SM 0381 Applied Business Ethics

Part B Portfolio of Evidence

JAMES BOND 14040007

Image credit: Corporte Compliance Insights

date
Part B Portfolio of Evidence Applied Business Ethics (SM 0381)

Appendix A: The Ethical Leadership Debate

Motion Ethical leadership (EL) is impossible in a shareholder focused economy, and

should business schools be bothered on ethical leadership

(653 words)

Mike Gustavssons representation was against the motion they regarded top managements
behaviour key in creating and sustaining EL within an organisation, hence supporting EL
education. As a retired lecturer and Greenpeace activist, he seemingly possessed high moral
principles (Virtue ethics with Rights and Justice) and replaces rules with internal principles. He is a
discretionary stakeholder demonstrating Maxim 3 of Universality (Kant, 1785) and characterised at
stage 6 of Kohlbergs (1971) moral stages of development (universal ethical-principle orientation)
for regarding humanity and preserving its value and dignity. However, concurring with the floor, the
author regards him in stage 5 (social-contract legalistic orientation) because he failed to respect
the equality and rights of his daughter as an individual deviating from his stakeholders beliefs and
siding shareholder views while protesting against the Alfaraft ABs management.

Jan Edwardss team stance stood against the motion. They championed EL alongside profitability
as demonstrated by Clean Solution Inc.s success with considerable charitable involvements. They
emphasised EL education in inculcating graduates all-roundedness (interpersonal skills, social
responsibility etc.) besides shareholder principles. As Chief Executive she wielded power,
legitimacy and therefore, dominant stakeholder (Agle et al., 1999); she instilled triple bottom line
elements (Spreckley, 2013) through egoism (Longenecker et al., 1989) and feminist ethics
(Jaggar, 1992) imposing her altruistic beliefs organisational wide; justifying moral development
at stages 3 (interpersonal concordance orientation) and 5. Opposition viewed her at stage 2
(instrumental-relativist orientation) seeking esteem and self-actualisation (Maslow, 1943) with act
utilitarian overtones; questioning her basis of ELs mutual respect, showing justice and building
community (Brown et al., 2005). The author augments her to stage 6 by wanting to change this
trend through self-chosen ethical principles besides social rules and customs even if it conflicts
with laws/rules (potential workplace discrimination lawsuits etc.).

Mei-Hua Felungs group opposed the motion. Despite similar undertones with Jan, they stressed
EL in shareholder economies and education due to external influences (legal obligations, public
perceptions etc.) and deontology (Waller, 2008) as opposed to intrinsic purposes. With Maxim 1 of
consistency (Kant, 1785) and rule utilitarian aspects (Garner & Rosen, 1967) conceivably from
training and profession in accountancy (codes, rules etc.), she was at stages 3 and 5 of moral
Page 1| 7
Part B Portfolio of Evidence Applied Business Ethics (SM 0381)

development substantiated by negative public sentiments. The floor differed in views, notably at
stage 4 (law-and-order orientation) in establishing her need to maintain legitimacy as an
accountant. Upon deeper evaluations, the author disagrees and categorises her at stage 1
(punishment and obedience orientation). playing within the rules; not breaking them infers the
ab initio intent in avoiding law infringements (punishment) through adherence (obedience) and
when achieved, exploiting sequential actions at sole discretion and henceforth, nothing wrong in
facilitating tax evasion, contradicting her prima facie view of upholding accountants image through
EL with related codes/ethics while balancing social and commercial aims, debunking her
standpoint.

Deshi Chens representation supported the motion through irrelevance in todays commercial
context and argued that EL education hindrances practicality. He furthered his shareholder views
that practicing EL (or lack thereof) was neither rewarded nor recognised, both in his home country
and western companies (allegedly claiming absent and piecemeal at best) compared to profit
generation. He illustrated egoism by deeming himself morally upright and merely pursuing
personal interests (Longenecker et al., 1989) through a degree, portraying stage 2 (instrumental-
relativist orientation) while failing to align ethics with his agenda. Opposing views contested stage
3 on social expectation conformities (family and of himself). The author concurs with stages 2 and
facets of 3 (through peer approval) differing on contradictory grounds of seeking peer approval
only from his family and himself yet not others pertaining ethics.

