Applying Badaracco's Ethical Dilemma Framework to Workplace Cases

Ethical Dilemma Analysis

The ethical dilemma is a situation where one has to make a decision on two opposite events and each event is right on its way. For example, right versus right decision is the ethical dilemma that managers face in their place of work. Moral temptation, on the other hand, is the decision between right and wrong situations. For example, picking someone's wallet is a moral temptation. It is a moral temptation since there is only one right decision to be made. The right decision is to return the wallet to the owner. However, right versus right decision is an ethical dilemma as they shape someone's character. In an attempt to explain and analyze the ethical dilemma that manager's face, Badaracco (1992) came up with four basic questions that must be fully answered so that one is able to make the right versus the right decision. According to Badaracco (1992), ethical dilemmas are dirty hands problems since they make the managers make a very tough decision that may affect their relationship in their workplace. Therefore, applying the Badaracco framework of ethical dilemmas, the analysis of the ethical dilemma will require the answer to the following questions. Firstly, the course of action that will do the very best and the action that will do the least harm must be determined.

Ethical dilemmas are the decision involving right versus right situations which pull to the opposite direction which calls for opportunity costs. An opportunity cost is the forgone cost to consume the best alternatives. In order to solve ethical dilemmas situations, one needs to go one step further to determine the decision that can produce the best outcome with the least harm. This first question dwells on the consequences of the decision taken and its impact on the individual and the organization as a whole. John Mills argued that the best decision is that decision whose result brings the greatest good to the great number of people. Therefore, ethical dilemma requires that one must weigh the consequences of the two rights and select the alternative with the least harm and give the best benefit to the greatest number of people. As a manager, it is appropriate to choose the decision that impacts positively to the greatest number of employees in an organization (Shua et al., 2014). The second question is about the rights of employees and the shareholders. The decision maker must take into consideration the rights of all the stakeholders and choose the decision that serves the rights of both the employees and the shareholders. For example, Thomas Jefferson stressed that each person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, it is very important to make sure that such rights are not taken away by the decision that one is making to solve the ethical dilemmas. The third question tests conscious and value. For example, the plan which is more consistent with the basic values and commitment should be adopted. The right versus right decision must satisfy the test of conscious and value. The decision maker must ensure that the decision consistent with the basic principle of life and commitment and that such alternative does not compromise the conscious and value of an organization. Finally, the last test requires that the action chosen has to conform to the real world. For example, managers should make a decision that is applicable in the real-world situation. For instance, Machiavelli (1992) argues that morality must be practical and must reflect the real problems facing the organization. Based on the above tests, managers faced with ethical dilemmas must make the decision taking into account all the four tests since if either of the tests is missing then, the decision may be irrational.

In the case of June Pyle and Melissa Alldredge, there is both ethical dilemmas and moral temptation. For example, the moral temptation is evident when Messa was considered for promotion but ultimately, June was promoted instead. A moral temptation is a decision between the rights versus the wrong situations. It was Melissa that was considered for promotion and therefore promoting June instead was a wrong decision. However, in the case, it is given that June was promoted to the senior project manager role due to her consistency and performance. However, June did not have the required academic credentials and the fact that she lied that she had such qualification does not meet the four tests that ethical dilemmas must meet. The fact that when they were employed the MBA qualifications were not required, but the promotion took place after the new requirement had taken effective and therefore the mere fact that June was hired before the new requirement came into effect does not hold in her case. Based on the above analysis, the ethical dilemmas tests were not met in this case as the matter was purely moral temptation as there is a lot of cover-up from the June's side. It is therefore recommended that June Pyle does not fit the new role as she lacks the necessary requirements and her performance cannot override her behavior of falsehood and fraud. Therefore, June was found not fit to continue with the new position.

Legal Analysis

In law, neither employer nor employee can change the terms of employment without agreement between the parties. However, the employer has the right to change the job description of the employee without the employees' consent. For example, in the case of David Muhoro V. Ol Pejeta Ranching Limited 1813(2011), the respondent introduced the new policy to the employees that required that employees serving in the senior positions to have an MBA qualification. The court ruled on favor of the plaintiff and held that it was unlawful for the employer to introduce a new job requirement without agreeing with the plaintiff. Therefore, June Pyle was validly promoted to the position of senior project manager. However, during her appointment, the human resources assumed that she holds an MBA and this shows that the human resources were negligent during the appointment. It was not her duty to present her transcripts as stated by the new policy when she was appointed. The duty to summon the employee rested on the department of human resources (Schenker, 2012). Based on this analysis, June did not commit the crime as far as the appointment is concerned. In law, the documents that are kept by the human resources should be factual and should not be based on the opinion. In this case, the human resources have the documents of June that are not factual but based on the opinion. Therefore, it was the duty of the human resources to scrutinize the documents presented by the employee and determine their validity.

