, while not making a sale means her family goes hungry but she maintains her dignity (Shaw, 2013). Refraining from using the technique would also put herself in the situations where the director feels she is not competitive and thus would need to fire her.
The other stakeholder is Wright Boazman, the director of sales. If Jean does not implement his technique, she would not make sales. The lack of sales would mean that the management of Sunrise Land Developers would demand answers from him and compel him to fire her. When Jean chooses the strategy, the director will be satisfied with the sales and will be comfortable in the hands of the management. Another stakeholder is the real estate company, Sunrise Land Developers. Jean’s hesitance to close the deal means that the company loses on potential money and client in the long run. Continued lack of sales would lead to losses. If she does not use it and gets fired, the company will be left with a space to fill, which translates to other expenses. When the salesperson decides to utilize the technique, the company will earn enough money for making profits. On the contrary, closing in the deal would mean that if the customer finds out the land is what they didn’t expect, they would sue the company or tarnish its reputation.
Ethical Theories
This case presents an issue that can be viewed from different perspectives. The theoretical framework that will be used in this case is teleological ethics. The former is concerned with the results of actions. It means that the basic standard of an action being morally right or wrong depends on whether it produces good or evil consequences ( Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015) . The form of the theory that is evident from the case is ethical egoism. This is a teleological concept that states that an action is good if it leads or is likely to yield consequences that maximize personal interests as defined by an individual, even if it means doing so at the expense of others. This theory encourages that feeling that it is moral to promote a person’s self-interest while at the same time it is moral to avoid personal interest altogether ( Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015) . In the case, Boazman is at the fore of providing a training that is based on furthering the interest of the company and personal ones. As the psychological manipulations are seen, it is filled with lies that would make the client have negative consequences.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The case study presents a dilemma that puts the realtor in an extremely difficult situation. However, I would recommend that she sticks to her ethics and carry out honest and fair practice. The two prospects deserve to be handled with honesty. Real estate is an industry that is bound by the ethics of business practice and any form of malpractice would be viewed as fraud ( National Association of Realtors, 2012) . It would be better to miss closing the deal honestly than making scrupulous deals that endanger the future of Jean’s practice. At times, it is difficult for a person to believe that their reputation and integrity is valued higher than the monies they make momentarily.
References
National Association of Realtors. (2012). 2012 code of ethics and standards of practice. Real Estate Resources. Retrieved November 25, 2018, from, http://www.realtor.org/mempolweb.nsf/pages/code
Shaw, W. (2013). Business ethics: A textbook with cases (8th ed.). Independence, KY: Cengage Learning
Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2015). Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases . Nelson Education.