Corporate codes of governance and EL education strongly resonated with all parties except Deshi.
Jan firmly views it being a way of life. The author concludes Deshi as the most trustworthy due to
transparency; while Mei-Hua is most unethical from speech-act contradictions and persecution
delusions (Freeman & Garety, 2004) while relying on legal technicalities in defending viewpoints.
Page 2| 7
Part B Portfolio of Evidence Applied Business Ethics (SM 0381)

Appendix B: The Seminar Case

(643 words)

Having reviewed and debated on The Case of the Holiday, the author identified residing
dilemmas from every character and deliberating Boriss perspective in greater details.

Team 1 recognised Boriss ethical dilemma by the planned holidays status quo or forgoing in the
interest of the client, company, manager and himself to some extent. His options were: to not
facilitate the earlier product launch and dilute prospects of repeat businesses; or acceding in
exchange for greater professional regard from the client and manager alongside increased
business possibilities while attaining a personal sense of achievement at the relationships
expense and Swee Lan.

Swee Lans ethical dilemma illustrated by Team 2 pertained to the post-discussion response upon
Boriss dilemma. Implicitly, Swee Lan had certain influences over Boriss decision in supporting his
intrinsic professional desires or asserting on relationship commitments, both of which she valued.
The former ensued subsequent dilemma from her parents reactions, while the latter posed
concerns on relationship fundamentals.

Team 3 depicted the managers ethical dilemma by evaluating the clients request versus the
companys gain, faltering the appropriateness of Boriss planned holiday albeit its legitimacy. The
manager had a duty to uphold the companys interest by conforming, or be cognizant of the
holidays significance, declining and jeopardising a lucrative account in the process.

Representing Marcus and friends was Team 4, portraying their dilemma by the reaction towards
Boris upon knowledge that he had sacrificed his holiday for the company. Marcus and friends
could respond empathetically to him due to the excessive duress in making a difficult decision
between the manager and Swee Lan; or per the context to perceive as a form of betrayal,
expressing disappointment through initiating better employee standards to be adhered in future.

The author would further analyse Boriss ethical dilemma as it is the crux of the issue.

Due to competitive conditions the company operated in, they held a shareholder view (Dufrene &
Wong, 1996) where dismissals were based on misalignments with organisational performance to
sustain competitiveness. Ab initio, Boris was in Kohlbergs (1971) stage 1 of moral development
(punishment and obedience orientation) when the launch was brought forward. This is explained
by the negligible room for manoeuvre if he declines the request; he would be considered as
unsuitable by the company and the manager (authority), leading to redundancy (punishment) as
Page 3| 7
Part B Portfolio of Evidence Applied Business Ethics (SM 0381)

per context. It obviously affects his well-being and hence, simply obeyed by cancelling the holiday
to avoid punishment. This can be furthered by his display of rule utilitarianism where Boris
acceded to the request (rule) which brought the about greatest good for his career, manager and
client (Garner & Rosen, 1967).

Both the context and Bruck & Allen (2003) corroborates with Boriss Type A traits (ambitious,
competitive, aggressive etc.). Along managing the account for an extended period with the work
hard, play hard culture, it heightened his sense of ownership and self-interest, displaying egoist
principles with a high internal locus of control, disregarding affiliated opportunity costs (Krause &
Stryker, 1984) by emphasising solely on the task completion (Kurman, 2001). Meanwhile, Boris
advanced to stage 2 (instrumental-relativist orientation), assuming the result of being rewarded by
the clients future businesses and managers acknowledgement as a quality employee, justifying
the holiday cancellation as means to its ends.

Boriss moral intensity (Jones, 1991) is characterised by magnitude of consequences, social

consensus and proximity. The consequences ranged from jeopardising his career or Swee Lan
and/or Marcus and friends from relationship spectrums. For social consensus, it was evident that
both Swee Lan and Marcus and friends voiced displeasure regarding Boriss decision in cancelling
the holiday, thereby increasing moral intensity. On relationship positions, he had a near proximity
with the scenarios stakeholders (client, manager, Swee Lan and Marcus and friends), leading to
increased moral intensities.

In conclusion, Boris sought a utilitarian framework by weighing cost and benefits throughout the
case, generally satisfying all parties whilst containing repercussions.
Page 4| 7
Part B Portfolio of Evidence Applied Business Ethics (SM 0381)

Appendix C: Interpersonal and Team-working skills

(301 words)

In a team of professionals with different backgrounds, conflicts are bound to occur. Therefore, my
reflection focuses on teamwork commitment and interpersonal communication from differing
views. I identify individual factors with stages 2, 3 and 5 of moral development (Kohlberg, 1973)
and national culture (Geert & Jan, 1991) while reward systems (Kerr, 1975) and social consensus
(Jones, 1991) accounted for situational factors.

