Introduction
A conducive work environment is essential for every employee. In the case study, the top salesman in the least performing area directed a sexist comment to one of the female subordinates who recorded the experience and is threatening to make it viral if action is not taken against the salesman. When threatened with disciplinary action, the salesman always threatens to quit and as a result, the firm has always backed off in such situations. Being the chief operating officer of the retail company, I would approach the dilemma from more than one perspective in order to determine the best and moral action to take in consideration of all the relevant stakeholders involved. It is possible to dissect an ethical dilemma like the one presented in this case by applying more than one approach. In the subsequent parts of this essay, the dilemma is analyzed from utilitarian and virtue ethics approaches to determine the best/moral action to take.
Utilitarian Approach
A utilitarian approach focuses on the consequences of an action ( Snoeyenbos & Humber, 2008) . It is a consequentialist approach towards determining right and wrong. Actions are judged based on their consequences without considering motivation or other aspects such as evil and good ( Hartman & DesJardins, 2007) . Therefore, from a utilitarian point of view, the consequences of an action are the ones that determine if the action is right or wrong. According to Bentham, an individual’s character has nothing to do with an action’s utility. All people seek happiness and avoid pain without regard to their morality as well as personality. From this approach, heavy dependence on the character can obscure the making of decisions. Instead of arriving at a moral judgment/decision, a utilitarian perspective weighs actions according to their ability to generate the best for the majority. Therefore, in analyzing the dilemma involving the salesman and a subordinate, all the relevant stakeholders and how each possible action would affect them are put into consideration to make the right decision regarding the issue. The net benefits, as well as costs on stakeholders, are determined to determine the action that produces the highest amount of good for the majority while causing the least level of harm.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Two possible actions can be implemented to address the dilemma. The choice, in this case, is to either discipline the salesman or not. If disciplinary action is taken, the salesman, who is the best in the least performing area, could leave the company. The parties who would be negatively affected by the action would be the salesman and the company to some extent. By leaving the company, a talented and high performing employee would be lost, and this could have a slight negative impact on the revenue generated from the region. Also, the salesman, by deciding to quit or be fired by the company, would lose his source of income. However, employees who are the driving force of the company’s success, the firm itself, and investors would benefit from the action. Although the company might lose some of the revenue coming from the region in the short term, the action would cause less harm and produce pleasure for most stakeholders in the long term. Employees working under him would feel that justice was served and that the company cares about them besides pursuing profit-making. This would, in turn, create a conducive work environment that is important in improving productivity as well as the company’s success (Clarke, 2011) .
In addition, as a result of employee satisfaction, the company would most likely make more profits in the long run because of increased productivity ( Topolosky, 2014) . Investors would receive returns for their investment, and the company owners make a profit. In addition, the company would gain a positive reputation, which is essential in attracting and retaining the best talent as well as customers. Today, consumers are conscious of company reputation and tend to boycott products or services offered by firms with a bad reputation. Therefore, disciplining the salesman would generate good for employees in the company, investors, consumers, and the company owners. The harm that the company owners and investors would experience very little.
On the other hand, if no disciplinary action is taken against the salesman, the firm would retain a talented employee. However, the female subordinate employee would make the record go viral. The relevant stakeholders who would be negatively affected by this action would include employees, investors, consumers/customers, and company owners. The consequences of this action would be a damaged reputation for the company, loss of customers, a hostile work environment, possible loss of current and potential investors, and reduced revenue. Investors and company owners would not be happy with reduced revenue caused by a damaged reputation and reduced employee productivity. In addition, the company would incur high litigation and compensation costs if the female employee would decide to use the legal system to address the issue. This action would produce more harm to the majority and good for a few. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, the right action to take would be to discipline the salesman because the action would generate good/pleasure for most stakeholders and less harm. The long term effects of this action cause benefits than they would create harm.
Virtue Ethics Approach
Virtue ethics emphasizes character and virtues in morality instead of fulfilling one’s duty or generating good consequences ( Calkins, 2014 ). A virtuous person, according to this approach, has ideal conduct or character. An important aspect of rationality in virtue ethics is focusing on character as well as motivation instead of material goals. In addition, virtue ethics focuses on the ability of an agent to pursue a specific kind of excellence ( Gardiner, 2018 ). This type of excellence requires an individual to adhere to some virtues or character traits. The virtues emphasize the driving force behind an action and involve the execution of sound judgment. Therefore, the reasons for doing a certain action are very important in virtue ethics. Therefore, virtues such as fairness, justice, being kind, generous, and prudent, among others, are considered important when making ethical/moral decisions ( Hartman & DesJardins, 2007) .
In deciding which action to take regarding the salesman and the female subordinate, the most important question to ask is what a virtuous person would do in such a situation. In this case, a virtuous person would consider it wrong to not discipline the salesman. Justice demands that the salesman face the consequences of his actions. Also, fairness requires that the chief operating officer handle the salesman in the same way he would handle any other employee who would have committed such an offense without considering his position or contribution towards the company. Therefore, by failing to discipline the salesman, justice and fairness to the victim of the salesman’s action would be denied, and this is morally wrong. The right action to take from a virtue ethics approach is to discipline the salesman even if he threatens to leave the company.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both approaches indicate that the right action to take would be to discipline the salesman regardless of the threats that he makes. The action is both virtuous and generates the highest amount of pleasure/good. A utilitarian perspective requires the right action to be the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the highest number and the least amounts of harm. A virtue ethics approach determines if an action is right or wrong based on character and reasons behind its execution.
References
Calkins, M. (2014). Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Issues in Business Ethics , 73-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8724-6_8
Clarke, C. (2011). A system approach to implementing business ethics in the corporate workplace. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics , 6 (2). https://doi.org/10.15209/jbsge.v6i2.200
Gardiner, S. M. (2018). Virtue ethics, old and new . Cornell University Press.
Hartman, L., & DesJardins, J. (2007). Business ethics: Decision-making for personal integrity & social responsibility . McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Snoeyenbos, M., & Humber, J. (2008). Utilitarianism and Business Ethics. In A companion to business ethics (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Topolosky, P. S. (2014). Linking employee satisfaction to business results . Routledge.
