Introduction
Jacqueline Kerry and Jorge Nunez work are part of the accounts sales team for ALE Enterprise in which they are members. They are responsible for selling the enterprise’s portfolio to clients, and in case a deal is successful, the enterprise would get into a contract with the clients. To reward their efforts, the company offers them a 1% bonus for the value of each contract sold. The fact that the two were the company’s most talented account salesmen, the organization selected them to sale a deal with a business tycoon in Boston. As the two left for Manila to sell the deal, certain malpractices happened on the flight.
Nunez got in a relaxed mood which caused him to share proprietary information with his twitter contacts about Manila. Kerry and Nunez’s supervisor Hellman being among his twitter contacts got wind of the situation. Kerry realizing this, she asked Nunez to put down the Tweet to which he declined saying that all that mattered was for them to seal the deal. This paper offers an analysis of policy infringements in this case, their impacts, as well as corrective measures to be applied.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ethical dilemma
The first ethical dilemma in this situation is proprietary infringement carried out by Nunez. This happened when he decided to share the company’s proprietary information with all prospective clients from Manila. By opting to share this information with the outside public, Nunez was risking to bring down the whole company down financially ( Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016). This is because the company’s rivals and competitors were bound to use the information to their greater advantage at the expense of ALE Inc. This situation therefore creates an ethical dilemma because even though it helped Nunez and Kerry to acquire the contract, there was likelihood that things would go wrong and in return jeopardize the company.
The other dilemma that presents itself in this case is the 1% bonus that the two are entitled to once they manage to seal a deal. The two were sent to Manila to sell the contract, to which they successfully managed to do. This means that they were rightfully entitled to receive the 1% bonus of the contract’s total value. However, these salesmen landed the contract by violating contract rules (Patton et al., 2015). The major dilemma being faced here is whether the two should be paid the bonus or not.
The third dilemma in this case study is the fact that Kerry and Hellman got to know about Nunez sharing the proprietary information with the public. It is undisputed that to some extent sharing this information helped to facilitate the success of landing the million dollar contract. Kerry and Hellman are in a dilemma of whether to report Nunez to management for malpractice or whether to ignore it since it facilitated the company getting a high-value contract (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016). Not reporting the matter will make Kerry and Hellman accomplices to the misconduct, while reporting the matter may lead to them not receiving their bonuses.
Categories of ethical dilemma
The dilemma of whether or not to report Nunez’s misconduct can be categorizes as being metaphysical ( Patton et al, 2015). More in-depth, it can be categorized as an issue of egoism and altruism. This dilemma was as a result of selfish ambition of the part of Nunez to seal a deal and therefore, he used all possible means including gross misconduct to land the million dollar contract.
Secondly, sharing proprietary information belongs to the normative ethics category. In this category there is the duty and principle theory. Any employee of an organization should remain loyal and respectful of the rules and regulations governing interactions (Patton et al., 2015). For this reason, Nunez was on the wrong for sharing proprietary information with persons not under contract or not members of the firm. By doing so, he had publicized the organization’s competitive advantage making the organization vulnerable to rivals who would use this information to gain advantage over ALE Inc.
Thirdly, the dilemma of whether or not to pay the bonus falls under the applied ethics category. In this category, there are some principles that help to analyze various situations regarding payment. These principles include the honesty principle, the lawfulness principle, and the personal benefit principle ( Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016). These principles exempt employees from getting paid after conducting a malpractice due to the fact that this is a violation of the law and should therefore not be charged.
Ethical theories analysis on the dilemma
Kant theory analysis
In Kant’s theory, how would the issue of payment following a malpractice be solved? According to this theory, “ the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.” For this reason, Kant would likely dismiss Nunez misconduct citing that he had to do all that he could to ensure he gets the contract. Kant would then pay Nunez the bonus then come up with ways of ensuring that the consequences do not affect the organization’s performance ( Ferrell and Fraedrich, J. (2015 ).
Bentham theory analysis
Is reporting Nunez for the malpractice the best decision for everyone involved? According to Bentham theory, “The relevant consequences, in particular, are the overall happiness created for everyone affected by the action” ( Ferrell and Fraedrich, J. (2015 ). He believed that one had to do whatever it takes to gain happiness. In the case study above, Nunez, Kerry, and Hellman would not face any negative consequences. This is because they understand the need for one to be successful in order to be happy. Reporting the misconduct to management would rid all the three of them the happiness that they had acquired from sealing the million deal contract.
Rand theory and analysis
Does infringement of proprietary policies in any way affect ALE’s operations? Rand theory argues that existence does exist. According to this theory, consequences need to be considered when an action is carried out. This is because, failure to correct a previous misconduct will lead to an increased in misconduct in the future and this would likely affect business operations of an organization (Patton et al., 2015). Rand would therefore let Nunez face the consequences of going against company policies and would likely have him tried in court. Should Kerry and Hellman fail to report the incidence, they too would have to be punished for being accomplices.
Reflection
The most sensible theory to effectively solve the dilemma in this case is the Rand theory because it argues based on the fact that everything is existent. According to Rand, there is need to take action for every deed no matter the outcome ( Shapiro& Stefkovich, 2016). To him, the process of achieving a desired outcome is just as important as the outcome itself. For example, Nunez should not have shared company information with the public just to help him seal a deal. This is misconduct no matter the outcome. Kerry and Hellman on the other hand should have reported the incidence just so that ALE Inc. would be ready in case of an attack from its competitors. Rand would further argue that it is not worthwhile to risk the whole organization just for a 1% bonus and therefore this bonus would probably not have been paid.
References
Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2015). Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases . Nelson Education.
Patton, C., Sawicki, D., & Clark, J. (2015). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning . Routledge.
Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas . Routledge.