Stage 2 (instrumental-relativist orientation) is best illustrated by quid pro quo. Despite absence of
social connectedness beyond academia and lacking interpersonal gratitude and loyalty, we shared
a common goal to excel with relative ease, motivating us to work cooperatively and reciprocally in
debates and assignments. It was deemed pragmatic to divide workloads towards fulfilling module
requirements for it eased ones effort while serving everyones best interests and needs
solidifying commitment in performing the activities related to the reward system by attaining high
and beneficial module marks. Garrett et al. (2006) supported strong collectivism within
Singaporeans representing a preference to help each other in exchange for group loyalty,
concurring and progressing towards stage 3 (interpersonal concordance orientation), which is
socially considered as good behaviour to work collectively while attaining peer approval and
social consensus by majority.

Unavoidably, disagreements surfaced repeatedly throughout discussions. As team leader, I

practised ethical leadership by respecting all team members views (Brown, Trevio & Harrison,
2005), even when it differed from mine and/or the majority. With authority demonstration (Milgram,
1965) of fair and transparent dialogues, it enhanced team community and commitment (Levy,
1994), progressing to stage 5 (social-contract legalistic orientation) collectively; where members
displayed tolerance and willingness to analyse others perspectives while formulating a
consensus.

To conclude, this module allowed me to witness the relevance of Kants (1785) Formula of
Humanity as when we treat others with respect; it harmoniously brings out the best in everyone.
Page 5| 7
Part B Portfolio of Evidence Applied Business Ethics (SM 0381)

References (in order of appendices)

Appendix A

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to Ceos? An investigation
of stakeholder attributes and salience, corpate performance, and Ceo values. Academy of
Management journal, 42(5), 507-525.
Brown, M. E., Trevio, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning
perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 97(2), 117-134.
Freeman, D., & Garety, P. (2004). Paranoia: The psychology of persecutory delusions. Hove,
East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Jaggar, A. M. (1992). Feminist ethics.
Kant, I. (1997). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785). Immanuel Kant: Practical
Philosophy, 80.
Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development. Moral education, 23-92.
Longenecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W. (1989). Egoism and independence:
Entrepreneurial ethics. Organizational Dynamics, 16(3), 64-72.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370.
Spreckley, F. (2013). Social audit: a management tool for co-operative working.
Waller, B. (2008). Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and contemporary issues (2nd ed.). New
York: Pearson Longman.
Waller, B. (2011). Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and contemporary issues (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Appendix B

Bruck, C. S., & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big five personality traits, negative
affectivity, type A behavior, and workfamily conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3),
457-472.
Dufrene, U., & Wong, A. (1996). Stakeholders versus stockholders and financial ethics: ethics
to whom?. Managerial Finance, 22(4), 1-10.
Garner, R., & Rosen, B. (1967). Moral philosophy.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-
contingent model. Academy of management review, 16(2), 366-395.
Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development. Moral education, 23-92.
Page 6| 7
Part B Portfolio of Evidence Applied Business Ethics (SM 0381)

Krause, N., & Stryker, S. (1984). Stress and well-being: The buffering role of locus of control
beliefs. Social Science & Medicine, 18(9), 783-790.
Kurman, J. (2001). Self-enhancement: Is it restricted to individualistic cultures?. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(12), 1705-1716.

Appendix C

Brown, M. E., Trevio, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning
perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 97(2), 117-134.
Garrett, T. C., Buisson, D. H., & Yap, C. M. (2006). National culture and R&D and marketing
integration mechanisms in new product development: A cross-cultural study between
Singapore and New Zealand. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(3), 293-307.
Geert, H., & Jan, H. G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-
contingent model. Academy of management review, 16(2), 366-395.
Kant, I. (1997). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785). Immanuel Kant: Practical
Philosophy, 80.
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management
journal, 18(4), 769-783.
Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. The
journal of philosophy, 630-646.
Levy, D. (1994). Chaos theory and strategy: Theory, application, and managerial implications.
Strategic management journal, 15(S2), 167-178
Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human
relations, 18(1), 57-76.
Page 7| 7