Melissa who reported June of fake MBA degree was not a whistleblower and she did not have any duty of care to report such cases. It is, therefore, recommended that June did not commit any fraud of offense and her confession cannot be used as evidence since the relevant department which was charged with the respondent failed to carry out their functions effectively. Applying the right versus right decisions, June lied and therefore it was the moral temptation and not ethical dilemmas. However, there is an ethical dilemma as June confesses herself and gives reasons why she did not obtain MBA qualifications. The human resources should take into account all the four test of ethical dilemma in solving the June's problems. For example, June is a top performer despite having no MBA certificate and that she left school because of her sick parents and therefore terminating her contract will impact negatively on her siblings. The human resources should, therefore, revise her role and should not terminate her employment as this will contradict the test of the consequences of ethical dilemmas. It is recommended that based on the legal implications in the case, June is fit to continue with the new role and only respond when required to do in a structured way.

The action plan is that the department of human resources was found with negligent and should face the full force of the law since they committed or aided the fraud to take place in the organization. The current human resource manager should face disciplinary action since he/she was responsible for the fraud (McDonald et al., 2017). Melissa should be advised to lower the internal rivalry with June. Melissa acted beyond her legal jurisdiction since it was not her duty to report those without or with fake certificates. Therefore, the rivalries between Melissa and June should be resolved through discussion and arbitration.

Global Shippers Case Analysis

In the Global Shippers Case, there are a number of global laws violation and ethical issues. To start with, the Prime Minister of Naristan had the conflict of interest in the award of the tender to the Global Shippers Inc. For example, in the case, the Prime Minister asks Robert Manning to wire him $100,000 so that his Company can be awarded the tender. The action of the Prime Minister, in this case, was the moral temptation and there was no ethical dilemma in the case. This is because an ethical dilemma involves two right alternatives but in this case, the alternative was between the wrong and the right. For instance, the Prime Minister is a public officer who should protect the interest of his people and ensure that there is no incidence of corruption. Therefore, the Prime Minister had the option to do the right thing by not suggesting and accepting $100,000 bribe from Manning. The manner in which Manning enticed the Prime Minister with expensive meals and drinks also put the integrity of the prime minister into the test. The Prime Minister as a public officer was supposed to be morally upright and have professional ethics while carrying out his constitutional duties.

The global laws require that traders conduct their businesses professionally and ethically. Therefore, the action of Manning and the Prime Minister violated the global laws that regulate the import and export of goods and services. Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), Manning committed an offense by offering the bribe to the prime minister of Naristan. The Act states clearly that ''it is unlawful for individuals and entities to make payment to the foreign government or foreign government official in order to obtain or retain businesses'' (Training ABC, 2016). The Act was enacted in 1977 in the United States to discourage bribery to foreign business and to enforce professional ethics in the global business. When Manning makes payment of $100,000 to the prime minister in order to get a tender, he violated the provision of the Act and therefore, should be prosecuted for engaging in criminal activity. Under section 15 of the FCPA Act of 1977, the person or entity that violate the provision the Act can face the criminal fine of $100,000 or five years imprisonment or both. Manning is, therefore, liable for 5 years imprisonment or a fine, not more than $100,000 or both. In the United Kingdom, Manning committed an offense of bribery and can be fined or jailed for 10 years. Under the UK Bribery Act of 2010, a person or entity that engages in bribe to win tenders or fails to prevent bribery committed the offense of bribery and can be imprisoned for ten years with unlimited fines (CIMA, 2011). Manning action of a bribe was not ethical since he knew what the laws say and he went ahead to bribe the prime minister. In whatever, the cultural norms, it is unethical for public administrator to offer a bribe and therefore the action of Manning in bribing the prime minister was unethical in all cultural settings and norms.

Conclusion

It can, therefore, be concluded that in the case of Electronic, the director faced ethical dilemmas as the decision to either dismiss June was right against right. It has been observed that the director should be guided by the test of ethical dilemmas as suggested by Badaracco in the right versus right framework. Public officers should be ethical and should obey the law. The action of the prime minister was unethical and unlawful. In addition, Manning should also face the full force of the law for unethical behaviors.

References

Badaracco, L. R. (1992). Making the right decision: Organizational culture, vision, and planning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA). (2011). Bribery Act: How will you act?: UK Bribery Act 2010 survey results - April 2011. London: CIMA.

Machiavelli, S. J. (1992). Kant's search for the supreme principle of morality. Cambridge University Press.

McDonald, G., & Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand. (2017). Ethical dilemmas. Wellington, N.Z: Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand.

Schenker, J. G. (2012). Ethical dilemmas in assisted reproductive technologies. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Shua, A. M., & Labinger, A. G. (2014). The Weight of Temptation. Lincoln: UNP - Nebraska Paperback.

Training ABC (2016). The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act made simple: Gahanna. Training ABC.